The right of economic management and the right of operational management ensure the independent participation of entities that are not owners in property relations. The emergence of these categories is due to the planned regulated economy. 
History reference
The state, acting as the owner of the main volume of property, cannot directly manage all the objects belonging to it. Not wanting to lose their capabilities, the government was forced to introduce independent entities into civilian circulation. The latter were assigned limited property rights. In the USSR in the 60s its name was changed, and then divided into two categories. Thus arose the right of economic management and the right operational management.
Normative base
The main document regulating the circulation of objects is the Civil Code. Property rights to material values, in accordance with paragraph two of Art. 216 CC, may belong to entities that are not their owners. Accordingly, such persons can receive certain opportunities from their legal owners. This is enshrined in Art. 209 of the Code. Economic management rights are established in Art. 294, 299, 295 and 300. Let us consider them in more detail.
Essence
The right of economic management of the Civil Code is disclosed in Art. 294. In accordance with the norm, an entity that does not act as an owner has the opportunity to use and dispose of material assets entrusted to him. He can also own them under the right of economic management. Thus, the owner assigns to the subject opportunities similar to those that he himself has. Being derived from the main category, they nevertheless differ in restrictive status. This is reflected in art. 294. The norm states that the right of economic management of legal entities is exercised within the limits established by the Code. In Art. 295, a specific list of restrictions is provided for entities that are not owners, but have at their disposal the material values of a legitimate owner. 
Nature of restrictions
The subject to whom the material values of the owner are entrusted cannot them:
- To sell.
- To rent.
- Pledge.
- Contribute in the form of a contribution to the authorized capital of companies or partnerships.
- In another way to dispose of material values without the permission of the owner.
Thus, it becomes clear that the legislator does not equate subjects of economic management rights and owners, does not equate them. The limitations of this category of opportunities mainly relate to the deprivation of independence in the disposal of material values.
Subjects
Without them, the essence of the institution in question will not be fully disclosed. The right of economic management belongs only to specific entities. Moreover, they must have a special organizational form. These entities are unitary enterprises. In accordance with Art. 113, they are commercial entities. A unitary enterprise is created in the manner prescribed by law. The rules provide for conditions under which the subject acquires precisely this status. They can be created only on the basis of municipal or state property. In the first paragraph of Art. 114 of the Code identified entities that may be their founders.They are local government or the state through authorized bodies.
Subject Capabilities
Municipal property, on the basis of the right of economic management, is actually disposed of from the ownership of the owner, who is the founder. It is credited to the balance of the subject. Moreover, the owner cannot realize a number of opportunities. In particular, the founder does not use or manage values. It should be noted that the subject of economic management is liable for his debts with the things transferred to him, but is not liable for the obligations of the owner. This provision is fixed by paragraph fifth of Art. 113 of the Code. This is due to the fact that property within the framework of a binding order becomes distributed. 
Founder Opportunities
The owner with respect to the transferred property retains the authority established by paragraph one of Art. 295. That is, the founder can create a non-owner. He also has the opportunity to appoint its director, approve the charter, the goals of the work. The founder may reorganize or liquidate the entity, control the intended use and preservation of entrusted values. In addition, the owner can receive income from their use. The latter was enshrined in the law of the RSFSR of December 24, 1990. Nevertheless, in practice this possibility was not widespread. This, however, does not mean that the founder or an entity authorized by him will not conclude agreements or make the relevant conditions in the constituent documentation on transferring part of the income at their disposal.
Important point
From the above provisions it follows that a local or regional (republican) state enterprise, under the right of economic management, cannot completely independently dispose of entrusted material values. In a previous law, the application of the rules on property was allowed. This was reflected in Art. 5 p. 2 of the above normative act of the RSFSR. At the present time, of the opportunities under paragraph 2 of Art. 295 of the current Code, the opportunity was seized to independently dispose of real estate without the prior consent of the founder (through the appropriate management committee, if the issue relates to state property). Movable objects can also be transmitted to the subject. The right of economic management implies the possibility of independent management of such values, if any restrictions are not established by legislative or other regulatory act. This position is present in Art. 295, paragraph 2, paragraph 2. It follows from this that under a legal document of the federal government, a unitary enterprise may be limited in its ability to dispose of material assets, including those which are movable. 
Additionally
The Code does not provide for the possibility for the owner-founder to arbitrarily limit the organization's capabilities on the basis of economic management. This, in particular, is manifested in the prevention of the seizure of transferred values without the consent of the user. An exception is cases of reorganization and liquidation of a subject. Arbitrary restrictions cannot be set by other regulatory (by-laws) acts. it the order is enshrined in paragraph fifth of Art. 3 Codex. To implement this provision, the legislation equalizes the subjects of economic management rights and owners in the opportunity to protect their interests. It is provided for in Art. 305 of the Code.
One of the most important elements of the competence of a non-proprietor entity is the fact that the ability to use, own and dispose of property on the basis of economic rights. he can conduct when changing the founder. It is established in Art. 300 p. 1 Civil Code.An entity entitled to conduct business with the material values of the owner entrusted to it may independently create subsidiaries. They must have the same organizational form. The creation of a subsidiary is carried out by transferring part of the property under economic management, approval of the charter, appointment of the director. These opportunities are enshrined in Art. 114, paragraph 7 of the Code.
Right moment
The subject’s capabilities appear during the actual transfer of material assets from the owner, unless otherwise provided by law, another normative act or in the decision of the founder. This position is fixed in paragraph one of Art. 299 of the Code. As the moment of the actual transfer of objects can be considered the date on which the balance sheet of the subject of law is approved. The importance of this procedure is determined by the fact that after its completion, obligations are transferred to the institution to ensure the safety of the relevant material assets assigned to it by the owner. And it can and should answer these assets to its own creditors. The exception is the cases established in Art. 56, paragraph 3, para. 2. In turn, the founder, in accordance with the general rules, is not calculated for his obligations with these material values to his creditors. 
Termination of Rights
It takes place not only in accordance with established general rules. For example, one of the grounds provided for in the legislation is the bankruptcy of the subject. Termination of the right of households. reference takes place in cases of lawful seizure by the owner of material assets. The grounds for its implementation are nevertheless established by law. In Art. 299 paragraph 3 provides, in particular, that the seizure of property from the subject is allowed on the same grounds as the seizure of it from the owner. In this case, legislation establishes one important condition. The subject cannot terminate the powers by renouncing the right to property in the same manner that is provided for the owner under art. 236 of the Code. This prohibition is caused by the fact that otherwise the interests of the founder will be violated.
Institute specifics
Analyzing the content and legal essence of the law of households. of reference, the question arises - for what purpose does the legislator, putting this institution on a par with the right of ownership, significantly narrow its effect in comparison with the category originally adopted in the 60s of the last century? This position is primarily due to the need to provide more stringent control of the regional and state owners over the focused nature of the work of the entities created by him. Within the framework of market conditions and the emergence of the private economic sector, constructions of property rights of a limited type, as well as non-owners themselves, revealed obvious weaknesses that were previously hidden.
One of the drawbacks is the possibility of significant abuse of the created enterprises, and more precisely, of their administrative bodies, the economic freedom that they receive from the founders. It was realized in many cases not in the interests of the owner, and sometimes not even for the benefit of the created entity itself, but for the subsequent transfer of property to the private sector on conditions unprofitable for legal owners. In this regard, even before the entry into force of the Civil Code, the authorities had to put certain restrictions on a number of normative acts. These, in particular, include the Presidential Decree of October 14, 1992, which regulated lease relations and the procedure for privatizing leased material assets, and the Decree of February 10, 1994, which governed the transfer of powers of the Government to order and manage federal property.The restrictions established in these normative acts were subsequently enshrined in the Civil Code. 
Disposal of use results
The Code specifies this issue separately. It stipulates that the results obtained when using property that is under economic management in the form of income, fruits and products go to households. management of the non-owner. The same rule applies to material assets acquired by the entity under a contract or other grounds. From this provision it follows that the results obtained from the use of entrusted property are transferred to the ownership of the founder.
This is due to the fact that the material values of the owner act as the basis for their appearance. This does not contradict the provisions of Article 136 of the Code, which regulates the status of revenues received from the use of material assets. Thus, a unitary enterprise cannot under any circumstances become the subject of property rights. This, in turn, excludes other points. As for the law of households. reference, it cannot arise collective ownership or ownership of employees on any part of material values. It does not arise in relation to funds for participation in profits and economic incentives. All property transferred and subsequently obtained from the use of entrusted values remains in the ownership of the founder. 
Entrepreneurship
It is necessary to pay attention to the essential condition for the emergence of the right of households. reference. The legislation does not directly speak of him. The Code establishes the right exclusively for specific entities with a specific organizational form. At the same time, institutions are separated from the possibilities under consideration. It should be assumed that this is due to the fact that such entities have the status of non-profit and receive funding from the owner-founder. Meanwhile, the legislation allows institutions to carry out entrepreneurial activities and receive income from it.
It must be conducted in accordance with the constituent provisions by the permission of the owner fixed in them. Incomes received from entrepreneurship, as well as property purchased on them, are transferred to the independent disposal of the entity and are recorded on a separate balance sheet. Thus, there are two types of material values. They are fixed according to different legal regimes and executed according to various rules. So, one part of the property, which comes from the owner according to the estimate, is in the operational management of the subject, and the other, obtained in the course of entrepreneurship, is on another property right. The latter is not called directly in the legislation. However, it is understood that this cannot be property. By all accounts, this is the right of households. reference.
