This dissertation explores the distinction between patrimonial and extrapatrimonial rights, examining whether this distinction is still relevant.
Extract
[...] On the other hand, extrapatrimonial rights do not have pecuniary effects, because they are not transferable. They do not have a financial interest, it is a moral interest in the sense that they are rights inherent to the person. B. Criteria for identification Extrapatrimonial rights, unlike patrimonial rights, are attached to the person and are therefore inalienable. They cannot be sold, exchanged, or given. They are also intransmissible, unseizable, and imprescriptible. We distinguish three types of extrapatrimonial rights, personality rights, family rights, and civic and political rights. [...]
[...] This is a right that has a pecuniary value, but as it is attached to the person, it allows it to survive and borrows a character from the extrapatrimonial right. B. The patrimonialization of the person From the point of view of the definition and expression of patrimonial law, the body cannot be the subject of a transferable right. However, it is necessary to confront the notion of patrimony with the body and the things that arise from it. Thus, if the legislator refuses to establish a patrimonial link between the person and their body, it remains to be defined. [...]
[...] Patrimonial and extrapatrimonial right, a difference? This traditional distinction is today debated among jurists who attribute it to it fuzzy boundaries. A. A subtle boundary The rights inherent to the human being and therefore to extrapatrimonial law, such as political rights, such as the right to vote, or family status rights, such as the rights of parents, cannot be subject to pecuniary assessment or be transmitted. But it is when these rights are violated that the boundary of the classic distinction between patrimonial and extrapatrimonial law becomes blurred. [...]
[...] Is the distinction between patrimonial rights and extrapatrimonial rights obsolete in your opinion? Subject of dissertation: Is the distinction between patrimonial rights and extrapatrimonial rights obsolete in your opinion? « The distinction between patrimonial rights and extrapatrimonial rights is not easy to see or is a matter of subtle legal nuance according to Bernard Beignier and Corinne Bléry We will explore in this topic whether the distinction between patrimonial rights and extrapatrimonial rights is obsolete. Two important notions need to be defined in this topic in order to understand the scope of the question. [...]
[...] Thus, we distinguish between patrimonial rights and extrapatrimonial rights. It is the notion of patrimony that allows for this distinction. In legal language, patrimony refers to the set of legal relationships that can be evaluated in money and in which a person is involved. It is around this notion of patrimony that the patrimonial rights and extrapatrimonial rights are defined. Extrapatrimonial rights are strictly attached to the person of their holder. They fall under the being and not the having, unlike patrimonial rights which are attached, not to the person of their holder, but to their patrimony. [...]
