On the basis of the conducted analysis, it has been concluded that the responsibility of the officials of entrepreneurial companies in modern law is studied in the context of corporate governance as one of the elements of the management and control system of companies and one of the means of ensuring their responsible management. At the same time, the issue of clear delimitation of powers between the bodies of an entrepreneurial company is closely related to the issue of liability of their officials to the company itself, since their liability always arises as a result of violation of the duties assigned to a particular body (to one or another official). It is the specific definition of the rights and obligations of persons performing the functions of the bodies of a business company, and their activities on behalf of the company in good faith and reasonably and without exceeding their powers that forms the basis for the stability of property and non-property corporate relations within the corporate governance of a business company. The essence of risky actions as grounds for bringing to responsibility of officials of an entrepreneurial company has been clarified. It has been concluded that, given the essence of the risky activities of an entrepreneurial company aimed at making a profit and its further distribution among the participants, the actions (inaction) of the participants of relations within the relevant legal entity contain risks of both economic and legal content. Such risks should be classified into justified and unjustified, which are associated with the further possibility of bringing to justice the persons guilty of causing damage to the participant of corporate legal relations. It has been emphasized that it is the justified nature of entrepreneurial risk in the actions of persons performing the functions of the bodies of an entrepreneurial company, and their reasonable, conscientious, with due care and prudence activity, as well as taking all measures for the proper performance of duties and prevention of adverse legal consequences for the company, allows o talk about their release from liability for damages. It has been noted that the legal mechanism of civil liability of officials to the business company for actions that are risky and may cause damage to the company needs to be improved in domestic law.

Проаналізовані окремі економічні характеристики юридичної особи. Досліджено питання власності як передумови виникнення та функціонування юридичної особи, відділення майна через конструкцію юридичної особи як економічний спосіб ухилення від відповідальності її учасників та вивчення юридичної особи як системи контрактів. Виділено фактори, що зумовлюють економічну складову юридичної особи: відносини власності як передумова виникнення та функціонування юридичної особи; відділення майна через конструкцію юридичної особи як економічний спосіб ухилення від відповідальності її учасників; юридична особа як система контрактів.Зроблено висновки, що: власність у рамках юридичної особи як економічна категорія виконує певну функцію, яка полягає у формуванні значного за обсягом капіталу на найвигідніших для всіх осіб, втягнутих у цей процес, умовах з метою максимально прибуткового його використання; виходячи з економічної складової, можна стверджувати, що юридична особа є виключно інструментом відокремлення майна, що здійснюється з метою обмеження ризику його втрати у процесі певної діяльності реальної (фізичної) особи; юридичну особу з економічного погляду можна розуміти як систему контрактів, що зумовлено взаємозв’язками між її засновниками (учасниками), особами, які нею управляють (менеджерами), і самою юридичною особою.

The article is devoted to the study of the foreign experience of digitalization of the activities of judicial bodies in civil and commercial proceedings and the digitalization of the activities of the ECtHR. The researchers analyzed the role played by digital technologies in the context of the implementation of judicial proceedings and enforcement of law decisions. The purpose of the work is the study of the new technological reality, including the functioning of the ECtHR and the consideration of cases in the field of economic and civil proceedings by such a court in conditions of digitalization, the analysis of problematic issues of the implementation of decisions of jurisdictional bodies, as well as a detailed examination of the international legal experience of digitalization of the judiciary and execution services. The object of the study is the social relations related to the digitalization of the activities of judicial bodies and enforcement bodies. The subject of the study is the international legal experience of digitalization of the activity of the ECtHR in civil and commercial proceedings, as well as problematic issues of enforcement. The research methodology consists of such methods as formal-logical, analysis, synthesis, abstraction, induction and deduction, historical, systemic, sociological-legal, and comparative-legal. As a result of the conducted research, it has been proven that the further digitalization of the ECtHR will allow to significantly improve the consideration of cases and ensure access to justice for a wider range of people.

The authors of the article have analyzed the understanding of ownership as a central entity and the main regulator of economic relations within a joint-stock company. It has been stated that ownership is associated with such categories as «property» and «right», which raises a considerable number of methodological issues originated by the formation of joint-stock companies’ ownership and shareholders rights in relation to the ownership. Particular attention has been paid to the fact that ownership in such a company as an economic category performs a certain function, which consists in the formation of a considerable amount of capital on the most profitable for all persons involved in this process, in order to its maximum profitable use. It has been noted that if we talk about the ownership of a joint-stock company, then it is formed by the issue of shares, and accordingly, the company, which is interested in attracting significant funds, conducts open placement, the proceeds of which are accumulated to use in its business activities. The authors have provided arguments in favor of other positive aspects of stock ownership that make it universal and capable of application wherever there is the need to accumulate significant amounts of funds and limit the scope of liability.It has been concluded that ownership in a joint-stock company as an economic category performs a certain function, which makes it not only an economic, but also a legal category. This function is to generate a large amount of capital in the most profitable terms for all persons involved in this process, for its maximum profitable use. The category of «stock ownership» is used when referring to the legal regime of ownership in a joint-stock company — the ownership rights of the shareholders for the shares and the ownership rights of the company for the property, which in their implementation intersect and affect one another.It has been supposed that the most appropriate model, to which stock ownership tends, is confidential property, ideology and practices of trusts. However, it is quite clear that its application in Ukraine in the present state of legal regulation is hardly worth supporting.

The current state of legal doctrine and court practice on the issues of authority abuse as a ground for liability of bodies and persons performing the functions of business entities has been analysed. Since a business entity forms its own will and implements it through its bodies and persons performing the functions of its agencies, the relevant persons must adhere to the powers defined by law and the charter. If they act beyond their own powers, the will of such a legal entity is distorted and their own will, the will of individuals, takes place. The practice of bringing to justice members of bodies and persons performing the functions of business entities has now been established where such a legal entity is held administratively liable for an administrative offence committed by its authorised person. An example of this is cases involving liability for violations of the requirements of the legislation on the provision and disclosure of information in financial services markets. In general, it should be taken into account that the performance of a specific individual on behalf of a business entity in civil turnover does not change the independent nature of the will, behaviour and responsibility of such a legal entity for its actions in civil relations. It has been argued that, based on the general tenets of civil law, abuse of authority as a ground for liability of bodies and persons performing the functions of business entities has its own specifics of application. This is due not only to the actions (inaction) of such persons, but also to the counterparty’s (third party’s) awareness of the fact that the representatives of such a company act within the scope of their powers. It has been proved that the fact that a body and/or a person performing the functions of a business entity’s body committed unlawful, unfair actions or abused its authority is not the only and sufficient ground for invalidating transactions (agreements) concluded by this body on behalf of a legal entity with third parties. There is a need to prove that the counterparty knew (should have known) that the authority to represent the rights and interests of the business entity was limited by its body or a person performing the functions of such a body.