scholarly journals CONTRACTUAL BASIS FOR TERMINATION OF CIVIL LEGAL OBLIGATIONS: PROBLEMS OF THEORY AND PRACTICE OF APPLICATION

2021 ◽  
Vol 31 (6) ◽  
pp. 1054-1058
Author(s):  
N.V. Kuznetsova
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
Freedom Of Contract ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
Legal Obligations ◽  
Problematic Issue ◽  
The Russian Federation

The article considers contractual grounds for termination of civil obligations: compensation, innovation, debt forgiveness. The paper notes some problems of the application of Articles 409, 414, 415 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation in judicial practice, analyzes the issues of the ratio of compensation and innovation, the differentiation of these contracts. The problems of qualification of agreements on the grounds for termination of obligations in law enforcement practice and the question of applying the principle of freedom of contract to the relations under consideration are considered. It is noted that at present the practice of applying the legislation on compensation has changed significantly. Despite the restrictions established by the norm of Article 409 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, judicial practice allows the possibility of using works and services as a subject of compensation, which leads to problems of distinguishing such contractual grounds for termination of obligations as compensation and innovation. With regard to the innovation, an analysis of the provisions on the possibility of novating the penalty into a loan obligation is given. A problematic issue is the legal qualification of debt forgiveness as a basis for termination of an obligation. It is noted that the contractual nature of debt forgiveness should be taken into account. Acceptance of notification by the debtor's creditor of his release from the performance of his duty is the silence of the debtor (clause 2 of Article 438 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). The article also considers the question of the ratio of debt forgiveness and donation. The analysis of judicial practice shows that the courts do not consider debt forgiveness as a gift, except in cases when the creditor released the debtor from the performance of the obligation free of charge. In this case, the norms of Article 168 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and paragraph 4 of Article 575 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation are subject to the application of debt forgiveness.

scholarly journals Theft vs find: theoretical and practical issues

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 (3) ◽  
pp. 121-130
Author(s):  
Nikolay Ryabinin ◽  
Kseniya Filipson
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
Controversial Issues ◽  
Main Research ◽  
Legal Definition ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Definition Of

The purpose of the study is to analyze the features of legal relations regulated by Art. 158 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and Art. 227 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, as well as to identify and resolve the problems related to the proper legal definition of these relations. The main research methods are: structural-system, methods of logical analysis and synthesis, formallegal, comparative-legal, as well as collecting information through the study of scientific periodicals and materials of judicial practice on this issue. The article discusses in detail the features of the delimitation of relations arising in accordance with Art. 158 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and Art. 227 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. The authors note that in the theory and practice of both criminal and civil law, one of the most controversial issues is the problem of differentiating a criminal offense under Art. 158 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and acts that are not such (Article 227 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). So, to date, there is no consensus about the signs of differentiation of these compositions, and the criteria that have been developed at the present time are very vague and contradictory. Misinterpretation and application of norms when qualifying relations in accordance with Art. 158 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and Art. 227 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation does not allow citizens to protect effectively their rights and legitimate interests. Therefore, in order to prevent violations of civil rights, it is necessary to conduct a comprehensive scientific study of the features enabling to differentiate the above mentioned relations. Considerable attention is paid to the problem of appropriation of the found someone else’s property, when this property has identifying features. The authors define the types of property in the possession of the owner or any other type of legal owner, and also disclose the main characteristics of the specified property. In addition, the article formulates the authors’ definitions of such concepts as «finding» and «appropriation» of what was found. Based on the analysis of judicial and investigative practice, the authors propose the following recommendations for changing the legislation and the practice of its application in order to resolve controversial issues arising from the qualification of crimes against property. First, it is necessary to make clarifications in the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of December 27, 2002 No. 20 «On judicial practice in cases of theft, robbery and banditry» which property should be recognized as being in the possession of the owner or other legal owners and determine the characteristic features of such property ... Secondly, it is necessary to formulate and consolidate the legal definition of a find in the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. Thirdly, to return into Chapter 21 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation «Crime against property» the part «Appropriation of the found property».

scholarly journals An Object of Vindication: Problems of Law Enforcement

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 76-93
Author(s):  
A. A. Guseva
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Civil Rights ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Limited Liability ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
Legal Nature ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Theory Of Law ◽  
Authorized Capital

The paper is devoted to examining objects of civil rights in order to establish whether it is possible to subject them to vindication. The paper analyzes such objects as things, “incorporeal things”, non-cash funds, uncertified securities, intellectual property, shares in the authorized capital of limited liability companies, digital rights, cryptocurrency, etc. The author determines the legal nature of the objects under consideration with due regard to the theory of law and legal stances of courts. As a consequence, the author substantiates the relativity of the possibility or impossibility of their vindication under Art. 301 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. Also, the author examines the issues of existence of special mechanisms for protection of rights holders of uncertified securities and shares in the authorized capital of limited liability companies to find the interrelation between them and vindication. The paper provides the analysis of judicial practice on the issue of claiming civil law objects from someone else’s illegal possession. Conclusions are drawn as to which objects can be subject to vindication under Art. 301 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, which objects can be claimed by analogy of the law and which objects cannot be subjected to vindication.

Joint bankruptcy of spouses: theory and practice issues

2021 ◽  
pp. 271-280
Author(s):  
Irina E. Belova
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Scientific Literature ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Right

We research the issue of the current law enforcement practice of considering cases of joint bankruptcy of spouses in the framework of insolvency procedures of individuals. We emphasize that at the legislative level, joint bankruptcy of spouses and multiple persons on the debtor’s side is not provided for. Initially, this resulted in a lack of courts’ uniform approach, which has become a subject of discussion in the scientific literature. In this context, we pay attention to the importance of adoption by the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of position on the combining admissibility of spouses’ banknote cases. In turn, the permissibility of combining cases did not resolve the issue of possibility of accepting a joint bankruptcy application, which again led to discrepancies in judicial practice. Special attention is paid to the admissibility of combining cases, which is the right of the court, and not its duty. We note that the arbitration courts, when solving this issue, study such circumstances as the subject composition of the persons participating in the cases of debtors, the volume and nature of prop-erty that is part of the bankruptcy estate of each debtor’s property, the per-formance of duties of financial manager by the same person. Despite the de-veloping judicial practice of joint bankruptcy of spouses, justified by the ex-planations of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, we believe that it expedient and necessary to establish the grounds, procedure and conditions for joint bankruptcy of individuals who are spouses at the legislative level.

Institute for assurances and its implementation in the penal system in the framework of the Federal Law of 05.04.2013 No. 44-FZ “On contract system in procurement of goods, works, services for state and municipal needs”

2020 ◽  
pp. 162-170
Author(s):  
Екатерина Станиславовна Брылякова ◽  
Тамара Викторовна Шепель
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
Penal System ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Law Enforcement Agencies ◽  
Legal Obligations ◽  
Legal Nature ◽  
The Russian Federation

Статья посвящена анализу нового института гражданского права «заверения об обстоятельствах», нашедшего легальное отражение в гражданском законодательстве РФ только после принятия Федерального закона РФ от 08.03.2015 № 42-ФЗ «О внесении изменений в часть первую Гражданского кодекса Российской Федерации». При этом с появлением данного института возникла полемика относительно его правовой природы и отнесения к институту преддоговорной ответственности как его разновидности или как одной из гарантий обязательственных правоотношений. Актуальность темы обусловлена еще и анализом возможности реализации института заверений об обстоятельствах в контексте Федерального закона от 05.04.2013 № 44 «О контрактной системе в сфере закупок товаров, работ, услуг для обеспечения государственных и муниципальных нужд» в части защиты интересов заказчиков и одного из элементов антикоррупционной составляющей. Ряд правоприменителей категорически не допускают возможности реализации исследуемого института в контрактной системе. Кроме того, в правоприменительной сфере возникает дискуссионный вопрос относительно интерпретации заверений об обстоятельствах и их применении в обязательственных правоотношениях. В статье предпринята попытка определить правовую природу института заверений об обстоятельствах и ответственности за недостоверные заверения, а также обосновать возможность его реализации в контрактной системе в сфере закупок товаров, работ и услуг для обеспечения государственных и муниципальных нужд, в том числе для нужд уголовно-исполнительной системы. This article is devoted to the analysis of a new institution of civil law “assurances of circumstances”, which was legally reflected in the civil legislation of the Russian Federation only after the adoption of the Federal law of the Russian Federation from 08.03.2015 № 42-FZ “On amendments to part one of the Civil code of the Russian Federation”. At the same time, with the appearance of this institution, there has been a lot of controversy regarding its legal nature and the attribution to the institution of pre-contractual liability as its variety or as one of the guarantees of legal obligations. The relevance of the topic due to the analysis of the feasibility of the Institute for assurances in the context of the Federal law of 05.04.2013 № 44 “On contract system in procurement of goods, works, services for state and municipal needs” in terms of protecting the interests of customers and one of the elements of the anti-corruption component. A number of law enforcement agencies categorically do not allow the possibility of implementing the research Institute in the contract system. In addition, in the law enforcement sphere, there is a debatable issue regarding the interpretation of assurances about circumstances and their application in legal relations of obligations. The article attempts to understand the concept and legal nature of the institution of assurances about circumstances and to justify the possibility of its implementation in the contract system in the field of procurement of goods, works and services for state and municipal needs, including for the needs of the penal system.

Features of Judicial Practice in the Russia as the Basis of Precedent

2020 ◽  
pp. 98-106
Author(s):  
V. V. Levin
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Armed Forces ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Law Making

The article is devoted to the analysis of judicial practice as the basis of law-making activity in the Russian Federation, on the basis of which it is possible to create a precedent. Case law in Russia is Advisory in nature and is not mandatory for law enforcement practice. Courts use the signs of case law in their decisions in the reasoned part. Signs of case law is a ruling of the constitutional court of the Russian Federation and regulations of the armed forces of the Russian Federation.

Compensation for Infringement of Copyright and Related Rights: Essence and Primary Functions

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
pp. 34-40
Author(s):  
N. V. Buzova ◽  
◽  
R. L. Lukyanov ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Research Method ◽  
Comparative Law ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
Legal Remedy ◽  
Legal Nature ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Judicial Protection ◽  
Exclusive Right

The Civil Code of the Russian Federation provides an opportunity to the rightholder in case of infringement of his exclusive copyright and related rights to demand in court instead of compensation for damages incurred by him to pay compensation. In most cases, when the rightholder applies for judicial protection of his violated rights, he requires the recovery of compensation. This article discusses the legal nature of compensation as a legal remedy of an exclusive right and its primary functions. When writing an article, a comparative law research method is used. As a result of the analysis of russian and foreign legislation, as well as judicial practice, it was found that compensation, in addition to restorative, also has a preventive function and can be considered an analogue of statutory damages.

Scientific Commentary on the Review of Judicial Practice on Some Issues of the Application of Legislation on Business Entities

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
pp. 27-32
Author(s):  
V. K. Andreev ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Public Relations ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Business Entities ◽  
Law Making

The article discusses the forms of clarification on matters of judicial practice by the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, the Presidium of the Supreme Court, as well as in the Review of judicial practice on some issues of the application of legislation on business companies dated December 25, 2019. Clarifications of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on issues of judicial practice are characterized as the positions of the courts identified in the course of studying and summarizing the judicial practice of the corresponding category of cases, which are acts of individual regulation of public relations. Focusing on Art. 6 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and Section 6, Art. 12 of the APC RF shows the validity of dividing wrong into two types of wrong: the «moderate» type of «judicial law-making and the position of the court» and the «radical» type of «judicial law-making», when the court develops the rule of law, which contradicts the constitutional principle of separation of powers. When resolving corporate disputes, it is necessary to investigate whether the charter of a non-public company does not contain the rights and obligations of its participants, which they themselves created by making a unanimous decision and including them in the charter of the company (paragraph 3 of Art. 66.3 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, paragraph 3 of Art. 14 of the Law about LLC).

scholarly journals Extension of a fixed-term employment contract: some theoretical and practical issues

2019 ◽  
pp. 65-72
Author(s):  
Sergey Kichigin
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Necessary Conditions ◽  
Practical Work ◽  
Applied Problem ◽  
Employment Contract ◽  
Labor Contract ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Term Labor

The problem of introducing changes to a fixed-term employment contract in terms of amending (extending) its term is an urgent applied problem in the work of personnel services, which often arises in the course of their practical work. Argued, based on established judicial practice, the solution to this problem will create clarity in the application of the norms of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation. The norms of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation do not contain a ban on the application of the provisions of art. 72 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation. However, to date there is no single, reasoned opinion on whether it is possible to change the term of a fixed-term employment contract, and if possible, under what conditions? On this issue, there are polar opinions. Both the courts and state authorities have repeatedly changed their position on this issue, right up to the diametrically opposite. In this paper, the author attempts to answer this question on the basis of the existing judicial practice and the courts understand the relevant provisions of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, the opinions of the federal authorities of the Russian Federation, as well as their own attempts to interpret the provisions of the law, and concludes that the term of a fixed-term labor contract in the presence of compliance with the necessary conditions dictated by the norms of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, established law enforcement practice.

scholarly journals ISSUES OF THE QUALIFICATION OF A MURDER FOR THE PURPOSES OF USING VICTIM’S ORGANS OR TISSUES (CLAUSE М PART 2 ARTICLE 105 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION)

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. 46-51
Author(s):  
Andrey L. Ivanov ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
Human Organs ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation

The article substantiates the solution of some of the issues of qualification of murder discussed in theory and practice in order to use human organs or tissues, the results of a study of judicial practice, in which clarifications of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on this topic were applied.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document