3 Bolshoy Trekhsvyatitelsky Pereulok, room 225
Phone: (495) 772-95-90 *22112
The article is devoted to the consideration of the concept of commorientes in French and Russian inheritance law. The commorientes are individuals, entitled to inherit, reciprocally, to each other and considered to have died at the same moment, from the inheritance’s point of view. The commorientes do not inherit reciprocally. The work focuses on how French and Russian law determine the notion of commorientes. Inheritance rules, regarding the commorientes in France and Russian Federation from the beginning of the 19th century are analysed; subsequently, their current versions in force in the French Civil Code and the Russian Federation Civil Code are compared. Particular attention is paid to the issue of the time of the inheritance opening. In the Russian legislation this issue has not been unambiguously resolved for a long time. The article presents the evolution of the Russian and French rules on inheritance after the commorientes. In French law, presumptions of survival have been in effect for many years, allowing to determine the sequence of deaths of people who died as a result of the same event. The article contains the rules of the current legislation in France and in the Russian Federation, as well as suggestions for their improvement.
In the article devoted to the review of the S.A. Sinitsyn’s book “General Provisions on Real Law: Comparative Legal Research: Monograph”, the author analyzes numerous new ideas and approaches regarding the concept, essence, features, meaning and place of real law in modern legal systems. The author’s critical comments on the current state of the mechanism of legal regulation of real rights in Russia are evaluated, and additional arguments for the new theoretical and practical approaches proposed in the book are presented.
There are two possible normative grounds for the restitution of profits from an unlawful possessor of the thing to its owner. First is the special rules on distribution of profits in case of vindicatio (article 303 of the Russian Civil Code). The second is the rules on unjustified enrichment. These two regimes do not fully coincide. On the one hand, they are quite similar in the regulation of disgorgement of profits. On the other hand, article 303 seems to provide more suitable regime for the compensation of money saved by the unlawful possessor. The recent judgment of the Supreme Court, which is commented in this article, confirms the priority of article 303 of the Russian Civil Code in the situation when the property is leased out by the unlawful possessor. It also highlights some special rules that apply to the claim by the owner to the unlawful possessor.
For a long time, Russian legislation did not allow the possibility of establishing a condition on the “fee of success” in the agreement on the provision of legal assistance. With regard to the provision of legal services by lawyers, these restrictions were lifted in 2019. Removing the restriction on the prohibition of the “fee of success” in advocacy and maintaining the prohibition on the provision of legal services by other judicial representatives creates far unequal rules of the game for these members of the legal community. In the legal literature, opinions are already being expressed that a softening of the approach regarding the “success fee” for lawyers will eventually extend to other participants in the legal services market. The article draws attention to the fact that the amendments to the law on advocacy that have come into force are not subject to application until the Council of the Federal Chamber of Advocates develops a rule on the inclusion of a condition in legal aid agreements, according to which the amount of remuneration 320 paid by the principal is made dependent from the result of a lawyer providing legal assistance. It is concluded that in order to determine the content of these rules it is necessary that they do not contradict the legal positions of the highest judicial instances of our country, take into account the prevailing socio-economic and political-legal conditions, doctrinal provisions, features of the legal services market, as well as analogues available in foreign law and order
The authors of the article that the legal structure of the pledge of the exclusive right to a work of architecture is not completed enough and should be studied and analyzed. When conducting research, it is necessary to take into account the specifics of a work of architecture as an object of copyright, as well as the peculiarities of the exercise of intellectual rights.
In the article of V.N.Sinelnikova, Doctor of law, Professor of the Chair of Civil and Business Law of the National Research University Higher School of Economics, member of the Scientific Advisory Council of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation (Moscow, email@example.com), the features of the use of the exclusive right to patent-protected seeds (selection achievements in the field of crop production), lawfully entered into civil circulation on the basis of a license contract are considered. The author argues that the exclusive right of the patent owner to such seeds is terminated (exhausted) and the buyer can use these objects after the expiration of the license agreement for the production of commercial grain without the consent of the patent owner and without paying him\her remuneration. The opinion was also expressed on the effectiveness of contracts for the alienation of protected results of selection activities, in which the limits of disposal of purchased patent-protected seeds are agreed.
The book is an example of the comparative approach to the key institutions of the Canon Law in Roman Catholic, Eastern Catholic and Russian Orthodox traditions which are presented in the light of the initial canon principles of the Early Church and its Old Testament roots. The book is designated for the wide audience of all those who are interested in Canon Law and its history.
The article is a continuation of the expert discussion ‘Legal education and the labor market. Transformation or stagnation in the digital economy’, uniting the leaders of leading Russian and foreign law schools, the scientific, pedagogical community at the Gaidar Forum 2020. The authors consider a wide range of issues related to the characterization of the current state of legal education, its integration into the Bologna system, noting the importance of the application of traditional methods and means of teaching law, taking into account modern realities. Particular attention is paid to the traditions of teaching law laid down by Roman lawyers, the history of the formation and development of domestic jurisprudence, as well as modern discussions on a given topic, in which representatives of the scientific community and practical lawyers take part. The authors draw attention to issues related to the new content of curricula and new ways of regulating legal education. The topic of state accreditation of educational programs in the field of jurisprudence and the role of the Association of Russian Lawyers in this process also seems important. The analysis of the main features of modern law is carried out, necessitating the comprehensive improvement of modern legal education. As a possible measure of the quality of legal education, the introduction of a single exam for entering the profession is proposed.
In this paper, the author defines an issue of determining the moment of return of the guarantee retention when performing contracted obligations in construction. The author concludes that the concept of freedom of contract according to which the parties, by their will, can establish the condition that the guarantee retention should be returned after the commissioning of the object, does not protect the interests of the «weak party». In this regard, further improvement of civil legislation is required.
In the article, the author analyzes the proposed amendments to the chapter of the Civil Code on property rights, namely the novels about acquisitive prescription and the protection of property rights.
The institution of acquisitive prescription has existed in domestic law since 1833 (with its "shutdown" in the Soviet period) with certain modifications and problems of law enforcement at the present stage. The developers of the amendments to the section on property rights propose to exclude the requisite of good faith for acquisitive prescription. The author supports the amendments, but subject to the introduction of monetary compensation from an unscrupulous acquirer in favor of the previous owner, and considers it necessary to reflect in the Draft the moment when ownership of real estate arises due to acquisitive prescription. In the author's opinion, this is the moment when the right entry is entered into the Register.
The proposed changes in the system of protection of property rights - a new section on the concept of ownership, protection of any possession without examining the grounds for its occurrence and the introduction of a claim for recognition of property rights - the author, on the contrary, evaluates critically, believing that the protection of ownership makes sense only if among the requisites of acquisitive prescription there is conscientiousness. Acquisitive prescription without good faith and the right to property claims of the owner for prescription are the protection of the possession of any person.
The author critically evaluates the submission of a claim for the recognition of property rights into an independent category, since this can lead to a legal deadlock associated with the statute of limitations: at present, the courts do not apply the statute of limitations to the claim for recognition of the right, qualifying this requirement as a kind of negative claim, but the statement the independent nature of the claim for recognition means the extension of the statute of limitations to it. As a result, the owner of real estate will be able to skip the statute of limitations on a claim for recognition of the right aimed at making an entry about his right in the Register, and the one who is registered as the copyright holder will not be able to vindicate again due to missing the statute of limitations.