Виндикация в практике Конституционного Суда Российской Федерации и судебной статистике

Кирилл Юрьевич Молодыко

doi:10.21638/11701/spbu14.2017.209

Authors

Кирилл Юрьевич Молодыко HSE – Skolkovo Institute for Law and Development, National Research University Higher School of Economics; Pokrovskiy boulevard, 8, Moscow, 109028, Russian Federation

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.21638/11701/spbu14.2017.209

Abstract

This article is the first part of research into vindication. The second part will focus on the analysis of academic positions. In this first part the author proves that the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation unreasonably found inadmissible some constitutional claims of citizens who challenged vindication related to provisions of the Civil Code of Russia. Actual practice of the court on this issue is assessed as contradictory, which has both positive and negative elements. When a positive assessment of the new clarification of the Supreme Court regarding bona fide purchaser criteria is examined, it is criticized for the lack of attention to the initiation of the correction to new provisions of Art 200.1 of the Civil Code of Russia related to limitation periods which are erroneous when applied to vindication. An analysis of judicial statistics, in spite of the shortcomings of such a methodology, confirms: a) the high social importance of vindication disputes, b) the lack of public trust in the state compensations in cases of disputes related to vindication of property from a bona fide purchaser. Refs 5.

Keywords:

vindication, bona fide purchaser, constitutionality, limitation period, disposals of ownership

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Литература

Ширвиндт А.М. Комментарий к Обзору судебной практики по некоторым вопросам, связанным с истребованием имущества из чужого незаконного владения (Информационное письмо от 13 ноября 2008 г. № 126) // Вестник гражданского права. 2009. № 1. С. 107–146.

Суханов Е.А. Комментарий к Обзору судебной практики по некоторым вопросам, связанным с истребованием имущества из чужого незаконного владения // Вестник ВАС РФ. 2009. № 2. C. 126–144.

Иванов А.А. Права на землю и иное недвижимое имущество // Вестник гражданского права. 2007. Т. 7, № 2. C. 18–28.

Новоселова А.А., Подшивалов Т.П. Вещные иски: проблемы теории и практики. М.: Инфра-М, 2012. 273 с.

Рудоквас А.Д. Спорные вопросы учения о приобретательной давности. М.: Закон, 2011. 303 с.

References

Shirvindt A.M. Kommentarii k Obzoru sudebnoi praktiki po nekotorym voprosam, sviazannym s istrebovaniem imushchestva iz chuzhogo nezakonnogo vladeniia (Informatsionnoe pis’mo ot 13 noiabria 2008 g. № 126) [Commentary on the Overview of the Case-Law Related to Vindication (Information Letter from 13 November 2008 № 126)]. Vestnik grazhdanskogo prava [Civil Law Review], 2009, no. 1, pp. 107–146.(In Russian)

Suhanov E.A. Kommentarii k Obzoru sudebnoi praktiki po nekotorym voprosam, sviazannym s istrebovaniem imushchestva iz chuzhogo nezakonnogo vladeniia [Commentary on the Overview of the Case-Law Related to Vindication]. Vestnik VAS RF [Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation Review]. 2009, no. 2, pp. 126–144.(In Russian)

Ivanov A.A. Prava na zemliu i inoe nedvizhimoe imushchestvo [Land and Other Real Estate Titles]. Vestnik grazhdanskogo prava [Civil Law Review]. 2007, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 18–28.(In Russian)

Novoselova A.A., Podshivalov T.P. Veshchnye iski: problemy teorii i praktiki [Suit in rem: theoretical and practical issues]. Moscow, INFRA-M Publ., 2012. 273 p.(In Russian)

Rudokvas A.D. Spornye voprosy ucheniia o priobretatel’noi davnosti [Controversial Issues of Acquisitive Prescription]. Moscow, Zakon Publ., 2011. 304 p.(In Russian)