Imprisonment and Civil Legal Personality: From the Doctrine of “Civil Death” to Proportionate Restrictions

The legal status of the civil rights of persons sentenced to imprisonment, the limits on the exercise of those rights, and the legitimate grounds for their restriction are pressing issues in contemporary legal theory. This problem arises from the need to establish a legal balance between protecting convicted persons’ individual rights and safeguarding public interests directed towards preventing the use of civil-law mechanisms for unlawful purposes. This article aims to determine whether imprisonment constitutes an independent legal ground for restricting a person’s civil rights and to assess the legitimacy of possible restrictions in the context of the interaction between criminal law and civil law. Using historical-legal, comparative-legal, and formal-legal methods of analysis, the study examines the development and decline of the doctrine of “civil death”, the transition from a punitive conception of punishment to a rehabilitative approach, and the preservation of convicted persons’ civil legal personality. It comparatively analyses the legislative practice of various states, European human rights standards, and the relevant legislation of the Republic of Azerbaijan. The study demonstrates that imprisonment cannot be regarded as a sufficient legal ground for the automatic loss of a person’s civil legal personality. Nevertheless, the possibility that convicted persons may use their property and contractual rights for unlawful purposes may necessitate certain restrictions. Such restrictions must rest on specific legal grounds, pursue a legitimate aim, and comply with the principle of proportionality. Consequently, protecting convicted persons’ civil rights and safeguarding public interests are legal objectives that require reconciliation rather than being mutually exclusive. The scholarly and practical significance of the study lies in establishing a balance between these objectives and systematising the legal criteria governing restrictions on civil rights.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Porta Universorum
Published
2026-11-09
DOI
https://doi.org/10.69760/portuni.26110001
Primary Topic
Criminal Law and Policy
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
NOV
article

Imprisonment and Civil Legal Personality: From the Doctrine of “Civil Death” to Proportionate Restrictions

Yunis Khalilov, Nasrin Aliyeva
Porta Universorum
Criminal Law and Policy
article

Imprisonment and Civil Legal Personality: From the Doctrine of “Civil Death” to Proportionate Restrictions

Yunis Khalilov, Nasrin Aliyeva
article en

Abstract

The legal status of the civil rights of persons sentenced to imprisonment, the limits on the exercise of those rights, and the legitimate grounds for their restriction are pressing issues in contemporary legal theory. This problem arises from the need to establish a legal balance between protecting convicted persons’ individual rights and safeguarding public interests directed towards preventing the use of civil-law mechanisms for unlawful purposes. This article aims to determine whether imprisonment constitutes an independent legal ground for restricting a person’s civil rights and to assess the legitimacy of possible restrictions in the context of the interaction between criminal law and civil law. Using historical-legal, comparative-legal, and formal-legal methods of analysis, the study examines the development and decline of the doctrine of “civil death”, the transition from a punitive conception of punishment to a rehabilitative approach, and the preservation of convicted persons’ civil legal personality. It comparatively analyses the legislative practice of various states, European human rights standards, and the relevant legislation of the Republic of Azerbaijan. The study demonstrates that imprisonment cannot be regarded as a sufficient legal ground for the automatic loss of a person’s civil legal personality. Nevertheless, the possibility that convicted persons may use their property and contractual rights for unlawful purposes may necessitate certain restrictions. Such restrictions must rest on specific legal grounds, pursue a legitimate aim, and comply with the principle of proportionality. Consequently, protecting convicted persons’ civil rights and safeguarding public interests are legal objectives that require reconciliation rather than being mutually exclusive. The scholarly and practical significance of the study lies in establishing a balance between these objectives and systematising the legal criteria governing restrictions on civil rights.

Porta UniversorumVol. 2(11)
Nakhchivan State University (AZ)
Criminal Law and Policy
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Laika access coming soon