Укр Eng
+380 (44) 278-80-24
“Almanac of Law”
  1. Home
  2.  ⇒ 
  3. Almanac of law. Issue 17 (2026)
  4.  ⇒ 
  5. Criteria for identifying abuse of rights in the process of law implementation

Almanac of law. Issue 17 (2026), pages 578–582.

DOI: 10.33663/2524-017X-2026-17-578-582

Ivanov V. P.
Criteria for identifying abuse of rights in the process of law implementation

The article examines the criteria for identifying abuse of rights in the process of law implementation from the standpoint of general legal theory. It is argued that abuse of rights arises within the exercise of a subjective right, which makes its legal qualification particularly complex. In such situations, a person’s conduct may formally comply with the text of a legal norm, but contradict the purpose of the right, the principles of law, and the acceptable limits of legal behavior.

The study substantiates that identifying abuse of rights cannot be reduced to a purely formal assessment of whether a person acted within the textual boundaries of a legal provision. Proper legal evaluation requires reliance on substantive criteria, primarily the principles of justice, good faith, and reasonableness. These principles are treated as normatively significant evaluative categories that perform interpretative, supplementary, and corrective functions in legal regulation. Their application makes it possible to assess not only the external legal form of conduct, but also its legal purpose, orientation, and consequences for other participants in legal relations.

The article proposes an interconnected system of criteria for distinguishing lawful exercise of a right from its abusive use. Five criteria are identified and substantiated. The first is the functional conformity of the exercise of a right to its legal purpose. The second is the good faith of the subject’s conduct, understood as honest, predictable, and non-manipulative use of legal opportunities. The third is the preservation of a fair balance of interests between participants in legal relations. The fourth is the reasonableness of the chosen method of exercising the right, including its proportionality to the declared legal aim. The fifth is the consistency of conduct with the general principles of law and the value-based content of legal regulation.

It is emphasized that the integrated application of these criteria reduces the risk of arbitrary interpretation and strengthens consistency in law enforcement. The proposed approach is also relevant for judicial reasoning, since it offers a structured model for substantiating conclusions about abusive conduct through analysis of the purpose, means, consequences, and axiological compatibility of the exercise of a right. The article concludes that further research should focus on sector-specific adaptation of these criteria in civil, administrative, and procedural law, as well as on judicial standards of proof in cases involving abuse of rights.

Keywords: abuse of rights, law implementation, principle of justice, principle of good faith, principle of reasonableness, subjective right, law enforcement.

 References

  1. Bilousov V., Lozinska S. V., Rusu S. D. ta in. Tsyvilne pravo Ukrainy [navch. posibnyk] / za red. O. Stefanchuka. Kyiv: Pretsedent, 2005. 448 s. (in Ukr.).
  2. Zahalna teoriia prava: pidruchnyk / za red. M. I. Koziubry. Kyiv: Vaite, 2015. 392 s. (in Ukr.).
  3. Polianskyi T. Fenomen zlovzhyvannia pravom (zahalnoteoretychne doslidzhennia). Lviv: Halytskyi drukar, 2012. 456 s. (in Ukr.).
  4. Patsurkivskyi P. Otsinochni katehorii spravedlyvist dobrosovisnist rozumnist u Tsyvilnomu kodeksi Ukrainy. Aktualni problemy vdoskonalennia chynnoho zakonodavstva Ukrainy. 2022. No. 58. S. 3–19 (in Ukr.).
  5.  Naukovo-praktychnyi komentar do tsyvilnoho zakonodavstva Ukrainy: u 2 / V. H. Rotan (ta in.); vidp. red. V. H. Rotan. Kharkiv: Faktor, 2010. T. 1. 800 s. (in Ukr.). 
  6. Babych H. Pryntsyp spravedlyvosti v rymskomu pravi i u suchasnomu zoboviazalnomu pravi Ukrainy: avtoref. dys. kand. yuryd. nauk: 12.00.03. Odesa, 2006. 22 s. DOI: https://doi.org/10.32849/2663-5313/2020.4.02 (in Ukr.). 
  7. Valihura K. Pryntsyp dobrosovisnosti yak katehoriia tsyvilnoho prava. Pidpryiemnytstvo, hospodarstvo i pravo. No. 4. S. 11–16 (in Ukr.). 
  8. Tobota A. Pryntsyp spravedlyvosti, dobrosovisnosti i rozumnosti u tsyvilnomu pravi: monohrafiia. Kharkiv, 2020. 140 s. (in Ukr.). 
  9. Tymoshenko D. V. Katehoriia dobrosovisnosti u systemi pryvatno-pravovoho rehuliuvannia. Yurydychnyi naukovyi elektronnyi zhurnal. No. 9. S. 121–126. DOI: https://doi.org/10.32782/2524-0374/2023-9/28 (in Ukr.). 
  10. Barsamov R. V. Dobrosovisnist, rozumnist ta spravedlyvist yak pryntsypy vykonannia zoboviazan. Visnyk Odeskoho natsionalnoho universytetu. Pravoznavstvo. T. 16. Vyp. 19. S. 44–52 (in Ukr.). 
  11. Pohrebniak P. Spravedlyvist yak pryntsyp prava: osnovni aspekty. Filosofiia prava i zahalna teoriia prava. 2015. No. 1–2. S. 257–268 (in Ukr.). 
  12. Tsyvilnyi kodeks Ukrainy: Zakon Ukrainy vid 16.01.2003 No. 435-IV. URL: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/435-15#Text (in Ukr.)

Дата першого надходження рукопису до видання: 26.02.2026
Дата прийнятого до друку рукопису після рецензування: 09.04.2026
Дата публікації: 30.04.2026

Back to contents