Contradictory Behavior in the Course of Certain Personal Non-Property Rights Enjoyment

Along with critical lack of homeland civilist’s attention to the issues of contradictory behavior researches of this phenomenon in specific legal contexts are in very short supply. The following problem subsists: instead of general legal norm on contradictory behavior prohibition Russian Civil Code includes discrete rules embracing certain relation types, non‑property one is not among them. The purpose of the study is to analyze contradictory behavior in the implementation of certain personal non‑property rights. The authors solve the tasks of determining the conditions for prohibiting the contradictory behavior of holders of non‑property rights and formulating recommendations for clarifying the relevant legal regulation. Methods of dialectical materialism, formal logic, analysis, synthesis, induction, deduction, analogy, comparative law analysis, as well as system‑structural and technical‑legal approaches were applied. The paper considers the manifestations and features of inconsistent behavior in this segment of the relationship. The forms of bona fide contradictory behavior appearing in the law and the explanations of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in the exercise of non‑property rights are identified: revocations of a citizen’s consent to use his image, the author’s decision to publish the work, patent applications submitted to Rospatent and trademark registration. The judicial practice of identifying the dishonesty of the inconsistently acting owner of intangible assets is considered, and its trends are established. The terminological and substantive aspects of collecting damages as a way to protect the rights of a trusted person are disclosed. It is concluded that it is necessary to prove moral harm caused by the exploitation of the image of a citizen, and its presumption is rejected. Three approaches to resolving the ambiguous state of affairs in the field of contradictions in the implementation of non‑property rights are outlined, each of them is evaluated, and the choice of the most preferred vector for the development of Russian legislation is justified.