SECURITIES AS AN OBJECT OF CIVIL LEGAL RELATIONS AND THEIR CIVIL PROTECTION

2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 140-144
Author(s):  
L. V. YAKOVLEVA ◽  
◽  
Yu. S. ZHARIKOV ◽  
Z. A. IVANOVA ◽  
◽  
...  

This article discusses possible options for protecting the right of holders of uncertified securities to use them in their interests from the perspective of current civil law. In particular, it considers the possibility of applying a violated claim to the violated right of ownership of these securities. Analyzing the latest changes in the first part of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and industry legislation, the authors come to the conclusion about the possibility of such a lawsuit, but against BCB, which has the attributes of a thing.

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
pp. 37-41
Author(s):  
Anton V. Myskin ◽  

As it is known, any owner of a thing can quite freely and independently bequest such a thing in favor of any person chosen by him. However, if the person is the owner within the framework of the rent contract (rent payer), his or her authority as owner is significantly limited by the rules of civil law. Article 604 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation establishes that the payer of rents has the right to dispose of or otherwise encumber property only with the prior consent of the recipient of the rent. The content of this rule in practice raises one very important question. Does the rent payer have the right freely to bequest property encumbered by the rent agreement, or does it have to obtain the consent of the rent recipient for such an order? Finding an answer to this question is the subject of this article.


2021 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. 36-40
Author(s):  
Anton V. Myskin ◽  

As is known, any owner of a thing can quite freely and independently bequest such a thing in favor of any person chosen by him. However, if the person is the owner within the framework of the rent contract (rent payer), his or her authority as owner is significantly limited by the rules of civil law. Article 604 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation establishes that the payer of rents has the right to dispose of or otherwise encumber property only with the prior consent of the recipient of the rent. The content of this rule in practice raises one very important question. Does the rent payer have the right freely to bequest property encumbered by the rent agreement, or does it have to obtain the consent of the rent recipient for such an order? Finding an answer to this question is the subject of this article.


2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 7-107
Author(s):  
M.D. TYAZHBIN

The article is dedicated to the category of subordination agreements. Based on the concept of conflict of rights in personam, the author makes an attempt to integrate this category into the system of private law, to determine the legal nature of subordination, and from these positions to assess the effectiveness of Art. 309.1 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, implemented in the course of the civil law reform.


2021 ◽  
pp. 19-24
Author(s):  
N.A. Pronina ◽  
T.N. Platunova ◽  
S.O. Kostyakova

The article raises the following topical problems currently inherent in the institution of real estate in theRussian Federation: the unsuccessful legal definition of a real estate object, enshrined in Art. 131 of the CivilCode of the Russian Federation; qualification of objects as immovable and, accordingly, delimitation of themfrom movable ones; the emergence of objects with a controversial legal regime; the need to move from themodel of “plurality” to the model of “unity” of real estate objects. Also, the authors of this article analyzea number of approaches aimed at resolving the above problems and the possible consequences (both positiveand negative) of their implementation in practice, put forward their views and offer their own solutionto these problems. A variant of the legalization of “disputable” objects is proposed by introducing the rightof construction into the civil law of the Russian Federation as a limited property right to use a land plot withthe extension of this right to everything that is being built on such a land plot. The examples of legislativeregulation of the right to build in the civil law of pre-revolutionary Russia are considered, the elements of theright to build in the current law of the Russian Federation are revealed.


Author(s):  
Y. E. Monastyrsky ◽  

Introduction: of all the instruments of protection of subjective property rights, the fundamental role belongs to the institute of indemnification, whose regulatory framework needs to be clarified. The purpose of this paper is comparative description of the important legal aspects of the main type of property liability. In accordance with the purpose, the following objectives were set: to determine the extent to which legal provisions of general regulations on obligations laid down in the Civil Code of the Russian Federation should or can be applied to claims for damages; to formulate the proposals for improving the indemnification court practice. Methods: the methodological framework of the study consists of specific scholarly (special legal, comparative legal) and general scholarly (problem-theory, teleological, and system) methods of analysis. The main trends in the development of the institute of liability and the debatable aspects reflected in the Russian and foreign documents were studied with the use of the problem-theory and system analysis methods. Results: being a summary overview of the available knowledge and comparative regulatory material, this paper allowed us to articulate the ideas aimed at improving the fundamental principles of legal regulation of relations in the sphere of protection of subjective rights, in particular indemnification. Discussion: indemnification is a developing major institute of civil law, invariably attracting the attention of scholars around the world. Lately it has taken on special significance and some of its aspects have become a focus of a separate field of scholarly discussion. Many Russian scholars have written about indemnification in a comparative aspect: О. N. Sadikov, V. V. Baibak and others [2, 15]; this paper focuses on the reform of Russian law of obligations and the new provisions of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation of March 8, 2015 and reveals the consequences of the reform for the institute of damages, discussing this topic in detail as a separate standalone issue. Conclusion: we hope that this paper will contribute to further discussion in the civil law doctrine of the ideas and conclusions presented.


2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (8) ◽  
pp. 52-62
Author(s):  
L. G. Efimova

The paper substantiates the author’s proposal to amend the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, which is explained by the gradual creation of a digital economy in the Russian Federation. In particular, the author has examined and solved the following problems of the legal regulation of civil law relations in the context of digitalization: the problem of identifying the object of digital rights, the problem of legal qualification of the electronic form of the transaction, the problem of using a smart contract in civil transactions, the problem of using blockchain technology to create mixed payment systems. The paper proposes a non-standard solution to each of these problems—the author has prepared a draft federal law "On Amendments to Parts One and Two of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation in terms of legal relations arising in cyberspace." In particular, the author proposes to define digital rights as the absolute and relative rights to digital property named in this capacity, the content and conditions of implementation of which are determined by the law and the rules of the information system (protocol) that meets the characteristics established by the law. In the author’s opinion, an electronic document can exist in the form of a machine information file of any format or a computer program that meets the characteristics of an electronic document.


Lex Russica ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 25-32
Author(s):  
E. V. Bogdanov

The existence of extraordinary circumstances, which should be understood as circumstances unavoidable under these conditions, constitutes the condition for requisition. The Civil Code of the Russian Federation gives state bodies a certain freedom in carrying out requisitions, as it is hardly possible to list all exceptional circumstances when additional equipment or other property will be required both to prevent the development of emergencies and to deal with their consequences.Civil law confiscation involves the termination of private property and the emergence of state ownership of confiscated property. Therefore, it is impossible to treat as confiscation the seizure of tengible media according to Para. 4 of Art. 1252 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, because they were produced in violation of the law and, therefore, ownership has not arisen. The paper also substantiates the conclusion that nationalization requires relevant property to come not into the property of the State, but into the national property. In the author’s opinion, the currently existing State property does not contain any hints of national property, and it can be stated that the Russian people even more than previously are removed from the property of the State and are excluded from State responsibility. Nationwide property serves as a foundation of the civil society.


2021 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 3-7
Author(s):  
Oksana V. Cherkasova ◽  

The article reviews the legal status of subjects of corporate relationships, analyzes doctrinal and law enforcement aspects. The author analyzes the scientists’ standpoints, various models of interaction between the subjects of corporate relationships existing in foreign law and order, case law, arrives at conclusions about the correlation between the categories of the “right of participation”, “right of membership”, “right of management”. It is noted that the membership concept evolves out of participation by performing the function of a generic term. It is suggested to determine the “right of management” of a corporation as just one of the member’s activity areas along with other rights. The author recommends to ensure consistency of the provision of Article 2 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and Articles 65.2, 65.3 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation where the concept of the “right of participation” would act as a basic one and the “right of management” would be its constituent part.


Author(s):  
L. V. Shchennikova ◽  
◽  
A. Yu. Migacheva ◽  

Introduction: the reform of modern civil legislation cannot be completed without the adoption of a package of amendments to the section of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation devoted to real rights. Moreover, the lack of a developed and consistent concept of real rights has a negative impact on the development of all related areas. Real rights are designed to solve strategic problems of state development, among which social issues are currently coming to the fore. In this regard, it is important to study individual real rights proposed for introduction into civil legislation in terms of their potential to promote not only the economic but also the social development of the country. This paper focuses on usufruct in the aspect of its historical identity, powerful functional message, and internationality. Purpose: the research aims to clarify the significance of real law[1] regulation in solving nationally significant problems. Based on the achievements of foreign doctrine and legislation, we attempt to show the prospects of the introduction of usufruct in the Russian system of real rights. Methods: general (philosophical), general scientific, special scientific (including special legal) methods of cognition: dialectical, logical, historical, sociological, comparative-legal and formal-legal. Results: we have studied civil legislation of thirty countries of the world. The study has shown that the introduction of usufruct can have a positive social and economic effect, but only provided that the legislator does not deviate from the historically established concept of usufruct embodied in foreign law. Conclusions:the Draft of Section II of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation ‘Real Rights’ needs revision, with the initial social function of usufruct taken into consideration. It is necessary to work out a system of grounds for the emergence and termination of usufructuary rights, to introduce a mandatory notarial form of a contract for the establishment of usufruct, to provide for the possibility of establishing usufruct by virtue of law in relation to socially significant objects and on the basis of a court decision, to enshrine non-use of the right among the grounds for termination; to allow the establishment of usufruct in relation to citizens and legal entities, and not only non-profit organizations; to allow multiple usufructuaries; to describe in detail the rights and obligations of the owner and the usufructuary, including the duties of treating the property with care, and to indicate the possible limits of the disposal of the property by the usufructuary, including via transactions; to work out the rules for the exercise of the right of usufruct in relation to certain categories of objects, for example: property of minors, inheritance, agricultural land, forests, minerals, etc.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document