Download "Вещные права Конференция Российская школа частного права 1"
%3Aformat(webp)%2Fi.ytimg.com%252Fvi%252F-ajT2CCdOzc%252Fhqdefault.jpg&w=1139&q=75)
Please wait. We're preparing links for easy ad-free video watching and downloading.
Similar videos from our catalog
%3Aformat(webp)%2Fi.ytimg.com%252Fvi_webp%252FEl9qM07lX7M%252Fmaxresdefault.webp&w=1139&q=75)
%3Aformat(webp)%2Fi.ytimg.com%252Fvi_webp%252FLBP4AQQO4Us%252Fmaxresdefault.webp&w=1139&q=75)
%3Aformat(webp)%2Fi.ytimg.com%252Fvi_webp%252FQWrCNeh-Cy0%252Fmaxresdefault.webp&w=1139&q=75)
%3Aformat(webp)%2Fi.ytimg.com%252Fvi%252FU_on-kLWjB8%252Fmaxresdefault.jpg&w=1139&q=75)
%3Aformat(webp)%2Fi.ytimg.com%252Fvi%252FUbJAWJXudjI%252Fmaxresdefault.jpg&w=1139&q=75)
%3Aformat(webp)%2Fi.ytimg.com%252Fvi%252FcboU7WISeyo%252Fmaxresdefault.jpg&w=1139&q=75)
%3Aformat(webp)%2Fi.ytimg.com%252Fvi_webp%252FlIKXvt-pHYY%252Fmaxresdefault.webp&w=1139&q=75)
%3Aformat(webp)%2Fi.ytimg.com%252Fvi_webp%252FrqHC5wpEcWA%252Fmaxresdefault.webp&w=1139&q=75)
%3Aformat(webp)%2Fi.ytimg.com%252Fvi_webp%252F9kmMhlGjga0%252Fsddefault.webp&w=1139&q=75)
%3Aformat(webp)%2Fi.ytimg.com%252Fvi_webp%252FtKZg8svZwig%252Fmaxresdefault.webp&w=1139&q=75)
Video tags
Subtitles
Russian
00:00:00
[music]00:00:09
good morning let's get started then00:00:12
the event for which we are here they00:00:14
everyone gathered on stage will pass with you00:00:17
conference dedicated to eternal law00:00:20
The idea of this conference is related to the fact that00:00:26
haven't been through something like this for quite some time00:00:28
events this is the second time in principle00:00:32
there is quite a lot of interest00:00:34
not currently accepted00:00:38
relevant section of civil00:00:41
Code is dedicated to property rights because00:00:43
that he was prepared quite a long time ago00:00:45
and perhaps many of the same problems00:00:48
which will be discussed today could00:00:50
would be resolved exactly in order00:00:51
legislative activity but that's it00:00:55
no less than that there is that there can be00:00:56
different points of view about it00:00:58
how much we00:01:00
ready to accept now00:01:01
I understand the relevant document00:01:03
there is such an attitude towards him that he00:01:06
still needs improvement I have yes00:01:09
from the outside the powers that be, maybe this is it00:01:13
may not be completely correct00:01:14
Well, just one more thing about this00:01:17
let's talk today and be00:01:19
keep in mind just the possibility00:01:22
discussions, including this project, I with00:01:26
I would really like to00:01:32
introduce00:01:35
those gathered first, the author of it00:01:38
Maria's own idea for this conference00:01:41
the hand that00:01:44
was the author of several very00:01:47
good ideas one of which was00:01:49
actually this conference and the other one was00:01:51
this is a collection that was the property of00:01:55
dedicated to the anniversary of Konstantin Ilyich ask00:01:57
gloss00:01:58
which in turn in representations00:02:00
does not need and we wholeheartedly00:02:03
Congratulations to Konstantin Ilyich on this00:02:05
anniversary and we hope that this00:02:07
well, it was kind of a gift00:02:09
made by a circle of people who really appreciate00:02:13
and they respect and love that he will still00:02:16
so let’s say this one is also appreciated00:02:22
book00:02:23
this conference itself is00:02:26
partly including the presentation of this00:02:28
books This book contains the works of a whole00:02:34
row colleagues and the main idea of this00:02:38
the conference was to00:02:40
the main speakers at this00:02:42
the conference was just people who00:02:46
were the authors of this book and00:02:49
who could try their thoughts00:02:51
convey to the audience first and can00:02:54
may generate additional interest for00:02:56
in order to read those articles that00:02:58
published here00:02:59
As for these books, there are 7 of them in total00:03:05
conference participants receive00:03:08
as handout material here but00:03:10
we thought it would probably be nice00:03:11
if this is interesting for the authors00:03:15
which are present in the majority00:03:17
at this conference they could put00:03:19
your autographs if you like it00:03:21
memory of this event if you like it00:03:23
It’s interesting that these books are respectively00:03:25
there you need to convey it through the organizers00:03:27
To sign an autograph, the author will receive an autograph00:03:29
not an easy task about 200 signatures00:03:31
they are already afraid to put on from one to00:03:33
I also contact him please, books you00:03:36
they stand there, find time before the end00:03:38
conference please do it well00:03:39
this is probably not necessary and of course00:03:41
event but it seems to me that it was00:03:45
I would too00:03:46
right to make a separate one I would like00:03:51
to say and is already closer to completion00:03:54
opening speech00:03:55
I would like to say something special00:03:57
thanks to those who helped participate in00:04:01
organization of this conference I have00:04:03
view in organizational financial terms00:04:06
because it was not clear at first00:04:08
would such a conference be of interest or00:04:10
no there you go00:04:12
first plan to hold it in one00:04:14
place later when we found out that there was interest00:04:17
big and we won't miss it very much00:04:18
the hall where we originally00:04:20
we rented accordingly00:04:22
moved this event here to more00:04:25
spacious hall I am grateful to our00:04:28
organizers who expressed understanding00:04:31
how to collect all this interest of ours00:04:34
as many people as possible anyway00:04:35
to discuss problems that's it of course00:04:38
First of all, I am grateful to those of ours00:04:41
the organizers who00:04:42
and sponsor who initially00:04:45
supported this this idea this is a vegetable okin00:04:50
and partners of the Bar Association for00:04:52
traders are our two key00:04:55
whose sponsor we relied on00:04:58
preparations for this conference on00:05:00
as a result still joined between on00:05:02
law firm bibi-8 climb there00:05:04
Of course, a big role is organizational00:05:07
complied with the law school statute separate00:05:09
thanks to her and at the end00:05:10
I will certainly repeat all departments there00:05:12
information sponsor was the magazine00:05:15
own arbitration practice00:05:16
individual issues of this magazine are available there00:05:18
razdatka razdatka is already 100 years old00:05:20
to whom00:05:21
interesting, you can take the world for this00:05:23
a year now, and accordingly if00:05:24
Odessa Center for Private Law00:05:26
bringing together many of those speakers00:05:29
let's say so let's say intelligence00:05:30
component was in this case for00:05:33
our organization which includes00:05:35
clearly I'm working today00:05:37
These are all introductory words, I would like more00:05:41
introduction is simple 200:05:43
make some remarks for me00:05:45
it seemed like it would be right to leave it00:05:46
temporary discussions for 20 minutes after00:05:49
every session but in principle I would do00:05:53
probably so each of the speakers00:05:55
I wouldn't strictly tie it to twenty00:05:58
five minutes for everyone00:05:59
conferences there is always a problem that00:06:01
speakers exceed the allotted limit00:06:04
time that's it, but it's not at all necessary00:06:06
do today, you can do the opposite00:06:08
smaller and so that directly00:06:12
questions related to the topic of the speech00:06:16
could have been asked00:06:17
right away and then let's say00:06:19
any additional problems if you00:06:21
if you want to discuss it, we could already00:06:23
assign them to the time for this00:06:25
allotted00:06:26
15 minutes at the end of this panel and 20 minutes00:06:30
at the end00:06:32
I think that would be right, well00:06:35
and accordingly if00:06:36
author listeners have questions for00:06:38
to the presenters, you could just00:06:40
indicate presence is a question there00:06:42
raising your hand so the speaker can see00:06:43
for example, his report calls out there00:06:45
and for seven questions but for him to me00:06:47
there seems to be an argument for there00:06:50
curl up a little earlier and give it just right00:06:52
time and opportunity for people to ask these questions00:06:54
I think it would be like this00:06:56
it's the right thing to do, well I guess00:07:03
I've exhausted the questions I wanted00:07:08
discuss and am pleased to give the floor00:07:10
Maria Andreevna and Ruhu if she suddenly00:07:12
wants what we can add please00:07:15
good morning dear colleagues to me00:07:17
It seems we can now move on to our00:07:18
report and small strokes impromptu00:07:21
we have the sequence changing00:07:23
speakers and opens our today00:07:26
seminar by Alexandra Makovskaya topics and00:07:32
report on the problem of protecting rights to shares00:07:34
limited share in the company00:07:35
I have the responsibility of a colleague00:07:38
to say that I am not the only one who is not one of those00:07:41
who is one of the authors of that00:07:44
collection that was prepared yes00:07:45
exactly like in quality like this not00:07:47
fulfilled when you take over00:07:49
duties I am happy as of course as00:07:51
I will once again dwell on those questions that00:07:53
designated as the topic of my report00:07:55
will start at you know such a moment00:07:58
a few years ago bit00:08:01
existence of the Supreme Arbitration Court00:08:03
Russian Federation on these like in a fairy tale00:08:05
so I'm starting to fail one big one00:08:08
conference dedicated to the problem00:08:11
corporate law was not even00:08:16
it was suggested that some things were said00:08:17
There are reports prepared for those present00:08:21
speeches on some topics and to us00:08:25
in particular, Sergei Vasya got what00:08:26
cheese big topics related to protection00:08:29
rights to shares shares and Sergei00:08:31
Vasilyevich got the topic that was00:08:33
indicated medication shares in the charter00:08:36
capital of the border company00:08:37
responsibility clause agreed came out00:08:38
to the podium and said I just wanted to00:08:40
Let me tell you right away that there was a lot of thought on this topic00:08:43
I didn’t give this topic to me and I don’t think that00:08:46
share in the authorized capital of the company00:08:48
limited liability is possible00:08:49
wind it that's why I wanted too00:08:52
draw your attention to the fact that this is exactly00:08:54
the problem of which I say they are still00:08:56
do not quite naturally fit into00:08:59
the topic of protection of property rights and so on, but00:09:03
nevertheless you know it seems to me that00:09:04
today this happened to us in recent times00:09:06
years so peculiar00:09:10
unique development of our institutions00:09:12
when on this such an old ancient00:09:14
tree of reclaiming property from someone else's00:09:17
illegal possession appeared and searched00:09:20
such side branches and like these00:09:23
lateral00:09:24
or it’s not enough to develop further00:09:26
It’s hard to say, but by the way I don’t rule out that00:09:28
they will have a very significant impact on00:09:30
general formation of the main trunk00:09:32
main00:09:34
ways to protect property rights such as00:09:37
reclaiming property from someone else's00:09:38
illegal possession00:09:39
what is this testament, I’ll start from the first branch00:09:42
a branch that was once called ours00:09:45
in the practice of the Supreme Arbitration Court as00:09:48
application to requirement00:09:52
associated with the return of shares from someone else's00:09:55
illegal possession00:09:56
the requirements of which the boat was thrust as00:09:58
tribune of vindication character highest00:10:01
the arbitration court is so neat00:10:02
said didn't say something medication00:10:04
the tribune will decide the vindication character00:10:06
do you really remember that00:10:08
There has been a discussion for quite some time about the fact that00:10:10
can this be called vindication or not?00:10:13
and within the framework of the concept00:10:14
improving civil00:10:15
legislation00:10:16
we had the main idea00:10:19
it was proposed to formulate this00:10:21
your own way of protecting the rights to00:10:24
shares as one of the varieties00:10:27
book-entry securities are real00:10:29
both for uncertificated securities and00:10:31
here are the corresponding ones exactly how00:10:33
independent way to protect rights to00:10:37
uncertificated securities including00:10:39
number of shares corresponding provision00:10:42
was included in the civil rules00:10:43
Code, paragraph 3, chapter 7, article 149.00:10:47
3 and I must say that absolutely00:10:50
it is obvious that the legislator from the works and00:10:52
the developers wanted the maximum00:10:54
distance yourself from the vindication claim00:10:57
reclaiming property from someone else's00:10:59
illegal possession up to the point that00:11:01
if you look at palmyra rule 200:11:03
certificated securities00:11:05
it says right there that at the degree00:11:06
certificated securities from someone else00:11:08
illegal possession00:11:10
the rules of the civil code apply00:11:12
on reclaiming property from someone else's00:11:14
illegal possession, taking into account those00:11:16
features that are installed for00:11:17
securities, but in the rules of Article 14900:11:21
. 3rd undocumented son of a magician nothing00:11:23
nothing like that is said on the contrary00:11:25
the legislator even tried to move away00:11:27
moving away from terminology is not always00:11:30
consistent with the same Article 14900:11:33
. 3 he talks about it as a demand for00:11:36
return of uncertificated securities00:11:39
and calls it further no return00:11:42
any uncertificated securities00:11:44
and wrongfully written off and I immediately wanted00:11:49
I would say that this is an attempt00:11:52
move away from as much as possible00:11:56
terminology00:11:59
adopted in the civil code for claims00:12:02
about vindication00:12:03
from my point of view it turned out very00:12:05
successful for some reasons but pen00:12:07
the legislator is not entirely consistent00:12:09
because the next article is called00:12:11
its consequences with the requirements00:12:13
uncertificated securities, that is, by00:12:15
its soft essence goes precisely to00:12:17
terminology that we all understand and00:12:21
clearly the second one, for example, he uses00:12:25
term bona fide purchaser00:12:27
uncertificated securities term00:12:29
which quite obviously borrows00:12:31
from the design on the vindication of property from00:12:36
someone else's illegal possession00:12:38
from my point of view, problems even in00:12:41
understanding of this method of protection today00:12:43
a little more complicated but I'll stop there00:12:46
several moments00:12:47
companies and what is illegal00:12:49
written-off uncertificated securities00:12:52
what meaning did the legislator put into this00:12:55
this is the appropriate term I would say00:12:58
so we are still quite clear00:13:01
understood even when the arbitration court was higher00:13:03
spoke about applying requirements to shares00:13:06
we understood the vindication nature00:13:08
that it is based on qualifications00:13:10
illegal absence of legal00:13:13
grounds for obtaining appropriate00:13:16
property including shares00:13:18
uncertificated securities here00:13:21
the accent in the word is wrongfully copied00:13:23
notice actually moves away from00:13:24
assessment of the issue of grounds there were grounds00:13:28
there was no legal basis00:13:29
It is illegal for those who are engaged to take00:13:32
from a point of view deals with corporate law00:13:34
and deals with undocumented cent to mom00:13:36
the emphasis of the cicadas is rather on something else00:13:38
there were violations during write-off00:13:41
relevant papers from the account or not I00:13:45
I don’t know to what extent in the future00:13:47
practice will go the way after all00:13:49
maximum possible interpretation00:13:51
the term is wrongfully copied precisely from00:13:54
taking into account the fact that not every illegal00:13:57
write-off00:13:58
gives the right to demand a refund00:14:00
corresponding magician but were violated00:14:02
some rules are the same00:14:04
registrar or depository at00:14:06
carrying out account transactions on00:14:08
basis for00:14:09
corresponding operations are the same00:14:11
civil transaction absolutely00:14:12
the transfer order was legal00:14:15
Absolutely legal, the emphasis here is somewhat00:14:18
the other is possible after all really00:14:20
it would be more correct to link here00:14:24
both concepts are as close as possible00:14:26
illegal write-off and absence00:14:29
legal basis for acquisition00:14:33
relevant relevant00:14:35
uncertificated securities but I'm up00:14:37
here is another danger for00:14:39
there will be a sign here00:14:41
equality then I'm quite obvious00:14:42
I imagine there will be problems too00:14:44
registrars and depository according to that00:14:47
simple reason that they never00:14:48
are not responsible for checking the legality00:14:50
reasons for them it is very important that00:14:53
their write-off and operations that are not00:14:56
carry out the count corresponded to those00:14:58
we demand which are presented from the point00:15:01
view of the current rules of the market law00:15:04
securities from the point of view of the regulation on00:15:05
procedure for maintaining the register of owners00:15:06
registered securities00:15:08
the depository accounting position is different and00:15:10
there won't be a very big danger00:15:12
if there is an equal sign00:15:14
any write-off where was missing00:15:17
legal basis as00:15:18
civil transaction for00:15:20
corresponding to the scripture should00:15:21
be considered unlawful00:15:23
there will be a summer of reasons to attract to00:15:25
responsibility for conducting00:15:27
corresponding operations therefore it00:15:29
the first question is obvious here00:15:31
a second question will arise which00:15:33
I also think this comes up here00:15:35
question related to good faith00:15:37
the buyer that he is in good faith00:15:39
the acquirer is again in the traditional00:15:41
understanding that this was purchased in good faith00:15:42
who did not know and could not know about00:15:45
sludge acquire property street which00:15:47
has no right to dispose of it but00:15:50
since my rules are sati 149.00:15:53
three friends and ska designs in general00:15:56
the issue of illegal write-off has been raised00:15:59
the basis of the corresponding bowl should not00:16:01
whether the design is appropriate00:16:03
bona fide purchaser in the past00:16:05
generally considered therefore as00:16:07
person who knew or should have known00:16:09
about violations committed during00:16:12
corresponding write-offs00:16:14
book-entry securities are not an issue00:16:16
because it knew or should have00:16:17
know what property is being acquired00:16:20
street that didn't have00:16:21
the right to dispose, namely the emphasis on00:16:24
lack of integrity00:16:26
in relation to knowledge or ignorance00:16:28
about violations in the relevant00:16:30
write-offs therefore the wording itself is here00:16:32
this design today is just for00:16:35
I'm quite obviously having a problem00:16:37
about where and how relevant this is00:16:40
here is a branch grafted onto the tree00:16:43
claims for recovery of property from someone else's00:16:46
illegal possession will feed00:16:48
these common juices00:16:50
and where is it practically called?00:16:51
will send out its own roots00:16:53
will develop independently and in00:16:55
after all, the connection that exists today00:16:57
in general, what is called will disappear, we will00:17:00
have absolutely yourself00:17:01
developing institution for the protection of rights to00:17:04
uncertificated securities00:17:06
but I would like to stop at00:17:08
a few more questions00:17:11
problems associated with this claim00:17:15
Let's formulate Article 149. 3 all about that00:17:18
What are the methods of protection for this?00:17:20
the legislator established several00:17:21
really very important and00:17:23
fundamental features which00:17:26
possible impact on development and clean00:17:29
vindication claim about well, I'll remind you00:17:31
what about the requirements for00:17:33
return of uncertificated securities00:17:35
in accordance with civil rules00:17:36
code can naturally not be demanded00:17:39
the same papers and the same quantity00:17:43
of the relevant securities we have decided00:17:46
problem by establishing the appropriate00:17:47
rules for trying to track where it is00:17:50
exactly those papers are undocumented00:17:52
which were debited from my account second00:17:55
a position which is also very00:17:57
important is the position that00:17:58
establish that in principle if the papers00:18:02
which were wrongfully written off were00:18:03
converted into other securities then00:18:05
I can demand the return of those papers as well00:18:08
which my papers were converted00:18:10
and finally the third rule from my point of view00:18:13
vision00:18:14
definitely of great importance00:18:16
especially for corporate relations it is00:18:18
the right granted to the participant who00:18:21
of requires the return of the corresponding00:18:24
papers certifying the right to participate in00:18:27
corresponding civil law00:18:30
reported to apply to us this first00:18:31
turn from mother I'm talking about stocks he00:18:33
has the right to file a claim to contest00:18:35
decisions made by meetings00:18:39
relevant legal entity with00:18:41
participation of an unauthorized person until00:18:43
the legislator establishes enough00:18:45
clear restrictions short period of claim00:18:48
3 months ago from the moment we found out00:18:50
about illegal write-off00:18:51
more than 1 year from the date of paper00:18:54
when the corresponding00:18:55
decision subject to your vote00:18:58
could in general affect00:19:00
relevant decision of the meeting00:19:02
but one more thing, provided that00:19:06
relevant companies or participant00:19:09
society which determined00:19:12
the corresponding votes knew or00:19:14
should have known about the existence of a dispute00:19:16
I don’t appreciate the complexity of the situation right now00:19:18
our poor joint stock company00:19:21
who knows that there is a dispute about the rights to00:19:24
paper on shares with a claim for return00:19:29
relevant papers and he needs00:19:31
hold a meeting of shareholders what does he need00:19:33
this situation to do him carry out00:19:35
don't hold meetings because he is there00:19:37
he can't call the one who00:19:39
filed a lawsuit, he must call the one who00:19:41
formally is a shareholder but then00:19:43
he puts suspended what is appropriate00:19:46
decisions can be made in the future00:19:47
not really recognized but that's what00:19:50
called about me guliya doesn't appreciate and I00:19:52
I’m only talking about designs, but these00:19:54
features that have been identified as the cause00:19:57
I emphasize them what is being staged today00:19:59
one very important problem all this00:20:02
formulated in relation to00:20:04
uncertificated securities in the chapter00:20:06
the seventh in paragraph three essentially00:20:09
theirs in relation to the latter00:20:10
features apply to claws but with us00:20:13
after all, there is another corporate asset00:20:16
this is a share in the authorized capital of a company with00:20:18
limited liability for00:20:20
which is nothing like it today00:20:23
legislation is not established in our country00:20:25
there are rules in article 21, paragraph 17 of the law00:20:29
about limited society00:20:30
responsibility00:20:31
which at one time at the end of 200800:20:34
was included by federal law regulations00:20:36
fence in the law on society with00:20:37
limited liability company which00:20:39
installed some analogue00:20:42
protection of the right to a share in the authorized capital00:20:45
just following what I said00:20:47
Sergey Vasilyev Sarbash it is impossible00:20:48
ventilate the share in the authorized capital00:20:50
which was named as a claim for recognition00:20:52
rights to a share in the authorized capital00:20:54
limited liability company claim00:20:57
and the design is almost impossible00:21:00
to say that it’s a carbon copy, but in00:21:01
basically made according to the model of Article 30200:21:05
civil code and accordingly00:21:08
nothing what is stated in00:21:10
rules of article 149. 3 civilians00:21:14
code in these articles in this article in00:21:17
these provisions do not exist accordingly00:21:19
Today the question arises especially00:21:21
taking into account the proximity purely00:21:23
corporate structure not public00:21:26
joint stock company which we rule00:21:28
which we are talking about Article 149. 300:21:31
Limited companies also apply00:21:33
responsibility00:21:35
Shouldn't the rules be set in00:21:38
chapter seven in paragraph three00:21:40
apply by analogy to shares in00:21:43
authorized capital of the company with00:21:45
limited liability00:21:46
I'll tell you frankly from my point of view00:21:48
there is one very big problem here00:21:50
due to the fact that in resolving the issue of00:21:54
application of any rule of law on00:21:56
analogies to the legislator, or rather even00:21:59
the law enforcement officer is required to respond to00:22:01
one question that I have to answer for myself00:22:02
today in a huge number of cases00:22:04
I can’t answer unequivocally, but what if00:22:08
gap in the law because we still have00:22:10
time to get to the problem00:22:12
identifying a breach of the law except under00:22:16
some criteria according to some principles00:22:18
according to some basics and the beginning in essence00:22:21
no one addresses this problem00:22:24
that the lack of appropriate00:22:26
institutions is a conscious position00:22:28
legislator00:22:30
or this is really a gap no matter what00:22:32
paradoxically, today we do not yet have00:22:34
the law on common law also changed00:22:35
limited liability00:22:36
I’m rather ready to say for myself that00:22:39
we have a gap and that's why if we00:22:42
Let's look at all the same rules00:22:44
civil code regulating00:22:46
relevant00:22:48
putting the establishing position and for00:22:51
shares for uncertificated securities00:22:54
and then we will have to do for ourselves00:22:56
one very important conclusion00:22:58
let's frankly say that shares in00:23:00
authorized capital of the company with00:23:01
limited liability as an object00:23:03
civil circulation today00:23:04
there is no truly civil code00:23:06
regulated where our share is mentioned00:23:09
mentioned in objects00:23:12
there is a rule and a share in the authorized capital00:23:14
sent very00:23:15
to narrow but in the rules about society with00:23:19
limited liability00:23:20
there are several rules that we have00:23:22
established in the norms of the civil code00:23:24
about a pledge in case of pledge of a share00:23:26
but globally shares and features00:23:29
essentially their shares in the charter00:23:32
capital as a civil object00:23:34
there is no turnover therefore in essence00:23:37
Today VGK struck, it regulates00:23:40
only one thing he regulates in chapter 700:23:42
only securities00:23:44
he can't in chapter seven was couldn't00:23:47
include the rule and share in the charter00:23:49
capital of a limited company00:23:50
responsibility that's why I'm not today00:23:52
except that in essence00:23:56
practice may appear when00:23:58
in relation to the rules we formulate00:24:01
articles in paragraph 21, paragraph 17 of the search confession00:24:04
rights to share00:24:05
those designs will be used00:24:07
which are laid down in Article 149. 3 in the first00:24:12
queue world the possibility of challenging the same00:24:14
decisions of meetings in society with00:24:15
limited liability00:24:17
if I file a claim for recognition of the right to00:24:19
share in the authorized capital when00:24:22
relevant decisions were made in00:24:24
community with disabilities00:24:25
responsibility for participation in meetings is not00:24:28
authorized participant00:24:30
when in essence if I have the share00:24:33
turned into due to the fact that I have00:24:35
happened when organizing a limited company00:24:37
responsibility in no one else essentially00:24:40
their share in another society why in00:24:42
I can’t do this situation either00:24:44
corresponding to this other share in this00:24:46
regarding the other share, file a claim about00:24:48
recognition of the right at the same time I00:24:51
deliberately emphasizes this simply00:24:54
there is a problem before there is a problem today00:24:56
but there is one more point connected00:24:59
from another one here, this 3rd branch00:25:02
which today is both responsible and in00:25:05
tree of claims for vindication of property from00:25:07
someone else's illegal possession00:25:08
this is the rule that is formulated00:25:11
Article 65. 2 civil codes00:25:13
usually I watch from mai tai from mine00:25:16
again points of view00:25:17
this is what was formulated and00:25:19
included in the corresponding article00:25:21
solely to00:25:23
legislate one legal00:25:27
a position that I developed over time00:25:29
Superior Court of Arbitration00:25:30
when in July 2008 in two cases00:25:34
the Supreme Arbitration Court is considering00:25:35
dela said that such a claim as00:25:39
claim restoration of corporate00:25:41
control or how close recovery is00:25:43
the situation that existed before the violation00:25:46
Let me remind you that these two things are00:25:49
were in July '8 they were both00:25:55
cases related to shares in the charter00:25:57
capital of a limited company00:25:58
responsibility00:25:59
I will remind you to a certain extent the problem00:26:02
including senior positions00:26:04
arbitration court was due to the fact00:26:06
that by that time in the law on society00:26:09
limited liability none00:26:11
claim for recognition of the right to a share of it00:26:13
didn't exist at all remember you00:26:15
said that the relevant rules were00:26:17
included in the law on general limited00:26:19
responsibility00:26:20
at the end of 2008, by the way, I should00:26:24
say that this is mine anyway00:26:26
analysis shows00:26:27
that the claim is widespread00:26:29
restoration of the existing situation00:26:31
prior to breach or corporate control00:26:33
we didn’t receive it, but there were rules about00:26:37
claim for recognition of the right to a share in00:26:40
limited liability company00:26:42
and now there is another rule00:26:44
Article 65. 2 in which it is established that00:26:47
if a person is a participant in the corporation was deprived00:26:51
as a result of the actions of illegal third parties00:26:54
persons the right to a share in the authorized capital00:26:56
sorry just the right to a share00:26:58
corresponding to the corporation it has00:27:00
right to claim refund or recognition00:27:02
the right of the corresponding share is or00:27:06
no corresponding design is the norm00:27:09
which is exactly00:27:10
legalize this method of protection and00:27:12
how and where the relevant rules should00:27:15
apply, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that00:27:17
in this norm it begins with the same words00:27:20
unless otherwise provided herein00:27:22
the code from my point of view is00:27:25
the formulation basically excludes00:27:27
opportunity directly00:27:28
not the rules of Article 65. 2 for shareholders00:27:33
companies because for joint stock00:27:35
societies paragraph 3 chapter 700:27:37
formulated your own00:27:39
individual method of protection about which00:27:42
we basically talked about this00:27:45
the rule is valid from this point00:27:47
vision may work for others00:27:49
corporations for which there is no00:27:52
method of protection00:27:53
or it can actually work in00:27:55
as no one in the executive capacity00:27:57
mechanism for general with limited00:28:00
responsibility because for them00:28:01
no special rules for recognition00:28:04
rights to share in the civil code are not00:28:05
exists except for one00:28:08
There are also situations in the civil code00:28:11
one rule the rules are very peculiar00:28:13
very difficult and very difficult00:28:16
way to protect violated rights is00:28:18
recognition of commercial reorganization00:28:20
failed corporation00:28:22
I hope you also noticed that00:28:24
one of the consequences of the corresponding00:28:26
satisfaction of recognition requirements00:28:28
corporate reorganization failed00:28:31
is what is called recovery00:28:33
all destroyed legal entities and00:28:35
liquidation of all created00:28:36
and accordingly the question arises about00:28:39
return options00:28:41
revived corporation participants00:28:45
for born corporations corresponding00:28:47
shares in these revived corporations with00:28:50
in my opinion these are the rules00:28:52
civil code is formulated as follows00:28:54
image and in it is just a reference to the point00:28:56
3 Article 65 2.2.2 when exactly through00:29:00
this lawsuit00:29:01
in our case this is essentially what happens when00:29:05
recognition of the reorganization as failed00:29:07
commercial corporation failed00:29:09
restoration of rights to a share in these00:29:12
commercial corporations apparently00:29:14
corresponding design will be00:29:15
used when we revive and00:29:17
corporations we will have00:29:19
joint stock company is just different00:29:21
We don’t have a mechanism in this situation00:29:23
it turns out that in this regard I’m just in00:29:25
conclusion I would like to say please note00:29:27
attention to how much they turn out today00:29:29
intertwined00:29:30
norms are purely in their essence protection from00:29:34
ways to protect the rights to certain00:29:37
objects of civil circulation including00:29:39
from00:29:40
volumes associated with corporate00:29:42
relationships are afraid to find this problem00:29:44
bribes attempts to unravel this tangle00:29:48
a problem that will continue for a very long time00:29:50
years to disturb the minds and participants00:29:53
civil turnover and law enforcement00:29:55
and perhaps also the legislator, so here's about00:29:58
what I wanted00:29:59
what to pay your attention to00:30:00
in relation to the topic that I was00:30:03
delivered I put everything in my hopes thank you thank you00:30:06
great social I'm home at 5000:30:10
percent you atoned for your guilt for that with00:30:12
at that time the article was submitted to the collection this00:30:14
and what I wanted to write00:30:15
people will know by using it00:30:21
by chance, if the president can00:30:23
I'll ask a question, I don't promise to give an answer00:30:27
here is an illegal write-off close to me00:30:30
let's just touch a nerve00:30:32
let's imagine that the director00:30:33
a legal entity alienates shares00:30:37
which belong to this legal entity00:30:39
person on another person's shares and this00:30:43
alienation falls under the signs00:30:44
major transaction and the director does not approve00:30:47
takes, however, the shares are written off and00:30:52
are credited to the buyer's account first00:30:54
buyer00:30:55
naturally they continue to sell00:30:57
already have 2 here's how you think00:30:59
this is the first deal completed00:31:02
director without approval if she00:31:05
will be declared invalid by the court?00:31:08
this is illegal especially the length I can00:31:10
tell my point of view today00:31:12
in relation to the order00:31:14
carrying out transactions on accounts00:31:17
if that's how we understand the term00:31:18
no illegal write-offs00:31:20
there will be no unlawful write-off, but00:31:25
you can choose if it was fake00:31:27
if the director doesn’t sell again then00:31:29
you have more question and I have00:31:31
there is a certain amount of responsibility00:31:36
registrars or depository check00:31:39
relevant reliable00:31:40
corresponding signatures or not, but00:31:45
the necessary situation is more than clear00:31:47
placed in a position of superior00:31:48
arbitration court00:31:49
Do you remember what is in the information letter00:31:51
just in time00:31:53
scientist review of review practice00:31:56
disputes related to property claims00:31:59
from someone else's illegal possession00:32:00
formulated long enough00:32:02
discussed00:32:03
I understand that not everyone is sure00:32:05
We support the position that if00:32:09
the relevant property was converted00:32:12
recovery based on a court decision00:32:14
the property was seized on the basis00:32:17
court decisions and then this court decision00:32:20
the person you are was canceled00:32:22
the property was seized may it00:32:24
claim because it is believed that00:32:27
the legal basis was canceled and00:32:29
the property was00:32:30
from possession against one's will such would like00:32:33
say that if the organ that leads00:32:35
register of corresponding owners00:32:37
registered securities00:32:38
registrar or depository executing00:32:41
court decisions that have entered into legal force00:32:44
performing00:32:45
court order00:32:47
the bailiff will carry out the operations00:32:49
according to accounts00:32:50
then he strictly speaks absolutely lawfully and00:32:52
write-off question I also say from the point00:32:55
view of the rules of the civil code on00:32:57
vindication from the point of view of passion 149 300:33:00
it is presented in different aspects00:33:02
in one question the availability of appropriate00:33:05
basis for acquiring the right to00:33:08
Another question is the action of signing papers00:33:11
I emphasize again00:33:12
we have a dream world and anybody's holder00:33:15
The depositary is not only not obliged00:33:17
they do not check the legality of the grounds00:33:19
have rights they are equal and because they00:33:23
who maintains the register those who maintain securities accounts00:33:25
these are ordinary participants in civil society00:33:28
turnover has no right to interfere and00:33:30
determine your transaction is legal or00:33:32
illegal, I understand correctly that you are00:33:34
This is not an illegal write-off for you00:33:37
what he should have seen00:33:38
registrar today in this heat taxes00:33:41
yes from my point of view the exit is here00:33:44
rather, this is an attempt to make the most of it00:33:47
bring together that this is another term and this00:33:50
something else this is a friend another concept is not that00:33:53
which is formally nested in this in00:33:55
it's embedded in these words before00:33:58
did you mean to write Spartak or did you accidentally00:34:02
Can I have someone answer this?00:34:04
question you know how it was wanted how00:34:07
everything turned out better as always00:34:09
look at the point of view maybe00:34:10
I didn’t have to leave to find one like this00:34:12
purity shines and strange what to be00:34:14
the problem was also within00:34:16
development of the concept, everyone told us not00:34:19
maybe vindication doesn’t need the term00:34:22
let's use yours at all00:34:24
own way it turns out00:34:26
creation of new00:34:27
sometimes creates difficulties for which00:34:30
basically no one wanted to push00:34:32
participants in civil circulation00:34:34
so what can you do thank you all00:34:38
it was great to see everyone00:34:41
Alexandra Alexandrovna huge00:34:42
thank you 2 speaker mikhail tserkovnikov00:34:49
while Mikhail takes his place I00:34:51
Still, I draw the attention of the authors of the book00:34:54
what is the number of people willing to receive00:34:57
autographs were still enough00:34:59
large and therefore in parallel it is possible00:35:01
listen to the report and go there00:35:04
stand there quietly and listen to everything00:35:06
listens ok I already tried this00:35:08
please do this Mikhail Alexander00:35:10
thank you hello here you go00:35:13
really such a nice audience00:35:15
a nice reason to discuss00:35:17
a number of interesting problems and truth and00:35:20
How's Sansa on I'm a little off topic00:35:23
the although I will talk about obligations00:35:24
and indecent rights but nevertheless up to00:35:27
swiss for the most part almost always with00:35:30
situation of communication with a satisfied00:35:32
vindication but just to smoothly00:35:34
move on to this responsibility for00:35:36
I would like to say something about the action00:35:39
this is what was not written in the code00:35:40
This is what judicial practice has shown00:35:43
this needs to be done00:35:44
this situation is when the seller with his00:35:47
own actions before00:35:49
inscription on the register entry made00:35:52
begins to count with society, that is00:35:55
he sells shares somehow00:35:57
the transmission itself slows down00:35:59
mechanism date you want if we call it00:36:01
administrative transaction from a00:36:03
and at this time accordingly reduces00:36:06
value of the company's property00:36:08
gives guarantee on behalf of the company00:36:09
pledge and and so on and it was like this00:36:12
practice is very harmful when new00:36:14
nothing further for the buyer to dispute00:36:16
didn't give this is not very correct at all and well00:36:18
by and large, probably the rules themselves00:36:20
purchases and sales and probably up to 6 1000:36:23
allow us to get out of this situation00:36:25
communication would be bad so that not only00:36:27
show it in relation to stocks and in general00:36:28
in relation to our entire Russian00:36:32
when buying and selling there was a special00:36:34
standard of guarantee against one's own actions00:36:35
everything from the moment the contract is concluded00:36:37
the seller was really right it was00:36:40
it is clear that he abstains from00:36:41
further actions to worsen00:36:44
quality of this thing and should00:36:46
according to the contract to bear00:36:47
responsibility and why about it00:36:50
now I started talking and just eating00:36:52
legal traditions in which00:36:54
part will be liability00:36:55
the simple century will declare itself00:36:57
actions when he himself00:36:59
actions here cause some00:37:01
problems we have tried this through00:37:03
quality to explain but you know the good ones00:37:05
such a thing, but the quality of the stock00:37:07
especially, respectively, undocumented00:37:10
who have only one for the summit00:37:11
the only quality is their quantity00:37:13
there's nothing else so of course00:37:15
responsibility for the quality that00:37:17
special which implies00:37:18
the possibility of eliminating deficiencies00:37:20
This is completely out of place00:37:22
and to the place something different from the features of another00:37:24
no in the code there is only a general principle00:37:26
conscientiousness and probably general stuff there00:37:29
and all this is probably right probably00:37:32
it is necessary to develop the matter from this point of view00:37:34
Well, I’ll talk about volume00:37:36
responsibility for the fiction of normal00:37:39
the sense of the word in the sense in which it is in the code00:37:40
yes in that sense in the sense of Article 460 100:37:44
when a third party comes to the buyer00:37:50
and, accordingly, either completely selects00:37:52
from the purchased goods there are the same promotions00:37:54
real estate object00:37:55
well, or somehow seriously interferes00:37:59
use yes there an easement appears00:38:01
some kind of unexpectedly although with when and00:38:05
a system like a registry it shouldn't be00:38:07
but as we understand there is an exception for00:38:10
these situations00:38:11
pledge and so on and so on a lot00:38:13
all sorts of interesting things can happen here00:38:16
to the point that there is some00:38:18
rent for00:38:19
11 months will appear at a penny price and00:38:22
the so-called partial fiction is all00:38:24
will be carried out what to do in00:38:26
this situation, but the most striking example about00:38:29
which we always say yes it is00:38:31
buying and selling someone else's property, strictly speaking00:38:33
Konstantin is only the most important authors who00:38:37
wrote about this, so we understand that in00:38:41
in principle, yes, the topic itself is stated as such00:38:44
up to the extent of the seller's liability00:38:46
it was envy itself00:38:48
We haven't seen responsibility for many years00:38:50
that 451 articles worked, that’s many00:38:54
years all this happened through well00:38:57
at best through one-way00:38:58
restitution, that is, they are taking away from me00:39:01
purchased property00:39:02
I go to my seller and say return it00:39:05
price on what basis but there00:39:07
reasons that someone else I sold the person00:39:09
you can't sell the deal is insignificant00:39:11
the truth is further problem00:39:13
and why joy one-sided00:39:15
there must be restitution but nevertheless00:39:17
This is how judicial practice went00:39:18
way that well, they returned the price and that’s it00:39:21
from the point of view of return prices, well, even here00:39:24
then there, despite the explanation that00:39:27
yes, in principle we probably could00:39:30
precisely through this kind of restitution00:39:34
through this very invalidity00:39:35
explain why the price should be returned from00:39:38
point of view there would be no problem but00:39:40
Naturally, it’s not just the question of price00:39:42
here is a very striking example of the case00:39:46
specific ones a few years ago00:39:47
Moscow courts considered00:39:49
about the building on Kryzhanovsky Street for 6000:39:55
million the building was sold when00:39:57
Moscow city third party00:39:59
this building is infected, it's already standing00:40:01
120 million naturally00:40:05
even if these 60 million are returned to me00:40:07
I won’t be able to buy such a building and00:40:10
it turns out that there is this risk of rising prices00:40:13
yes, with this approach00:40:15
lies on me what is good in this and00:40:18
actually Moscow courts from this00:40:21
In my opinion this is absolutely true00:40:23
they went exactly according to the letter of the law00:40:26
according to fiction, unilateral restitution and00:40:29
recovered damages as written in 460 100:40:32
articles so they recovered all 120 million here00:40:36
we will discuss the issue of rising prices at00:40:39
it just shows how old it is00:40:41
she didn't cover this question00:40:43
absolutely because everything is much00:40:45
more serious and actually 461 yes as a defiance00:40:50
old solution to return this price through00:40:53
she earned restitution, that is, this00:40:55
so I can watch the last two00:40:56
years all practice is moreover00:40:58
just a month ago the Supreme Court00:41:01
made this decision, that's where it was right00:41:04
it is said that this is not restitution, he is on and00:41:06
requirement this requirement is based on00:41:08
460 1 articles00:41:10
but in relation to the limitation period00:41:11
because the statute of limitations is different00:41:13
considered here and there in very unpleasant00:41:16
the buyer turned out to be in a situation because00:41:18
when he went to the seller and the seller00:41:20
said so from the moment of imprisonment saved00:41:22
from the start of the transaction execution they missed 300:41:24
yo, goodbye, don't return auntie00:41:26
I won’t, but they recovered through losses00:41:28
ok now it’s not so empty in general00:41:32
the topic is up and running and apparently we need00:41:34
I still have to figure out what I have to do00:41:37
I will compensate the seller in such a situation00:41:40
I consciously do not touch the problem of guilt00:41:42
I think of course this responsibility is without00:41:44
guilty but give the question separately here00:41:46
precisely from the point of view of the fact that he00:41:48
compensates in such in such case on00:41:51
whose point of view is the return price00:41:54
very progressive opinion00:41:57
Russian scientists that it’s still a return00:41:59
prices are not described by the concept of losses 46000:42:02
1 article that this occurs termination00:42:04
contract and the price is returned according to the rules00:42:07
and not construction enrichment but to00:42:09
Unfortunately, now even in our code00:42:10
Apparently it will be written that we have00:42:12
termination of the contract of obligation is not00:42:13
stop for repayment well in good conscience and00:42:15
Let's leave those who wrote here, but of course00:42:18
say that he is responsible for evic tion00:42:20
it’s not fundamental, but it’s not from the look00:42:23
that this situation is his part of this one00:42:26
actually most of this00:42:27
compensation that will be awarded in00:42:30
the benefit of the buyer from the seller is00:42:32
unjust enrichment with00:42:34
termination of the contract00:42:35
well it just means you were born there00:42:39
relatively speaking, today and nothing before00:42:41
it wasn’t natural, as I understand it00:42:43
not institutions of contract termination00:42:45
there was no unjust enrichment00:42:47
when there was no general indication00:42:50
was responsible for the century and00:42:52
she had enough about modern00:42:53
form because at some stage00:42:57
Roman rice about the end on the charter00:43:00
correct and speaking as an integral part00:43:02
the purchase and sale agreement is inseparable00:43:05
it was clinging to this before more than that00:43:07
show00:43:08
and legal historians the very phenomenon before this00:43:12
responsibility for centuries it was inherent00:43:14
almost anyone in the slightest degree and there00:43:19
having at least some idea about00:43:21
the right of the people is another matter in what it is00:43:23
will formalize in what form it existed but00:43:25
it never occurred to anyone to say00:43:28
after all, it’s not fundamentally richer00:43:29
applications of contracts the most important thing is00:43:32
the law is fundamentally against laws00:43:35
establishes special rules00:43:37
compensation for damages therefore probably00:43:39
through it you have to work, they apply00:43:41
these subsidiary rules about unfounded00:43:43
enrichment, otherwise we don’t know00:43:45
the rich have really taken over everything00:43:47
just us article 10 unfounded00:43:49
enrichment is our main tools00:43:51
As it turned out, the thick code in general00:43:54
there’s a lot more written there but it’s of no use to anyone00:43:55
interesting, of course this means bad00:43:59
so in terms of return price on00:44:02
in my picture of the world, of course it is00:44:03
component of such losses00:44:05
there is a problem there is a problem00:44:07
the price may go down, that's why00:44:10
daily about these 120 million and00:44:12
vice versa00:44:13
the building could have cost 120 left.00:44:16
well, or in modern conditions, by the way00:44:19
speaking currency, this is the risk because00:44:21
that there is real estate in Moscow almost00:44:23
fell in price twice in dollar terms00:44:24
equivalently, this is a good question and is it really00:44:29
only price up to00:44:30
in such a situation it is necessary to return and00:44:32
supporters actually say00:44:33
they insist on unjust enrichment00:44:35
exactly 1 is what they say if it downloads00:44:37
losses then only what I paid and00:44:40
all because the risk of this is a decrease00:44:44
it turns out it's on you but it's some kind of00:44:46
very misunderstanding of losses00:44:48
because in general it is faulty00:44:50
the side that, well, first of all should00:44:53
free from the rights of third parties to transfer00:44:54
That's how the law says nothing is allowed00:44:56
what to do secondly actually00:44:58
answer case vicks and00:45:01
fiction happened must be answered00:45:04
Why is it fun to risk things getting cheaper?00:45:06
should fall on the buyer naturally00:45:09
his loss and his recovery wire00:45:13
will consist in what he needs00:45:16
to return what he lost as if00:45:19
there was no agreement, several more concepts00:45:21
Yes, how to calculate these losses in principle?00:45:24
losses yes there is an approach that is possible00:45:28
count as if there were no violations00:45:29
it was and the contract was fulfilled and there is00:45:31
the approach is to calculate as if it were a contract00:45:33
it wasn't from this point of view of course it was00:45:35
very similar to such restitution00:45:37
approach but nevertheless in my opinion00:45:40
even from the point of view this is unprofitable00:45:42
component there are no problems to say00:45:45
that the price must always be returned if we00:45:47
Let's turn to foreign experience, but here I am00:45:49
I can again say yes about France that00:45:51
there of course it is discussed through losses00:45:53
but it doesn’t occur to anyone not to bet00:45:56
for enrichment or some other00:45:58
something else here but of course return00:46:01
prices are discussed separately and of course they00:46:04
They also hint, did it even happen?00:46:06
really I'm a deal in the sense that00:46:08
the basis then fell, here is the basis for the payment00:46:11
there was this thing and the payment in general00:46:13
indispensable00:46:14
in order to pay so you have to return everything00:46:16
but of course the discussion goes through00:46:18
losses and separately00:46:19
just doing division is like that00:46:22
just might lead to creatures to00:46:23
significant practical consequence00:46:25
the rules by which the court operates00:46:27
will have different things00:46:28
he will return the price based on00:46:30
provisions of the law and may refuse the claim00:46:32
object prices and everyone else00:46:33
exact from others and vice versa00:46:35
satisfactory well some stupidity00:46:37
you will get a thrill from this one00:46:39
monolithic component in which00:46:40
really worth the return price00:46:42
Apart from that, this is what concerns the rise in price00:46:46
that's actually what this matter is about00:46:49
was considered by the Moscow courts well00:46:53
in principle, even the current law is directly00:46:57
indeed allows such a conclusion00:46:58
do naturally 451 articles on stingy00:47:01
given00:47:02
on some rules about how and what00:47:04
calculated on and the same general rule yes00:47:06
There is00:47:07
393 the court may00:47:09
damages are calculated at the time of filing the claim00:47:12
as a general rule, yes, but in general based on00:47:15
for getting up and done at the time of adoption00:47:16
solutions here and by the way with this approach00:47:19
we become much taller than some00:47:22
European than those same French where00:47:24
down the street and losses are fixed for the day00:47:26
decision making objects here00:47:31
in general because there is no other rule00:47:32
apparently 393 and then it will turn out like this00:47:36
way from this point of view00:47:37
increase in price it turns out that it is necessary completely00:47:41
compensate the entire amount here00:47:43
transfer all the risk associated with00:47:45
increase in price of the item and of course the seller00:47:50
there, moreover, you can go further00:47:52
in general, to say, in principle, this is the thing00:47:57
when we conduct the phenomenon she said00:47:59
Of course it may become cheaper as a result00:48:01
some of my actions but unintentional00:48:03
you might even think about this00:48:05
science on the seller if he intentionally00:48:07
acted and ruled not strangers knowing about00:48:08
this may be on him yes yes these losses00:48:10
shift but that's a separate conversation00:48:12
here are a few more points about00:48:15
which need to be said are questions00:48:17
related to improvements00:48:18
and questions related to00:48:20
moves from things and here we are just with00:48:22
real rights, as it were, is happening00:48:25
such a key holder personally from a collision00:48:28
because in general there is a 303 article thing00:48:32
will be taken away from the buyer when it00:48:36
will naturally be taken away00:48:37
watch 303 303 also concerns income from00:48:40
things and improvement and while he was00:48:43
in good faith I didn’t know what he was using00:48:45
strangers did not know in secret the possessions of others00:48:47
in general, he doesn’t know anything to anyone00:48:49
reimburses 330 as far as I understand00:48:53
questions arise in principle whether00:48:55
such a situation arises when all the same00:48:57
he will be forced to return the income00:49:00
to the real owner and beyond00:49:02
accordingly shift it to00:49:04
seller and this may be because00:49:08
good faith point of view00:49:10
buyer's rights and discretion00:49:13
you know, remember yes in 451 it’s written in general00:49:16
the seller is responsible for losses if not00:49:18
proves that the buyer knew or should have00:49:20
had the right to know about the vice00:49:22
justification for Gliwice and so this thing00:49:25
up to buyer discretion00:49:27
of course it is not for sale and purchase00:49:28
identical to good faith00:49:30
the acquirer although we have even Russia00:49:33
dissertations defended that this is one and the same00:49:35
yes but it looks very strange00:49:37
when you have a counterparty who has00:49:39
there is a positive duty to00:49:41
guarantee you against such a situation00:49:43
protect and we will apply the rules00:49:45
which generally extend to and00:49:47
relationship with the third one00:49:48
the owner who comes and who00:49:51
only a few people are starting to attack you00:49:52
wrong and of course it can be like this00:49:55
a situation when, from the point of view of a thing00:49:57
rights from the point of view of Article 302 to 30300:50:01
owner acquirer00:50:03
will not be conscientious, but from the point of view00:50:06
responsibility for the action we have this one00:50:09
indiscretion will ignore the most00:50:12
a good example is when the seller00:50:14
a specific fraudster faked everything and you00:50:17
they just didn’t check enough but he told you00:50:20
brought when buying and selling00:50:21
real estate he brought you an extract from00:50:23
the registry there is three days old00:50:25
and at the time of purchase and sale of the same cookies00:50:27
just appeared in the registry and here on00:50:29
at the moment of concluding the transaction you are not00:50:30
looked at the register and this agreement for00:50:33
taught well from the point of view of protecting third parties00:50:38
persons who are on the register may00:50:41
there really needs to be a question about00:50:43
that they are stronger than you00:50:44
from the point of view of your relationship00:50:47
with the seller of such a seller of course you need00:50:49
he has civil rights to punish00:50:51
violate punish on in the sense that00:50:53
losses must therefore be compensated 30300:50:57
This is not an answer to the question but to00:50:59
in most cases it will work but it will00:51:02
a situation where 303 will naturally be00:51:04
the situation will not be enough when income00:51:07
and improvements00:51:08
will go to the owner without any00:51:11
compensation for this there about HIV00:51:14
buyers are infected00:51:16
will collect from the seller00:51:18
Well, that’s probably the end of this one00:51:20
the whole layout, but of course we don’t00:51:22
we can describe all losses there principle00:51:24
full refund at just the most00:51:26
typical cases from and legal expenses because when00:51:31
the vindication process will take place00:51:34
naturally I'll probably attract mine00:51:37
the seller and he will come, but still not00:51:40
less if we are with him this process00:51:42
we lose and he has lawsuits00:51:44
some expenses and I gave them to us00:51:46
no one compensates more than we00:51:49
we will compensate these expenses more accurately00:51:51
leafy them I because in Russian00:51:53
most likely the defendant in the lawsuit00:51:55
will I buy or will he just go00:51:57
face and that's why I'm still in this process00:52:00
I will compensate the real owner for everything00:52:03
his legal fees of course00:52:05
probably fair and according to the letter of the law00:52:08
it is correct to shift all these problems to00:52:10
seller00:52:11
in general the problem would be solved if00:52:14
our procedural legislation is not00:52:16
it was so delicious firstly secondly00:52:18
it’s just that we the institute was developed maybe00:52:20
this is an archaic story maybe it is00:52:22
not correct but so medieval00:52:25
European tradition may, by the way,00:52:28
and not only, but maybe it’s deeper00:52:30
it says that in general the first thing you should00:52:34
do the seller situation when the thing00:52:36
comes to take away from the buyer he must00:52:39
give him protection he must come to00:52:41
process and moreover, it must become00:52:44
buyer's place00:52:46
how to at least offer yours00:52:47
services and in such a situation the buyer00:52:50
says if he wants to do it, where is he?00:52:53
such a thing for you, here he is the seller00:52:55
I'm either from him now the answer is his00:52:58
I'm leaving this process or leaving altogether00:53:01
either I stay but I also remain a plaintiff in00:53:04
this process to him about losses00:53:06
but actually it’s French00:53:08
procedural law she's just like that00:53:09
it is written directly in the procedural code00:53:11
I think it's called procedural00:53:14
procedural incident that's what our00:53:16
procedural science procedural00:53:17
Apparently he doesn’t know the rights at all, so he00:53:21
he has two options or you are afraid00:53:23
process or stay but not in quality00:53:25
defendant as plaintiff in the second00:53:27
claim for damages and there will be a very00:53:30
such a curious thing why not00:53:32
two processes from a partial point of view00:53:34
savings in terms of these issues00:53:36
where is the statute of limitations and what else are you talking about00:53:38
very conveniently the court indicates the thing in00:53:41
the benefit of the original iso and immediately00:53:43
recover damages from the seller in favor of00:53:46
buyer by one and only judicial00:53:48
Well, unfortunately we have this solution00:53:51
no, and we’ll probably have to go through the institute00:53:53
third parties do all this, but then how00:53:56
the question will arise about these very judicial00:53:58
expenses and then according to the claim to the seller00:54:01
Perhaps they can be included in the composition00:54:02
losses, well, these are the most00:54:06
interesting moments that I wanted00:54:08
Of course I'll probably stop for this00:54:10
Well, his future isn't even worth it00:54:13
Let's see how it develops00:54:15
just if the institute itself is00:54:18
work we will face these issues00:54:20
and it will probably be necessary to solve them for now00:54:22
we have learned to apply only in principle00:54:25
461 say what's really there00:54:28
compensate for the loss tell me something00:54:30
statute of limitations for invalidity00:54:32
deal here but here accordingly00:54:34
increase in price of a thing to collect is who00:54:37
why has judicial practice come now?00:54:39
that, in fact, it’s already a breakthrough because00:54:42
what is there in 2001, no one would have thought of this00:54:45
didn't arrive today it's already working but00:54:47
prendes all this will develop further00:54:49
because at least we will00:54:52
somehow become more civilized00:54:55
give our customers normal00:54:58
defense now that we are indicative00:55:00
began to describe in detail, including00:55:02
In essence, the stock indication may be when not00:55:04
we'll live to see that the one who has a friend00:55:06
Windows Ceru this will happen next00:55:08
recover damages there and at the end00:55:11
I want to say maybe on its own00:55:13
the design is incorrect because it00:55:15
involves unwinding the entire chain00:55:19
alienate or until guilty00:55:21
we won't find him, actually because he00:55:24
who was who had a problem in law00:55:26
no one can go further but00:55:29
until they are all not guilty of this chain they00:55:31
they go to each other, but it’s already like00:55:33
such a question of the future, thank you this is ours00:55:40
question now date I also want to ask00:55:43
what do you think is the situation when00:55:47
initiated the property, it’s clear from you00:55:49
The topic of the report was how to understand what00:55:51
volume of losses and so on but not yet00:55:53
Windows was quoted, but let’s say to me too00:55:55
sold some thing and the owner00:55:59
comes and listens, here you have it00:56:01
it turns out that they stole it for me and00:56:03
so on in this situation I can already00:56:05
immediately go to you and present something00:56:07
or must wait for the owner to00:56:09
and he took me away, based on00:56:11
but there are two concepts, not even that00:56:14
neither ours nor our law search concept00:56:16
of our law and Article 460, it doesn’t work00:56:19
does not bind the possibility of presenting00:56:21
already in this situation00:56:23
claim for termination of contract and recovery00:56:25
losses associated with this failure00:56:28
the confiscation has not happened yet, but here it is00:56:31
when someone comes to you and is already asking for00:56:33
back even if I didn’t file a claim here on00:56:35
think because it's possible if you tell him00:56:37
without trial give ATF sulfur Victor00:56:38
happened in the Swedish process00:56:40
recovery of damages we will establish I require not00:56:42
it was legal for a reason and then00:56:44
then accordingly you will earn 451 but00:56:47
naturally we exist like this00:56:49
the pre-German version turns out but not00:56:51
the classic version is article 410 then00:56:54
riding vice and she helped the Cossacks all 400:56:57
we have this thing since before00:56:59
confiscation of things is really possible00:57:00
demand termination and it’s clear why00:57:02
there the termination thing is still with you you00:57:05
come to the seller and tell everything00:57:06
take it give it to me00:57:07
money and we part ways, that’s understandable00:57:11
story and when it was already taken away from you00:57:13
what is being dissolved there is left for only00:57:15
how to shift the calculation to this00:57:18
give money nothing really00:57:20
Swiss yes it is written that termination00:57:24
in case of fiction occurs automatically00:57:26
when the thing was discussed in the contract00:57:28
automatically terminated for this already00:57:29
such deep dogma, in short00:57:32
yes we can we can we can only00:57:36
410 and sky 461 461 about seizure00:57:42
in fact the village was sleeping thread number00:57:44
before invasion 3 before before invasion third00:57:47
faces 460 and after the invasion 461 thanks and00:57:52
in our hall there is a microphone about there00:57:55
far away I forgot to say there is someone from00:57:58
Do you want to ask questions please or00:57:59
is there anyone closer in the first half golden00:58:02
I can from the audience from the microphone the road from00:58:05
yourself if behind then there with a microphone behind00:58:07
on the side please Vladimirsky00:58:11
I have a question for Mikhail00:58:13
the continuation question is actually a question00:58:15
Andrey Vladimirovich are you correct?00:58:18
formulated 406 first in relation to00:58:21
grounds for liability as00:58:23
fiction is understood as the taking away of a thing, after all00:58:25
there may not only be seizures00:58:27
for example, recognition of rights as real00:58:30
owner or will be a point of growth00:58:31
Perry Supreme 100 there's even a confession00:58:32
the right not to get caught up in reality00:58:34
it was simple and even00:58:35
because the right to force another person00:58:37
science was not actually declared00:58:39
the right of a third party and what in this case00:58:41
I have an answer to this question of course00:58:43
there and actually, as I understand it, he00:58:45
the Supreme Court is therefore the decision I00:58:48
Patrick poked my guesses, I don’t know how00:58:50
and higher than everything was meant yes but y00:58:52
I have a suspicion00:58:54
it is not written there in 461 seizure from someone else's00:58:58
illegal possession00:58:59
it says seizure there why is it there00:59:01
the seizure is written not because they had00:59:03
in view of 300 first and because the word is VIX00:59:05
and translated into Russian and what00:59:07
still translate naturally under it under00:59:10
this term refers not only00:59:11
vindication means any intrusion 300:59:14
secret easement00:59:16
but if it's possible it's possible00:59:18
because there was, for example, an easement from00:59:20
register of illegal00:59:21
and then it was restored in the registry through00:59:23
court now a secret easement has appeared00:59:27
nothing Windows Ceru it he walks there00:59:29
at least he walks by the way he doesn’t even sue00:59:31
presented there actually except here00:59:33
this recovery in the registry and also00:59:35
Hidden rental will work00:59:38
unauthorized construction moreover from the point00:59:40
from Cohen's view of the sleepy court this is absolutely00:59:42
correct public law seizure00:59:44
naturally it doesn’t say 461 that00:59:47
sometimes on a legal basis a thing00:59:49
take away any criminal case in00:59:52
regarding the seller00:59:53
the thing was arrested for me, this is the case about00:59:56
helicopters there were helicopters, a man bought them then01:00:00
arrested on the seller's claim so far01:00:02
the helicopters were stored somewhere, they disappeared01:00:06
flew away doesn't matter, that's natural01:00:09
the question arose about compensation and console01:00:13
the court in this case focused specifically on01:00:16
461 articles in my opinion is correct01:00:18
not even a question by the way why the difference01:00:21
why is there 450-460 and this is true at the threshold01:00:25
has the right but 461 from not so much at the threshold they rule01:00:29
really probably growing here01:00:30
from the classics, this is a guarantee calmly in01:00:32
ownership is for all the problems that01:00:36
you have arisen you answer01:00:37
that’s actually why it’s such a riffraff01:00:41
that unfortunately things are not taken away from us01:00:45
only vindication by third parties and01:00:47
such reputational risks on01:00:49
mouse you actually understand01:00:50
do the indications were hidden there or rather01:00:53
question: who else had what on Windows?01:00:54
there was already a plot of land, yes it is01:00:56
in the field or somehow Mikhail and I01:00:59
I understood correctly here is the answer to the first one01:01:00
part of Vladimir Bagaev's question01:01:02
what if the right of a third party is recognized01:01:06
then you can already turn on the mechanism01:01:08
responsibility will be declared, that is,01:01:10
the buyer also has the item in his possession, but01:01:13
in your opinion, he already has the right to01:01:15
claim for damages from the seller01:01:17
I understood the secret and01:01:18
no, well, here it turns out for someone on 41001:01:21
but you still have to give01:01:22
question to whom and probably still for now01:01:24
a third party and does not take away to give it away01:01:26
the seller needs it and then 410 is still not 401:01:30
no 451 again we are all prostitutes no no01:01:35
why not time no no no no not at01:01:37
restitution in termination of contract01:01:39
By the way, this is the practice01:01:42
which went when we start even in01:01:44
situations in other cases on claims01:01:46
third parties recognized the agreement01:01:48
invalid and we begin to enforce01:01:50
451 there may even be a reason to think about01:01:53
that we are talking about relative non-01:01:54
we really don't mean to soar01:01:56
from here in the sense that the deal is for them01:01:58
is insignificant for third parties and in relations01:02:02
everything works with you and this doesn’t happen01:02:04
I dream about something like this, it happens, maybe01:02:07
By the way, the highest one once did this01:02:09
arbitration court01:02:10
in one of his resolutions01:02:12
the presidium said to the water that01:02:14
this was destroyed but for the medal you gave it01:02:16
it works that's why we need it too01:02:18
no big deal, I need it, I need it01:02:21
take the thing away, or at least need to01:02:23
so that things are not in possession so that01:02:25
earned 451 answered yes thank you thank you01:02:30
from the next speaker Vladimir Bagayev01:02:38
good afternoon colleagues, by the way01:02:40
continuation, so to speak, performance01:02:42
Mikhail wanted to say that in my opinion if01:02:44
I'm not mistaken about English law01:02:46
medieval people also had a rule01:02:48
that the seller will be looking for01:02:50
be involved in the process if it01:02:51
buyers take things he some01:02:57
they even built a theory there that they say01:02:58
the seller stays for some time01:03:00
the owner of the thing in any case01:03:02
during the first year it seems like this01:03:04
what but given that English law01:03:05
the average of the Middle Ages was given like this01:03:07
strongly intertwined, so to speak, with01:03:09
French it is01:03:11
happened to the happiness of the language01:03:14
then we can say that this is French01:03:18
English law follows one path here01:03:22
but my speech will be dedicated01:03:25
the topic that I actually touched on01:03:30
articles which collection included this01:03:32
possession01:03:33
for old times sake here in Russian01:03:36
English law in the first place01:03:37
I will focus on Russian law and01:03:40
at times conducting nicknames gave birth to01:03:43
with English law 2 will count it01:03:45
local but starting the performance I wanted01:03:48
say that in principle01:03:50
possession in disputes about real rights01:03:53
things she plays the role of such01:03:55
argument of last resort when here01:03:57
nothing else was reliable01:03:58
reasons to confirm01:04:00
their claim to everything that they resort to01:04:03
references to possessions in this sense01:04:05
possession in the eternal correctly fulfills01:04:07
the role of such justice in a breakthrough in01:04:10
in general, if you look at it more broadly01:04:12
we also resort to justice when01:04:14
We have no other arguments either when01:04:16
we think that there are not enough of them, so01:04:19
another parallel to justice as well as01:04:20
in her case, probably fully understand that01:04:23
such possession is absolutely impossible01:04:26
case-specific answer01:04:29
everything depends very much on01:04:31
circumstances and I wouldn't want to be here01:04:33
just go deeper into some theoretical01:04:35
discussions about this because they01:04:37
can01:04:38
but at best be useless01:04:42
if the theory is constantly not connected in this01:04:44
in the case of practice in the case of possession01:04:46
and maybe this is exactly the area01:04:49
which for any theoretical01:04:50
reasoning must start from01:04:54
practice and develop inductively01:04:56
and in this sense it is no coincidence that in01:05:00
in my article I chose comparison as an item01:05:03
English law is right there01:05:07
theoretical reasoning they have01:05:10
Starting point01:05:12
judicial practice judicial practice01:05:14
is the ultimate beneficiary01:05:16
these reasonings, it is precisely this method and01:05:19
I tried to use it in my article01:05:22
Accordingly, we can say that in01:05:25
Russian law probably01:05:28
acquisitive prescription is01:05:29
the main institute in which at the moment01:05:31
the moment at which possession is01:05:34
direct source of legal01:05:37
consequences of another such institution01:05:40
this is the protection of possession he is still waiting01:05:42
his birth and now absolutely not01:05:45
it is obvious that the birth will be successful01:05:46
especially if you take it into account01:05:48
dynamics of the passage of the property section01:05:50
rights through the State Duma then01:05:52
one can express some skepticism in01:05:54
in this regard therefore if anyone wants01:05:56
find out what our courts understand by01:05:58
possession please see practice01:05:59
by acquisitive prescription and the same01:06:01
the most can be said regarding01:06:04
English law has no protection there either01:06:06
possession as an institution of property law there01:06:08
it is dissolved in a huge variety01:06:10
various tort claims and in particular01:06:13
the main one is trespass but01:06:16
respectively01:06:17
acquisitive prescription date experience01:06:19
practices that concentrate01:06:20
judge's reasoning especially from the 2nd to the 20th centuries01:06:23
and regarding what possession is01:06:25
what does it consist of01:06:26
but conceptually understand possessions01:06:28
of course it is very important and important for something01:06:31
in order to give a certain matrix for01:06:33
which the court the courts will be able to consequences01:06:35
impose circumstances of the case which01:06:37
does not lead to mastery during a dispute and this01:06:39
the matrix is probably generally known to everyone01:06:41
this physical element of possession and01:06:44
spiritual element or zero element01:06:45
possessions, here's the body and the animus, that's it01:06:50
say that in English law for example01:06:53
they also use this one01:06:55
design to show and01:06:57
understand whether there was possession or not01:07:00
in this particular case it is no coincidence here01:07:04
just strangely enough you can see01:07:06
influence continental law because those01:07:09
people who introduced English law01:07:11
pondered the acquisitive prescription in01:07:14
at the beginning of the 20th century they were familiar with01:07:17
German literature even her01:07:19
or he accordingly what is needed01:07:20
make the courts to establish whether it was in01:07:24
in this case, possession is obviously necessary01:07:26
and compare the actual circumstances01:07:28
affairs and understand if in this case01:07:31
physical and spiritual element of mastery01:07:34
here based on the first element here01:07:36
I must say that01:07:37
I think it's Russian01:07:39
practice has its own unique01:07:40
feature which is expressed in the fact that01:07:44
which is actually practically physical01:07:46
element as such of the decisions of our courts01:07:48
it is not examined instead by the courts01:07:52
prefer to consider individual01:07:55
details that are directly specified in the law01:07:57
look at whether they are there or they01:07:59
are also absent in relation to physical01:08:01
element the role of such a physical element in01:08:04
these reasonings are performed by the props01:08:05
ownership of property as one's own01:08:09
own and true in this props01:08:12
stuffing research to feed out01:08:14
which applies not only to01:08:15
physical elements of possession but also to01:08:17
strong-willed elements of possession and so on01:08:19
neglect of the physical element in01:08:22
judicial practice with which those who01:08:24
participates spark them for sure sports01:08:25
it seems to me that she is01:08:28
the first feature of Russian practice01:08:29
the second feature is how01:08:31
still a physical element of possession01:08:33
the courts are trying to establish what they are01:08:36
way they prove he was bitten I will consider01:08:39
proof of this element here too01:08:42
they tend to look at01:08:47
documents presented at01:08:51
parties to the case in particular there on01:08:53
debt purchase and sale agreements01:08:55
alienation of property located01:08:56
before us for ownership on privatization01:08:59
for example, a transfer agreement by the owner01:09:01
property to a third party temporarily01:09:03
use on various receipts01:09:07
payment of utilities and so on01:09:10
there is evidence that actually01:09:12
in fact they only indirectly confirm01:09:14
possession as such and the world with words they01:09:18
use evidentiary presumption01:09:19
hindsight facts to draw conclusions about something else01:09:21
fact with the fact of relatively speaking payment01:09:23
utilities came to the conclusion that01:09:25
was possession in this case and what01:09:27
how can one explain what01:09:29
our courts act this way01:09:32
in my opinion there are two reasons, firstly01:09:35
this is what is in our right, unlike01:09:37
English law still exists01:09:39
requisites of good faith prescription01:09:40
possession and this means that the basis01:09:43
ownership will usually be a transaction01:09:46
involving transfer of rights01:09:47
ownership of a thing but accordingly01:09:50
for some reason did not lead to it01:09:52
to this transition, respectively, usually in01:09:55
In turn, this transaction is accompanied by some01:09:57
documents on change of owner and this one01:10:00
document here comes kunu this01:10:01
document should not be used to01:10:03
confirm I use to confirm01:10:04
what is possession strictly speaking01:10:07
passed especially if the other01:10:09
side of the matter there is nothing against it01:10:12
objects01:10:13
here is the second feature, the second reason for01:10:16
which Russian judicial practice01:10:18
went along this path, probably what in01:10:21
In general, our courts are so reluctant01:10:26
refer to evidence and01:10:28
he even turns to explanation with caution01:10:31
sides and yet precisely from these types01:10:36
evidence01:10:37
you can get information01:10:39
direct possession and among other things01:10:41
for example, the English courts are in full swing01:10:44
use this type of evidence01:10:46
st this dispute is about whether there was actual01:10:47
sufficient possession01:10:49
respectively01:10:50
but what arbitration courts like to do01:10:54
look at the documents documents given01:10:56
in case they are of poor help in01:10:57
argument in reasoning because01:11:00
strictly speaking but they can talk01:11:03
about some actions of a person who is passionate and01:11:06
disputes regarding things but these actions01:11:07
cut outs are not actual possession01:11:09
as I already said but is rather there01:11:12
either a necessary condition of possession or01:11:14
natural consequence of ownership but not01:11:16
the possession itself is true, that's the last thing01:11:18
time, one can observe a certain tendency towards01:11:24
paying attention to the actual01:11:26
side of the property, for example in January01:11:28
this year the Supreme Court considered01:11:30
two cases of acquisitive prescription at once01:11:32
and the truth decided them not for the benefit of those people to01:11:36
those to the company that applied01:11:38
on its use but nevertheless in these01:11:41
cases in this in one of these cases was01:11:44
used as evidence01:11:46
act of inspection of the premises in dispute and first01:11:52
we will draw up unilaterally01:11:54
the defendant then it was drawn up by both01:11:58
parties at the request of the court but necessary01:12:01
take into account what was worn as proof01:12:02
Of course there will be such a document01:12:04
limited because it captures01:12:06
one who exercises control over01:12:09
thing at a given moment in time if already01:12:13
There's no time until we're in possession and there's no glass.01:12:15
the dispute most likely happened because01:12:16
that otherwise the master's argument began then this01:12:20
document he won't in some sense01:12:22
useless because he doesn't talk about01:12:24
the one who used to own things here01:12:26
how the dispute started but on the other hand as01:12:28
additional such argument you01:12:30
can be used especially if other01:12:31
side has nothing to oppose this01:12:33
argument over on this argument or she01:12:35
she argues, but she must not be forgotten01:12:38
maybe01:12:39
presumption of actual possession which01:12:41
in many legal systems it is recognized when01:12:43
if the person was in possession at one point in time01:12:46
at another point in time then and in between01:12:48
they are not considered the owner either if01:12:50
another in da casa want with him need01:12:51
be more careful when contacting Russian01:12:54
composition at least they like to say01:12:56
watch the Cree dance throughout01:12:58
the period of ownership will even result in denials of claims01:13:01
case if there is no possession in01:13:03
almost every day01:13:06
statute of limitations such options too01:13:08
meet here and will it change01:13:14
Russian judicial practice in this01:13:16
regarding01:13:17
well, as you probably already guessed, but01:13:20
of the previous presentation here in principle01:13:22
fig the current situation is related to that01:13:24
What01:13:26
requisites of good faith prescription01:13:29
owner he entered into such a successful and01:13:31
a cozy symbiosis with the fact that Russian01:13:35
Petrash Nastya likes to contact01:13:36
documentary documents as a type01:13:39
evidence accordingly since01:13:41
take into account so many conscientious01:13:42
possession of the entity which is the basis01:13:44
which which is the contract for01:13:47
assuming transfer of ownership01:13:48
then the courts always have an order01:13:50
beloved and proof exactly01:13:52
written evidence01:13:53
but the draft changes to the property section01:13:57
law if he is accepted, he will still be these01:14:01
the close embrace will open because01:14:05
supposed to bite01:14:07
good faith will leave without a demand01:14:09
acquisitive prescription and01:14:10
accordingly the application of this01:14:12
institution of this method of acquisition01:14:14
property rights will be able to claim01:14:16
Well, he can claim a lot more01:14:19
circle people person virtually anyone who01:14:23
can prove that he possessed01:14:25
sufficient control over 2 looking for and01:14:27
in front of the central one it will become much more01:14:28
difficult task to understand and in this01:14:31
in a particular case there were circumstances01:14:34
evidence for the circumstances01:14:36
degree of control required to01:14:38
recognize the practical side of ownership and01:14:41
Accordingly, here are more documents01:14:44
there won't be all of them01:14:46
necessary that people don't like to use01:14:48
here is the next element of possession which01:14:53
It’s worth mentioning this is actually strong-willed01:14:57
element and01:14:58
one in Russian legislation01:15:00
lies behind the words to own property01:15:03
as your own01:15:04
showing correct attribution of this01:15:08
elements of these words and here it seems to me01:15:13
to analyze it better01:15:14
we need to divide it into two parts with01:15:17
on the one hand what what we are looking for01:15:21
content of this possession element with01:15:24
on the other hand what he should01:15:25
appear here too from the point of view of01:15:29
what should the courts look for?01:15:31
they should look at that01:15:33
or possession of independent i.e.01:15:35
the owner perceived01:15:37
subjective as an independent non-report01:15:41
hand of will01:15:42
Mr. things and it doesn’t matter whether he was here01:15:46
there are sufficient legal01:15:47
reasons to consider this01:15:49
way enough this means that01:15:52
owners may not only01:15:53
bona fide person had no legal01:15:57
reason to believe that I am01:16:00
independently to the owners the deepest01:16:01
is loving nevertheless I think so01:16:03
because I want it in bad faith but01:16:05
nevertheless, I am the owner, but often01:16:08
mistakes that courts make when01:16:10
product analysis01:16:11
the content of this prop is that01:16:13
they try but impose on the owners01:16:17
a certain standard of behavior for example01:16:20
trying to say that he should lead01:16:22
yourself to handle food as01:16:24
the owner of this thing and this leads01:16:29
quite an interesting discussion01:16:30
for example in literature too01:16:32
I came across the opinion that in order to01:16:35
to prove that you are01:16:36
the owner of the residential premises is not approximately01:16:39
need to continuously occupy this room01:16:42
keep all your things in it01:16:43
sleep and spend leisure time as if01:16:46
it was said in one of the works we see a01:16:48
if several severe ones should be cured01:16:49
move according to a specific schedule01:16:51
between them that we will spend ours01:16:52
possession01:16:53
Nyuta human will is natural01:16:55
Such reasoning will not be practiced01:16:58
no relation although maybe01:17:00
Russian they then you think that01:17:02
has a relationship but with this approach01:17:04
my view is on the plaintiff01:17:06
but not defined in this sense either01:17:09
exorbitant burden of proof in01:17:12
due to the fact that everyone has their own opinion about01:17:14
what is considered due standards01:17:16
attitude to a thing is the second element01:17:21
this spiritual spiritual component01:17:22
possession is01:17:25
what is the indicator how to see01:17:28
internal internal state of the face01:17:31
internal relationship to the thing here too01:17:33
of course it's the first thing that catches your eye first01:17:38
the candidate is the basis of ownership01:17:39
not thanks to the requisite of good faith01:17:42
in Russian practice there is now quite01:17:45
just connect see the spiritual element01:17:50
its presence in the transaction based on01:17:53
which was purchased01:17:54
ownership camera transfer rights01:17:56
ownership of a thing but much more complicated01:17:58
will become if possession is not based01:18:01
on any transaction this is an example owner01:18:04
just took it and grabbed it because what in01:18:06
in principle it is not excluded and especially01:18:08
the actual question will arise again when01:18:10
the requisite of good faith will go away01:18:11
ancient possession from our01:18:13
legislation and probably here again01:18:16
we can’t do without a presumption01:18:18
independence of ownership which01:18:20
recognized by many law enforcement me01:18:22
because it’s more obvious than that01:18:27
obvious indicators of external will01:18:29
the owner's can't be found01:18:32
it's surprising that loans are available now01:18:34
are already beginning to de facto apply this01:18:36
presumption in some lower cases01:18:40
no higher I mean I had to01:18:43
face such decisions although they01:18:45
they don't directly talk about what's wrong with what01:18:46
the reasoning seems to be that they01:18:48
based on don't want subconsciously01:18:50
Well, the gardens actually came out01:18:52
it seems to me that we are pushing towards this01:18:55
to this conclusion because if we01:18:58
let's remember clarification that was in the resolution01:19:01
Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court for the defense01:19:02
property rights '98 and which01:19:05
then they migrated to a joint01:19:07
ruling of the Supreme Court and Higher01:19:08
arbitration court number 1022 is dedicated to01:19:11
about the same question what01:19:14
it says ownership of property as01:19:16
it's yours to own01:19:17
not under contract means that01:19:20
obviously a spiritual element of possession01:19:24
Apparently it has something to do with the base01:19:25
possessions in particular by agreement and that01:19:27
grounds of ownership 001:19:29
plays the role of something negative01:19:31
element, that is, I stop it for01:19:35
so that criticism cares what possession01:19:37
there is no need for prescription, that's all01:19:39
examples given by courts in01:19:42
resolution of the plenum they relate to the01:19:45
contracts that exclude01:19:47
acquisitive prescription lease01:19:48
for example storage01:19:51
trust management which of these01:19:53
there are no contracts, so it turns out that the courts are01:19:55
are pushing us to the fact that while they01:19:58
didn’t present it and didn’t put it into action01:20:00
Apparently you need to look from what you owned01:20:02
must be read independently and savotta01:20:05
presumption of independent ownership of01:20:06
similar ones have this01:20:08
well, natural persuasive power that01:20:11
English court and even in some sense01:20:13
you involuntarily begin to apply although01:20:16
and this is clearly not articulated, for example01:20:19
by central precedent in English01:20:21
law01:20:22
Lord Hoffman spoke as follows01:20:25
way if the evidence supports01:20:27
that face01:20:28
occupied a plot of land in this case01:20:30
and took full advantage of it as well01:20:33
how the owner would do it, I think01:20:35
which, as a rule, he will not need01:20:37
submit additional evidence to confirm01:20:39
proficiency intentions and English01:20:42
practice in which there are no props01:20:44
conscientiousness is quite natural01:20:46
view of the objective side of the owner01:20:48
the will establishes it by actions01:20:50
owners01:20:51
and in this direction I think it will be01:20:53
Move Russian practice in creatures01:20:56
page requisites of good faith beer01:20:58
In this approach, the owner's will is, as it were,01:21:00
its active research is also presumed01:21:03
starts only when there is01:21:05
reasons to doubt its existence and how01:21:07
once the presence of such grounds should01:21:10
so must prove01:21:12
apparently I'll bring a couple of defendants01:21:14
examples from English judicial01:21:16
practices because in this regard01:21:17
Russian is not very fruitful01:21:20
for example, in one case the plaintiff claimed01:21:23
then to get ownership of01:21:25
prescription of a certain piece of land01:21:28
but it turned out to be fatal for his disk01:21:31
that he complied with the owner's request01:21:33
not to use a greenhouse01:21:35
which is located in this area01:21:36
accordingly he submitted to the will01:21:38
owner another example owner01:21:40
aspired to become01:21:41
owner of the parking lot01:21:43
he had exclusive control over01:21:46
this one with a parking lot, roughly speaking, with him01:21:47
there was a key to the barrier but it was somewhat01:21:51
once within the limitation period01:21:52
contacted the owner with a request01:21:54
repair the fence that surrounded01:21:57
then a parking lot because they say the yard can01:21:59
come and pick up the cars and that's what he said01:22:01
You can't be an English judge long ago01:22:03
owner against persons you are against01:22:04
wool with you the burden of ownership here and01:22:07
denied the claim01:22:08
so I think it's possessive01:22:11
will in Russian English law on01:22:13
takes on such significance01:22:15
negative props01:22:17
to not contact active should only01:22:19
then when you need to prove its absence01:22:22
This is where I will end my short review01:22:25
too long and won't own yours01:22:28
attention because in this case01:22:31
this principle applies:01:22:32
acquisitive prescription the longer01:22:33
you own what I'm not jokingly right about01:22:35
keep doing this these were my01:22:37
nim and sun are subordinate to the will, so to speak01:22:39
Dear moderators, go and own it01:22:42
books there01:22:44
Let's start with a question, yes of course01:22:47
you used flova all the time 10-10 you01:22:52
think that fav possession is melting inside01:22:55
this is the majority of authors01:22:58
condition is the fact of relationship or01:23:01
affiliated then so on in me01:23:02
it seems that if you start further01:23:05
promote your video status like this01:23:07
photos that require evidence01:23:09
food or for every moment will get you01:23:12
a good ally and those teams that01:23:15
are considering01:23:16
these are the actions that we said yes01:23:20
they would admit it, but the bugs assure us01:23:22
that it’s not necessary, well, in my opinion it’s unlikely01:23:29
my face will not receive such an ally01:23:32
because I would rather say this from the fact that01:23:35
well, of course, without any action01:23:39
In principle, possession cannot be denied, but01:23:42
it seems more reasonable that the heart is the prize01:23:45
possession between let's say01:23:49
certain moments when she01:23:53
proven if she doesn't refute why try01:23:56
proof of ownership in each01:23:57
a specific moment in time in this we tell you01:23:59
my example on the monitor is known01:24:01
increased elevator ownership of the airport01:24:04
is it a state or action hill on yeah yeah01:24:11
and that state which is expressed in01:24:13
action I also have a question if possible01:24:21
or rather, there were doubts at the beginning01:24:24
proposed in practice by01:24:28
acquisitive prescription look for the answer01:24:32
to the question what is possession and the answer from01:24:34
looks like it can be used in others01:24:36
cases when we use this01:24:37
there is no concept of a Russian game yet01:24:39
owner's protection, but it will appear01:24:42
How will we understand what ownership is?01:24:44
here are the acquisitive prescription workshops01:24:46
there is no doubt about this again01:24:49
I don't know the answer, are you really sure?01:24:52
in this approach the moment of possession01:24:55
used in01:24:57
Russia already has very different contexts01:24:59
now the transfer is under contract01:25:04
purchase and sale01:25:07
bona fide owner 303 passive01:25:10
Legitimation by vindication active01:25:13
Legitimation by vindication according to 30501:25:15
acquisitive prescription01:25:17
well, plus 209 but this can be outside the brackets01:25:22
leave it, but in fact, here’s the question there01:25:25
words of ownership are always the same01:25:27
meaning are used or is it just01:25:28
homonyms, well, in my opinion, of course01:25:35
the difference will be the circumstances that01:25:37
you need to install it even for example in01:25:40
regarding01:25:43
passive legitimation by indication01:25:46
we allow recruitment as01:25:48
co-defendant let's say persons who01:25:53
temporarily owns things, that's clearly not the person01:25:58
which is independent01:25:59
the owner turns out and in this sense01:26:02
you have to try very carefully of course01:26:05
carry out taxes but it seems to me that01:26:10
the main difference will still be in01:26:16
case if the plaintiff feeds active 501:26:21
mation on your own is in one row in01:26:25
to have it there rather speaks of protection01:26:28
I still think it's an example01:26:39
for example, in practice, towers are just not01:26:42
owns nor owned it succeeds and therefore01:26:45
that he is a tenant, but what is here is another matter01:26:49
further discussion may begin about01:26:50
what could he actually be?01:26:52
owns01:26:53
give grounds for the emergence of law01:26:55
it means that reasoning can especially for you01:26:59
Andreevka, remember the matter to the berths01:27:02
with a refrigerator in Slack City or nowhere01:27:06
protection yes but no matter01:27:08
ownership rights were discussed and he was given protection01:27:11
not because he is protecting possession01:27:13
the past is answered by law01:27:14
it was the same thing on the contrary there was bread there01:27:17
fb tenant tenant and exactly the same01:27:19
would give at the expense of your right no01:27:21
owned and do not prove the question01:27:25
actually it is necessary whether it suddenly comes out01:27:26
worth proving for active01:27:28
legitimation there is the presence of actual01:27:29
possessions01:27:31
Well, if the right to01:27:33
transfer of ownership is required then probably01:27:36
it is necessary to prove not only for this01:27:38
that the right arose01:27:39
I think it's the right to own but01:27:43
At the same time, Andrei lost possession, answering01:27:46
I continue to end our question briefly01:27:49
according to Russian law 2 tenant01:27:52
win over the first if the first01:27:54
ownership was not transferred at all01:27:58
a tenant who is not in front of it01:28:00
actually met in possession01:28:02
they long live Andrey Mikhalych01:28:07
which continues for an hour and even in01:28:08
lack of microphone, giving it to him01:28:12
recklessly we end everything01:28:17
training to respect the rights of the following01:28:20
speakers, that is, it is clear that we01:28:22
I'm delaying one report, we're taking away from01:28:25
others what balance of interest I think that01:28:27
coffee break is just around the corner and there01:28:29
of course it will be possible01:28:31
huddled in some corner to discuss exactly01:28:34
ownership issues especially01:28:36
yes yes yes yes ok thank you very much we01:28:41
I don’t think they thanked me for paying extra01:28:46
[applause]Description:
Профессиональная видеосъёмка любых мероприятий 8-(915)-016-74-57 http://vk.com/olejans
Preparing download options
* — If the video is playing in a new tab, go to it, then right-click on the video and select "Save video as..."
** — Link intended for online playback in specialized players
Questions about downloading video
How can I download "Вещные права Конференция Российская школа частного права 1" video?
http://unidownloader.com/ website is the best way to download a video or a separate audio track if you want to do without installing programs and extensions.
The UDL Helper extension is a convenient button that is seamlessly integrated into YouTube, Instagram and OK.ru sites for fast content download.
UDL Client program (for Windows) is the most powerful solution that supports more than 900 websites, social networks and video hosting sites, as well as any video quality that is available in the source.
UDL Lite is a really convenient way to access a website from your mobile device. With its help, you can easily download videos directly to your smartphone.
Which format of "Вещные права Конференция Российская школа частного права 1" video should I choose?
The best quality formats are FullHD (1080p), 2K (1440p), 4K (2160p) and 8K (4320p). The higher the resolution of your screen, the higher the video quality should be. However, there are other factors to consider: download speed, amount of free space, and device performance during playback.
Why does my computer freeze when loading a "Вещные права Конференция Российская школа частного права 1" video?
The browser/computer should not freeze completely! If this happens, please report it with a link to the video. Sometimes videos cannot be downloaded directly in a suitable format, so we have added the ability to convert the file to the desired format. In some cases, this process may actively use computer resources.
How can I download "Вещные права Конференция Российская школа частного права 1" video to my phone?
You can download a video to your smartphone using the website or the PWA application UDL Lite. It is also possible to send a download link via QR code using the UDL Helper extension.
How can I download an audio track (music) to MP3 "Вещные права Конференция Российская школа частного права 1"?
The most convenient way is to use the UDL Client program, which supports converting video to MP3 format. In some cases, MP3 can also be downloaded through the UDL Helper extension.
How can I save a frame from a video "Вещные права Конференция Российская школа частного права 1"?
This feature is available in the UDL Helper extension. Make sure that "Show the video snapshot button" is checked in the settings. A camera icon should appear in the lower right corner of the player to the left of the "Settings" icon. When you click on it, the current frame from the video will be saved to your computer in JPEG format.
What's the price of all this stuff?
It costs nothing. Our services are absolutely free for all users. There are no PRO subscriptions, no restrictions on the number or maximum length of downloaded videos.