Division of things according to the Austrian General Civil Code of 1811 as a reception of the provisions of Roman private law

The General Civil Code of the Austrian Empire in 1811 was extended, including to the Western Ukrainian lands, which were part of it, and was in effect until the mid-late 1930s; and in modern Austria it is still valid today.
 The main source of the Austrian General Civil Code of 1811 was first of all pandect law, that is, Roman law recepted and adapted to new conditions. Therefore, the author aimed to investigate the reception of Roman private law (in particular, the provisions of title VIII «On the division of things and their properties» of the first book of Justinian's Digests) when regulating the division of things by the Code.
 The article reveals the concepts of things, the division of things according to various criteria and the peculiarities of the legal regimes of various types of things enshrined in the Austrian General Civil Code of 1811; and so, the author found the reception of Roman private law in the legal provisions under consideration.
 Namely, the author found out that, in contrast to Roman law, which did not contain a general concept of a thing, such a concept was formulated in the Code. The article highlights the division of things in the Austrian General Civil Code of 1811 into the following types according to the following criteria: according to the subject to which they belong, – state property, private property (including communal possessions and communal property), common (public) possessions and ownerless things; according to their various properties – corporeal and incorporeal, mobile and immobile, consumable and non-consumable, valued and non-valued; and it was also established an allocation by the Austrian legislator of such a legal category as an aggregate thing.
 The author analyzed that the classification of things according to various criteria and the regulation of their legal regimes established in the Code actually constitute the reception of Roman private law. However, certain differences were found in the interpretation of immovable things, namely in the understanding of the affiliation of an immovable thing, in particular, appurtenance things. And it was also established that Roman private law did not distinguish between things valued and unvalued, but a sacred thing was not subject to valuation.