Download "Защита добросовестного приобретателя недвижимости, владение и гос. регистрация | Ширвиндт А.М."
%3Aformat(webp)%2Fi.ytimg.com%252Fvi_webp%252FQTD75rivayo%252Fmaxresdefault.webp&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%252F5ZOSY9wBbxc%252Fmaxresdefault.jpg&w=1139&q=75)
%3Aformat(webp)%2Fi.ytimg.com%252Fvi_webp%252FIVbEJWl6iEM%252Fmaxresdefault.webp&w=1139&q=75)
%3Aformat(webp)%2Fi.ytimg.com%252Fvi_webp%252FRheTM074hzs%252Fmaxresdefault.webp&w=1139&q=75)
%3Aformat(webp)%2Fi.ytimg.com%252Fvi_webp%252FSMcv9sWdPLk%252Fmaxresdefault.webp&w=1139&q=75)
%3Aformat(webp)%2Fi.ytimg.com%252Fvi_webp%252FXPBfE3OSNio%252Fmaxresdefault.webp&w=1139&q=75)
%3Aformat(webp)%2Fi.ytimg.com%252Fvi_webp%252Fapqq0mu2VeI%252Fmaxresdefault.webp&w=1139&q=75)
%3Aformat(webp)%2Fi.ytimg.com%252Fvi_webp%252FhJxBrKInpnk%252Fmaxresdefault.webp&w=1139&q=75)
%3Aformat(webp)%2Fi.ytimg.com%252Fvi%252Fifl8c6xY9T0%252Fmaxresdefault.jpg&w=1139&q=75)
%3Aformat(webp)%2Fi.ytimg.com%252Fvi%252F2AGMPZQN-Mw%252Fmaxresdefault.jpg&w=1139&q=75)
%3Aformat(webp)%2Fi.ytimg.com%252Fvi_webp%252FPeCRylhwa5s%252Fmaxresdefault.webp&w=1139&q=75)
Video tags
Subtitles
Russian
00:00:11
Dear colleagues, we are moving on to00:00:13
the discussion of block 2, this block is00:00:17
dedicated to the protection of a bona fide00:00:19
purchaser of real estate and the ownership of00:00:22
state registration, the speaker00:00:25
is Andrey Mikhailovich Shirvindt,00:00:30
good afternoon, thank you for the opportunity00:00:34
to participate, I wanted to talk about things00:00:40
that, in general, are probably well00:00:41
known to everyone, but in recent May, clashes with00:00:47
the law have been creative process in this00:00:50
area have shown that there are still some00:00:55
lawyers in Russia who do not remember how, under the00:00:59
current law, such00:01:02
concepts as protection of a bona fide00:01:03
purchaser of real estate ownership and00:01:06
state registration are related.00:01:09
You probably know that recently00:01:14
several bills have been circulating00:01:17
aimed at changing the00:01:19
legislation in this area to00:01:22
change rules on the protection of a00:01:25
bona fide purchaser of00:01:27
real estate, these bills are00:01:32
based on various topical reasons, in00:01:37
particular in the context of the vindication of00:01:40
escheated property from bona fide00:01:43
purchasers of housing, they propose to change00:01:49
300 the second article on the protection of a00:01:52
bona fide purchaser 22300:01:55
on the moment of00:01:57
ownership of a bona fide00:01:58
purchaser of real estate under a contract,00:02:00
Article 8.1 as a rule00:02:04
registry values and, to be honest, when00:02:09
they suggest changing it, it seems, firstly, they don’t00:02:12
understand what to change, and secondly, I00:02:16
wanted to00:02:17
dwell on these questions and00:02:20
draw attention to some00:02:24
doubts about whether it is necessary to change it in order to have a00:02:32
problem like this if I purchase an item00:02:36
from someone who is listed in as an00:02:40
owner in the unified state00:02:41
register of real estate, do00:02:43
I become the owner even00:02:47
if it turns out that he acquired the00:02:49
thing on the basis of an invalid00:02:51
transaction00:02:52
or in some other way not in accordance00:02:56
with the law, Russian law answers00:03:03
this question so if in this00:03:12
case you have I can’t vindicate00:03:14
real estate in accordance with the rules of00:03:16
Article 302, then you are the owner, it so00:03:22
happens that in our country the protection of a00:03:24
bona fide purchaser of00:03:25
real estate00:03:26
grew out of Article 302,00:03:29
originally designed to protect00:03:32
bona fide purchasers of movable00:03:34
things, and I remind you, 302 is built as a00:03:38
restriction on vindication00:03:39
from bona fide purchasers of00:03:46
property that left the possession of the00:03:48
owner or another person who00:03:49
was sang on not against their will,00:03:54
such goodness of a juicy traitor cannot be00:03:55
vignetted at one time the legislator00:04:01
drew attention to the fact that it is strange that one00:04:03
cannot vignette the owner, he does00:04:05
not seem to be becoming this needs to be00:04:08
corrected and it was rather ineptly00:04:11
corrected by in 2004, adding00:04:14
2 paragraphs to paragraph 2 of Article 223,00:04:20
which states that a bona fide00:04:23
purchaser of real estate becomes its00:04:26
owner from the moment of registration00:04:31
if the thing cannot be demanded from him according to the00:04:34
rules of Article 302, and so in 2004,00:04:39
amendment 22300:04:41
legislated for a model00:04:44
in which a00:04:45
bona fide purchaser00:04:47
real estate is protected in the same way as a00:04:49
bona fide purchaser of movable00:04:51
things through the00:04:52
limitation of vindication and through the three hundred and00:04:57
second article for tourists for 300 200:05:01
articles,00:05:02
what is the significance of ownership00:05:05
of real estate and registration of rights, I00:05:10
remind you that in 302 ownership performs three00:05:17
main functions, firstly, since 30200:05:21
is a limitation of vindication then a00:05:24
bona fide acquirer in Russia00:05:27
is only the one who can be a00:05:29
defendant in a ventilation claim;00:05:31
this is who answers this question;00:05:35
Article 301 is an illegal owner;00:05:39
302 protects illegal owners00:05:42
who, in good faith, acquired00:05:45
for a fee, and even provided that00:05:47
the property was not disposed of against the will of00:05:49
the owner, and so on the first is protected as00:05:53
bona fide owners only by the00:05:56
defendant and in a ventilation claim,00:05:59
that is, if I purchased, for example,00:06:02
real estate from a registered00:06:05
owner, an entry was made in the register00:06:08
that now I am the owner, but00:06:10
ownership has not been transferred to me, then I still cannot00:06:13
claim the protection that00:06:15
the law gives to bona fide I, in good faith,00:06:18
looked at everything in the register, I’m sure00:06:22
I paid, but until I received possession00:06:26
of me 30200:06:27
and therefore 223 do not protect this is00:06:31
directly stated in the sixth paragraph of 12600:06:34
enfants of May 2008,00:06:36
well, I then follows from the taxonomy00:06:39
of the law if the protection of a bona fide00:06:42
purchase or this00:06:44
vindication restrictions, then only the00:06:47
defendant is protected by vindication, that is, only the00:06:49
owners; this is noticeably different from00:06:56
what we see in those systems where00:06:57
nothing is protected, not for the owners, but for00:07:02
those who relied on the registry; the second00:07:07
ownership function in 30200:07:09
is such, remember that00:07:13
you can just vignette the owners cannot00:07:16
vindicate if he himself voluntarily00:07:18
released the thing from his hands, rented it out for storage,00:07:21
and then why is there a lot of answers to00:07:25
this question, probably the most00:07:27
convincing one is00:07:29
that by releasing the thing from his hands, giving it to the00:07:32
tenant and the keeper, and so on, which00:07:33
turned out to be treacherous later it was discussed by00:07:36
the owner, thereby creating for third00:07:39
parties the appearance that it is this person who is00:07:41
entitled to alienation,00:07:43
that is, transferring possession of legitimation,00:07:46
he has a function through the transfer of00:07:49
possession, the owner creates the appearance of a00:07:52
right on her side with her as an authorized00:07:55
alienator00:07:56
by transferring possession, I give you00:07:58
the opportunity to alienate a third persons an00:08:02
actual opportunity, as we remember00:08:09
for real estate, strictly speaking, this is not00:08:13
the case by transferring the thing to the tenant, I do not00:08:15
create the opportunity for him to alienate the thing to00:08:18
third parties, no one can rely00:08:21
on the fact that the owner is in front of them00:08:22
because an entry00:08:26
in the register is necessary,00:08:28
however, while we have 30200:08:31
underlies the protection of a bona fide00:08:34
purchaser, this00:08:37
conflict between the transfer of ownership as00:08:41
legitimation00:08:42
and the transfer of a record as legitimation from the00:08:45
conflict was highlighted at one time in a very00:08:47
interesting explanation of the00:08:49
review of the practice of the Supreme Court in00:08:53
2014 dedicated to the recovery of00:08:55
property from the demand for housing from00:08:57
bona fide purchasers where00:08:59
was discussed, but still00:09:02
how the owner gives an00:09:05
unauthorized alienator the00:09:07
appearance of control over the ownership or00:09:09
registry entry, and finally, the third00:09:14
function of ownership according to 302 possession in the hands is00:09:19
not authorized in the alienator creates a00:09:22
reasonable impression among third parties that00:09:25
in front of them is the owner if in front of you is00:09:28
the owner then you can proceed from the fact00:09:31
that it is most likely your own, I’m not00:09:34
saying that this is correct, this is the law and00:09:36
it is like this more or less throughout the00:09:39
Western world, including Russia,00:09:44
again, here is the third function of ownership, ownership00:09:46
as the basis for appearance, the right of00:09:50
ownership as the basis for the trust of00:09:52
third parties persons to have the right on the side of an00:09:56
unauthorized alienator, so for the00:10:02
bona fide acquisition of possession00:10:04
these three functions are now played, now00:10:07
it’s a good idea to think about, in general, for00:10:09
the acquisition of real estate, does the00:10:11
transfer of possessions play any00:10:13
role? Is it possible to transfer00:10:15
ownership rights to real estate without00:10:17
transferring possession,00:10:24
limiting the transfer of records to register,00:10:28
you probably know that this question is not00:10:31
indisputable in Russian literature and00:10:33
practice00:10:34
now, apparently gentlemen, and the question from can00:10:37
be formulated as follows: the second paragraph of00:10:40
Article 223 about the registration of the transfer of00:10:43
ownership of real estate00:10:45
to restore additional00:10:47
legal speaks of an additional00:10:50
legal fact - transfer of ownership in the00:10:52
first paragraph or is it alternative00:10:55
design for movable things transfer of00:10:58
ownership for immovable property registration of00:11:02
transfer of rights I00:11:04
repeat, apparently now in Russia the00:11:07
prevailing point of view is that the00:11:09
transfer of ownership of real estate is not00:11:12
necessary for the transfer of property00:11:14
registration is sufficient, so00:11:16
it turns out that in order to protect the00:11:18
bona fide purchaser, it is00:11:20
rule 302 that plays a role now and which one00:11:32
In general,00:11:33
registration matters, you remember that it all00:11:37
started with the fact that in the law on00:11:40
state registration it was written that00:11:43
sufficient registration is00:11:44
the only evidence of the right, what00:11:47
these words meant, it was unclear00:11:50
how much one could imagine the00:11:52
interpretation of so much and there was00:11:53
some certainty in the judicial practice literature00:11:59
began to introduce their00:12:02
explanations of the highest court,00:12:03
we are talking about the one hundred and twentieth inform letter00:12:05
and the prisoners of the resolution of the plenum of 10 friends on00:12:08
22 2010,00:12:11
without going into details, the general logic00:12:14
there was such00:12:16
that if the acquirer relied on00:12:20
the register, then he is assumed to be00:12:23
in good faith, but in no case00:12:26
can one say that trust in the register00:12:30
guarantees good faith, well,00:12:33
about 126 information letter plus a captive00:12:36
10 firewood 22 the register creates, according to the opinion of the00:12:41
highest judicial authorities, expressed00:12:43
in these two00:12:44
explanations, a presumption that the person is in00:12:47
good faith, in other words, the register00:12:52
has acquired significance for this area,00:12:55
again through the three hundred and second register this is00:13:01
one of those facts, a key fact that00:13:04
forms the good faith of the acquirer,00:13:14
as you probably know00:13:16
since the just-00:13:19
mentioned clarifications 120 were issued that inform00:13:21
my captivity in 102200:13:24
practice began to move in some00:13:26
other direction,00:13:27
this is clearly noticeable in particular from the00:13:30
practice of the Supreme Court in in particular,00:13:32
because the 2014 review, which already00:13:34
mentioned where the Supreme Court, in general,00:13:39
returns again to the text of the law, it00:13:41
says that registration of registration, but00:13:45
I don’t remember that you00:13:47
checked the ownership, yes, dear so-called00:13:49
bona fide purchaser, the00:13:51
Supreme Court, in its practice, in other00:13:53
words, began to again00:13:55
focus the courts on return to00:13:58
text 302 and to the fact that the00:14:03
basis for the acquirer’s trust in00:14:05
the appearance of the right is still00:14:07
the ownership of the alienator and not just the00:14:10
register entries;00:14:15
in other words, now00:14:18
several years have passed since the release of those00:14:20
abstract clarifications and it turns out that00:14:22
practice has again begun to return to00:14:25
ownership as the central fact in the00:14:29
design of the protection of a bona fide00:14:31
purchaser00:14:40
is that the courts focus the turnover00:14:43
on checking first of all the possession that00:14:47
in good faith for a bona fide00:14:49
acquisition the00:14:50
turnover of possession is of key importance,00:14:52
that is, the turnover is actually the turnover of things00:14:55
they register into the turnover of rights I will repeat the00:14:59
key role this does not mean that one00:15:01
completely excludes the other but here the question is00:15:03
a guideline, but the Supreme Court again00:15:06
began to focus more and more on the00:15:08
model that is actually 302 enshrined00:15:10
in this model, this is what Russian regulation looks like,00:15:14
starting from Article 300 2, the00:15:16
Russian legislator, Russian00:15:18
judicial practice has built the protection of a00:15:21
bona fide purchaser of00:15:22
real estate on the back of ownership on00:15:26
trust in ownership, but introduced00:15:31
some elements, before reporting00:15:34
some significance to the register of rights,00:15:40
many may not like it. In00:15:43
this regard, reform projects, it must be00:15:47
said that in the concept of the development of00:15:48
civil legislation,00:15:50
attention was drawn to the shortcomings of the existing00:15:53
system,00:15:54
it was proposed to introduce a special article00:15:57
on the acquisition of property rights by a00:15:58
bona fide purchaser,00:16:03
but I must say that in the concept, what was00:16:05
proposed by the concept, by the way, was not00:16:07
implemented, did not depart from the model that we00:16:10
see when the protection of a bona fide00:16:12
purchaser of real estate is also00:16:14
based on the limitation of vindication,00:16:16
the concept, if you remember, says that00:16:22
the owner of the property becomes00:16:26
such, for example, at the moment when the previous00:16:32
owner’s claim is denied about00:16:34
reclaiming property from someone else’s00:16:35
illegal possession, that is, again00:16:38
the concept remains within the framework of that00:16:41
model when we start from 302 and00:16:45
only then come to the register,00:16:48
all the reform projects in this00:16:53
area that I have seen do not suffer from this00:16:55
same drawback, they are trying to introduce00:16:59
public reliability to the register to strengthen the00:17:02
values registry, remaining within the framework of the00:17:05
model that is now enshrined in the Higher Civil Code,00:17:08
limiting vindication, that is, protecting00:17:10
property owners,00:17:14
I think that this is impossible, that these two00:17:17
systems are not compatible, either a00:17:21
bona fide purchaser and real00:17:23
estate are protected as they are00:17:25
now through the limitation of vindication as00:17:27
owners, or they are protected as00:17:31
trusting the registry00:17:33
how to acquire or from an authorized00:17:39
alienator of an alienator who00:17:41
is supposed to be authorized,00:17:50
respectively, changes in this situation00:17:54
are possible only with a complete abandonment of the00:17:57
current model, in particular by00:18:00
excluding from Article 220 3 the reference to the 30000:18:03
second00:18:04
with a complete separation of the protection of the bona fide00:18:07
purchaser of the property sent 30200:18:09
from vindication, how exactly to00:18:12
implement this is another question but until the protection of a00:18:15
bona fide purchaser of00:18:16
real estate is divorced from00:18:18
vindication,00:18:19
the reform will not be consistent,00:18:22
will not achieve the goals it is00:18:25
pursuing00:18:28
now, literally last two words about00:18:32
who should reform and whether it is necessary00:18:37
to reform,00:18:46
well, here you know, they blamed the Supreme Court00:18:48
for forcing00:18:50
acquirers check the chain of transactions00:18:53
check the ownership of real estate they say00:18:56
you are buying an apartment at least come in and00:18:58
look and here is an interesting question:00:19:05
should the Supreme Court be guided00:19:08
by how real estate is actually00:19:10
alienated and acquired in Russia, that is,00:19:14
should the Supreme Court or the legislator learn from00:19:18
turnover and more or less consolidate that00:19:22
what is accepted as a standard00:19:23
of care00:19:24
as a business practice as an00:19:27
acquisition practice or who he is the court or even the00:19:32
legislator should act as a social00:19:35
engineer and say you are now in Russia00:19:37
checking all the time of ownership check the00:19:40
transaction chains leave it,00:19:43
change to another system in00:19:45
which you look only at the register and00:19:47
you trust only him00:19:48
and here we are in front of this fork in the road,00:19:52
not only in front of the fork in how to decide, but00:19:56
also in front of two understandings of the role of the00:19:59
regulator, the00:20:00
role of the norma of the creative constants of the court and the00:20:03
legislator, should he learn from the00:20:09
turnover and lead it into a more or less00:20:11
orderly channel,00:20:12
or should he change the turnover00:20:14
in accordance with some pre-00:20:16
established00:20:17
goals, as you and I understand, the00:20:21
transition to trust specifically in the registry they are in00:20:25
ownership is, in general, probably00:20:28
social engineering, this is a change in the00:20:31
way such transactions take place in Russia today,00:20:33
I’m not saying that this is bad, it’s just that00:20:35
these are different models of00:20:38
action norma creative authorities, what00:20:43
they are offering us, they are offering us to replace the00:20:46
current system where the emphasis is on the turnover of00:20:49
ownership with a system where the emphasis is on the00:20:52
turnover of registry records, they are proposing to00:20:55
introduce the principle of public authenticity,00:20:58
and so I thought whether a soft reform might be possible00:21:04
when00:21:08
trust in the registry will grow because00:21:12
it will be more and more more reliable00:21:15
de facto, in00:21:17
other words, is it possible to change our00:21:21
practice to come to the principle of public00:21:23
reliability simply through00:21:25
gradually improving and00:21:26
improving the registration system,00:21:29
that is, they would trust the registry with00:21:33
this approach not because it is00:21:36
prescribed so by legislators, but simply00:21:38
because the registry is actually00:21:40
trustworthy and can to be already at some00:21:43
final stage enshrined in the law00:21:45
as a principle of public00:21:47
reliability, that is, in good faith and a00:21:50
person relying on the register for a00:21:52
bona fide person relying on the00:21:54
register, the register is reliable, and I want to00:22:02
draw attention to one more thought,00:22:06
one more thought you can probably say we here we are00:22:12
choosing, we are faced with a very serious00:22:16
choice, we are faced with staying in the00:22:18
strange system that we00:22:20
now have when we are still00:22:22
focused on ownership or move to the00:22:25
public reliability of the registry, we00:22:29
can probably admit that the00:22:31
guideline for turnover is ownership, they are a registry, they have a00:22:35
records00:22:36
system that is a little more primitive a little00:22:39
more constraining, closing some00:22:43
opportunities and so on, a little less00:22:45
developed, I don’t know, the pain is a little more00:22:48
archaic, but it seems that the transition00:22:53
to an alternative system is impossible with a00:22:58
simple change in the law,00:23:01
because look what’s happening now while00:23:05
I’m in my property, while I’ve00:23:07
locked myself from the inside and my guards have no one00:23:11
there they don’t let00:23:12
any bona fide purchaser00:23:14
can take my rights away from me, yes, it’s00:23:18
archaically00:23:19
rude and primitive to protect your rights in00:23:23
such a00:23:26
primitive and simple way while00:23:29
maintaining actual dominance, we are00:23:33
told that we may need to move to another00:23:35
system in which we trust the registry with00:23:38
the record, but then note that it’s my property00:23:42
even if I lock myself from the inside and post00:23:46
security at the facility, it will be available for a00:23:49
bona fide purchase because00:23:51
it will be in the hands of the registration00:23:53
system and probably in order to take this00:23:58
step to move from trust in00:24:01
myself and to this muscular strength of my own00:24:03
to my security and other00:24:05
trust in the state registration system is a00:24:08
rather serious step, it probably00:24:10
involves an increase in the level of trust in the00:24:14
system of formal institutions, I am confident in the00:24:20
registration system, I am not worried that00:24:22
something will happen to my record at my00:24:24
will, if we have now already reached a00:24:27
state where the owners have so much00:24:30
faith in the system of institutions and subsequent00:24:34
state registration that they are quite00:24:38
ready to replace public authenticity,00:24:40
here is the security of possession00:24:43
with the help of a lock and a security guard, then probably the00:24:46
law can be changed, but I’m afraid that it’s not00:24:50
the other way around by00:24:51
changing the law, we probably won’t increase the level of00:24:54
trust in the registration system,00:24:56
so it seems to me that besides the fact00:24:59
that I’m finishing up to carry out these00:25:03
changes, you need to be aware of00:25:05
what we have now and then00:25:07
consistently uproot the protection of a00:25:11
bona fide purchaser through the00:25:12
limitation of vindication,00:25:14
and secondly, that these changes are not just00:25:19
changes to the letter of the law, they are a rather00:25:21
radical change in the cult of the entire00:25:23
culture of real estate turnover, which we00:25:26
probably society should be ready for I00:25:28
don’t know if it’s ready, but it seems to me that00:25:31
in the legislative process00:25:32
now they don’t always pay attention to this,00:25:34
it may be in vain thank you for your00:25:36
attention thank you Andrey Mikhailovich00:25:38
[applause]00:25:40
here,00:25:42
including the speakers, there is a desire00:25:45
to enter into a discussion with you no, no00:25:47
discussion just I would like to draw00:25:49
attention to one more aspect,00:25:51
apparently the legislator considered that our00:25:53
culture has improved sufficiently in the field of00:25:55
real estate turnover, I would like to00:25:57
remind you about the rules of the bona fide00:25:59
establishment of holders, therefore, if we are00:26:02
talking about the conscientious acquisition of the00:26:03
right of a mortgage to hold the same00:26:07
property there is no, in principle it cannot be00:26:10
then his good faith in any00:26:12
case is assessed without without ownership00:26:18
in this way, well, we all understand00:26:21
that if our friend’s property00:26:24
turns out to be the subject of a mortgage, we actually00:26:26
need the consequences for us, practically the00:26:27
same as if there was a bona fide00:26:30
purchaser who became the owner of00:26:32
our property,00:26:34
so I it seems it’s you, it’s already00:26:36
happened,00:26:37
it’s already happened, that’s actually00:26:40
it, although it’s just that on May 8, I’m right, the reason00:26:42
is the league of the novel than the00:26:44
collective for it, I’ll just say I’m ready to00:26:47
object because if you take out a00:26:49
mortgage, of course you issue a00:26:52
loan against such collateral, of course you do00:26:54
n’t own it you get the meaning of a00:26:56
mortgage, but of course we have to check00:26:59
whether the mortgagor owns it if you00:27:02
haven’t done this, but the problem will be for you,00:27:05
of course, it’s just that they need to be checked,00:27:07
and that’s what he said, and Mikhalych there00:27:08
about the practice of the Supreme Court, but there’s00:27:11
one of examples are very vivid, maybe00:27:14
I listened to the donation of flies CC, the00:27:16
mummified corpse was lying in the apartment,00:27:18
it’s not them, it’s not the pledge that applies the attack00:27:21
of the Koreans, then they themselves will be the pledge, so the00:27:23
very story gives a pledge to the apartment,00:27:26
no one ever entered it, it’s00:27:28
actually escheated there to the owner the world and00:27:31
lies there and the bank just took it as collateral00:27:34
without checking anything, without looking at anything, and then00:27:36
says oh, but really there was an00:27:37
improper mortgagor, I was00:27:39
conscientious, okay, under such and such00:27:42
circumstances, not in any way, and00:27:43
it’s understandable why this happens and the00:27:46
point is not that something happened there either00:27:51
by the legislator or himself with the turnover, well, it’s like that00:27:55
in the trial and in our country and there’s nothing you can00:27:58
do, by the way, it’s not just our00:28:00
realities, that’s right, what’s00:28:01
wrong is that if you00:28:03
look at this item of collateral, you would00:28:05
lend money when it will be all in collateral, they do00:28:07
n’t inspect the thing, it’s a good collateral00:28:10
up to plus 1 Mikhalych well00:28:14
noticed that how the alienation turnover is built is one thing,00:28:16
don’t go and00:28:20
look at the property you’re00:28:22
buying, no problem, so keep in mind00:28:24
how conscientiously you won’t defend yourself00:28:25
because when you bought from00:28:27
the owner, everything is fine, well, that’s00:28:29
one story, but when you want to get protection against the00:28:31
actual owner who00:28:33
didn’t sell you, you need to00:28:36
oppose something to him, but it’s00:28:39
more or less serious because00:28:40
he has rights, you have nothing at all then00:28:43
only from you I bought it like this, and I00:28:47
bought it, I must say that there was a seller in the registry00:28:48
and lived in this apartment, I went00:28:51
there to look at it myself from the pledges and I would00:28:54
or the pledge didn’t look at anything, he00:28:56
brought it to the extract ten days ago and00:28:57
we believed, well ok, there is simply no protection,00:29:01
such loyalty is entirely due to the fact that the00:29:03
body of good faith of the acquirer00:29:05
should include possessions, I think this is00:29:07
correct at our current stage of00:29:10
civilizational development, I’ll add my 500:29:13
cents if you don’t mind your zeal00:29:17
here, just a thought, we’re done, that’s why00:29:21
I’m not at all advocating abandonment00:29:25
criterion of possession, I simply emphasize00:29:28
that in relation to a mortgage,00:29:30
the legislator did this, and since00:29:34
here for the mortgage holder and of course,00:29:36
possession is simply excluded, yes, therefore,00:29:38
when we talk about the good faith of00:29:39
the mortgagee and, in principle, we do not talk00:29:41
about his possession, yes, of course we evaluate00:29:44
his good faith, of course we00:29:45
we evaluate his good faith, we can00:29:47
evaluate whether the mortgagor was the owner, for example,00:29:50
of course, he needs the property he has,00:29:53
we do not evaluate these problems, it seems to me that it is00:29:57
necessary not so much depending on the00:29:59
turnover of what is the right of ownership or00:30:02
some kind of security rights to discuss,00:30:04
but rather00:30:06
what we are dealing with with the initial exit of00:30:09
property from possession broadly, so to speak,00:30:13
not specifically the00:30:14
real true owner and00:30:16
its subsequent turnover, that is,00:30:19
situation 1, which we just heard, you are00:30:23
in your apartment, you live, you are00:30:24
locked in, someone in the registry00:30:26
took it in an unclear way and rewrote the00:30:30
right while you are sitting in your apartment and00:30:32
fight it off, in principle, the law has00:30:35
not gone anywhere and the statute of limitations, by the way, does not00:30:38
work against you. A slightly different00:30:40
situation is when somehow00:30:42
the property has passed away from the actual00:30:44
owner and possession actually came out00:30:48
and the registration was transferred to another person,00:30:51
it was similar somewhere and then a00:30:54
bona fide purchaser acquired it from the00:30:56
register paid absolutely00:30:59
in good faith, but has not yet received this00:31:02
very property in his possession, and the00:31:04
one from whom he should receive it is also00:31:06
already the00:31:07
owner of this property, but00:31:10
even formally there is no record of it in such a00:31:14
situation, our judicial practice00:31:16
still says in possession00:31:17
you haven’t received it yet, not a bona fide00:31:19
acquirer, not not an acquirer at all,00:31:22
precisely for the purposes of applying Article 302,00:31:25
but here why not say that he is00:31:28
not the acquirer, the previous owner does not00:31:31
continue to own on behalf of00:31:33
this new acquirer, if we00:31:35
remember the good old Romans,00:31:37
who in general they invented ownership, then00:31:39
in this case they said that here we00:31:42
have bones here, soren forbid, that00:31:44
is, after all, the transfer of ownership to is00:31:47
quite specific, but the former00:31:50
seller continues to own for the00:31:52
buyer, and approximately the same situation00:31:53
with a mortgage is one thing if a mortgage00:31:58
is taken on the property for the first time and there,00:32:01
well, this is an ugly situation with something00:32:04
very bad located in this very00:32:06
apartment, then you can probably discuss it00:32:09
before the pledge holder is not very00:32:12
conscientious if he has not even looked00:32:13
at the subject of the pledge and a completely different00:32:16
situation when the pledge has already arisen00:32:18
a long time ago - a long time ago, and then during the00:32:20
succession of the collateral rights themselves, there were00:32:22
some problems that led00:32:25
to the fact that the record of who is the00:32:27
mortgagee on the mortgage does not00:32:29
correspond to the substantive law.00:32:31
Here, to demand from the purchaser of the00:32:34
mortgage in good faith that he00:32:36
go and look at the subject of collateral, there are00:32:38
probably no reasons for this00:32:41
acquisition, he only needed to00:32:43
get registration because00:32:46
they looked at the subject of the pledge long before00:32:47
him and when this pledge00:32:49
was established like it’s important both sibats00:32:56
just thank you Lesa Nikolaevich question00:32:58
question from the audience yes yes please Alexey00:33:02
Telyatnikov lawyer city of Omsk00:33:04
Demikhov please tell me is it permissible00:33:08
to use and an indication of obligatory00:33:12
legal relations, that is, is it possible to00:33:14
reclaim not a thing but the right to this thing00:33:18
using the example of an agreement for shared participation in00:33:20
construction, the object has not yet been built,00:33:23
the thing is not there, but there is a consistent00:33:25
chain of transactions for the assignment of rights00:33:27
of claim, the00:33:28
initial transaction is disputed, is it possible to00:33:30
reclaim this from the final acquirer?00:33:33
right if there is no how can he defend himself in00:33:36
case of recognition of the validity of the00:33:38
hand, thank you for the question, but this is of course a00:33:45
very large block of questions, we understand00:33:51
what the main problem in those is that the00:33:54
focus of 301 302 articles is the00:33:59
discrepancy between the legal and actual00:34:01
status of the right I have to own and00:34:06
in fact do you own the application of these00:34:12
norms to the turnover of intangible objects00:34:16
where the00:34:17
discrepancies between the legal and the factual,00:34:20
strictly speaking, are impossible raises00:34:26
questions, you remember that we started with the00:34:28
vindication of uncertificated securities00:34:30
around this debt, there were disputes as00:34:33
a result of the reform,00:34:35
more or less resolved this issue, there00:34:38
is no doubt that the subject of any00:34:42
right can argue with others about who00:34:46
is the subject of this right, there is no00:34:50
doubt that there must be a way to00:34:52
protect the ownership of the right for things,00:34:57
this is vindication for other objects or00:35:03
for rights that do not have a material00:35:06
substrate, probably this is a claim for recognition00:35:11
since there is no discrepancy between the00:35:14
legal and the factual, is it possible00:35:18
the second and last part of the questions is00:35:20
whether it is possible to acquire00:35:23
intangible rights in good faith, we know well that00:35:30
this question is very controversial, that00:35:32
such an acquisition is allowed, or00:35:36
more precisely, it can be, yes, let it be00:35:38
allowed where there are some00:35:42
objectified forms of legitimation,00:35:46
such as a register,00:35:47
if this is the right, although not materially,00:35:50
but its ownership is recorded00:35:54
in the registry, then probably here you can00:35:56
discuss the acquisition by an unauthorized00:35:59
person, if but it can be discussed and here00:36:04
the legislator should establish this, if there is00:36:05
no such norm, especially if there00:36:10
is no objectified form00:36:12
of legitimation like a registry, this00:36:14
bona fide acquisition is possible00:36:17
even hypothetically, well and in continuation of00:36:21
the conversation, on December 21, 2017, the00:36:27
Supreme Court adopted a resolution on00:36:30
certain issues regarding the application of Chapter 24 of the00:36:32
Civil Code to the change of persons in an00:36:34
obligation on the basis of a transaction, the draft of00:36:38
this resolution contained00:36:41
the possibility of recognizing a person in good faith as00:36:43
having ceded a right;00:36:47
we just had the court consider at00:36:50
this stage exactly this dispute and00:36:52
in the reasoning part, the court will take place on the00:36:55
draft resolution, but in the end this provision was not included in the00:37:00
final text of this resolution,00:37:02
that is, at the00:37:04
stage of its adoption it was excluded00:37:06
so that this would mean that our legal00:37:08
system is not yet ready for this; new ones on00:37:12
this path I would I agreed with the first00:37:16
part of the answer but doubted 2. Our00:37:19
system is not ready for this. I’m not sure00:37:21
that we are on this path. Let me remind you that we are talking00:37:23
about the possibility of a bona fide00:37:25
acquisition of obligatory00:37:26
claims, and as an example of what we00:37:29
talked about earlier here, exactly the same00:37:33
problems in the center attention to what exactly is00:37:35
legitimizing an unauthorized00:37:38
alienator of the right of claim to00:37:40
dispose of it, why on earth am I the00:37:44
acquirer of the right of claim I am sure00:37:47
that when acquiring rights of claim I am00:37:50
dealing with an00:37:51
authorized person and, frankly00:37:54
speaking, that’s what it is to legitimize an00:37:57
unauthorized alienator for such an00:38:00
act in the case of things from 302 this00:38:04
ownership, the fact that he owns gives00:38:07
me the impression, as the law suggests, that00:38:09
he is the owner, and what gives me the00:38:11
impression that this is a real creditor in front of me,00:38:14
well, as you well know, it’s00:38:17
very difficult to cling to something if00:38:19
these obligations and other rights00:38:20
are registered, this is one conversation and there00:38:24
really is a possible protection for00:38:25
those in good faith, and if not, well, probably the00:38:29
only clue may be that the00:38:31
alienator has the00:38:33
original contract in his hands, but this is not00:38:39
very strong and not probably, after all, not00:38:40
everyone who holds the original contract in his hands00:38:42
can be recognized00:38:47
as a real creditor and00:38:53
we probably don’t have any other objective clues, there’s nothing00:38:55
in the situation in which the00:38:59
assignor is acting that would give us the00:39:02
impression that he’s authorized,00:39:04
so I’m not sure that we’re moving towards00:39:07
this, maybe this conscientious00:39:09
acquisition of compulsory rights of00:39:11
claims not assigned to the registers00:39:13
is impossible and we will never00:39:15
introduce it, thank you00:39:20
[music]00:39:23
but I would like to press the question and at the same time00:39:25
react to your report Andrey00:39:27
Mikhailov,00:39:28
even these questions to press the speaker00:39:30
of course, who, it seems to me, did not00:39:32
fully answer the question, so we00:39:38
were told in the report, in my opinion, quite00:39:41
rightly that still, strictly speaking,00:39:42
it is necessary to distinguish between an acquisition based on00:39:45
good faith and the public00:39:46
reliability of the register, that they are similar, but00:39:50
still, dogmatically, these are00:39:51
different things, it also seems so to me, and you did00:39:58
not mention the lawsuit that if we proceed00:40:01
from the text of our code, then public00:40:03
reliability is also invited to us 81 there00:40:05
are words there that registration00:40:08
is based on public00:40:09
reliability, then it’s not very clear00:40:11
whether this idea was actually heard00:40:14
by the law enforcer and how it was meaningfully00:40:17
influenced by the fact that before that we00:40:19
discussed protection through acquisition00:40:22
having picked up 302 on the crown of the code, these00:40:24
words are like this It seems to you that this is the00:40:28
question that at the same time a colleague asked about the00:40:30
rights of registered rights for equity00:40:36
participation, can we still discuss00:40:39
this here, not from the point of view of acquisition00:40:41
in good conscience, from the point of view of the00:40:42
public elder register, this is00:40:47
my additional clamping00:40:49
question00:40:51
[music]00:41:01
I don’t have a00:41:03
fully formed00:41:05
point of view on this matter, I’m actually00:41:07
not even convinced that the decision of the00:41:10
54th Plenum of 2017, which was mentioned00:41:15
about the application of the provisions of Chapter 2400:41:20
in this part, is ideal, I’m not sure that the00:41:27
real estate register00:41:32
is a register of00:41:34
compulsory rights, but I’m not I am sure that we00:41:37
can move from the register from the00:41:43
real estate register to draw conclusions about the00:41:48
rights of obligations arising from those00:41:50
associated with real estate, we are00:41:52
sure that under the left side of the pure00:41:54
obligation a dream house00:41:55
is registered, I00:42:10
can’t say no, I’m ready for00:42:17
some kind of answer, so yes, even but00:42:20
we are thinking it’s still finite if we,00:42:25
well, and it just seems to me no, it00:42:27
can’t be this automatism that all00:42:29
mandatory rights are in one way or another connected00:42:31
with the real estate register and in one way or another00:42:34
connected with those transactions or rights00:42:37
that are registered there, we immediately00:42:39
register them as rights for the00:42:42
purposes there bona fide acquisition,00:42:44
that is, I want to say that the register00:42:45
of real estate, strictly speaking, does not have00:42:48
public reliability in relation to00:42:50
obligations by law, as it seemed to me,00:42:51
as a general rule, it can only be00:42:53
some special type of lease, and so00:42:55
on, it seemed to me that here00:42:57
this automatism is not there, although maybe00:42:59
Andy didn’t think it through until the end, and I myself don’t have a00:43:03
mature point of view, thank you, but I00:43:06
’ll allow myself a small comment in connection00:43:08
with this, but rather, I’m reacting00:43:12
to this from Andrey Mikhalych, and00:43:14
maybe it’s precisely we who should00:43:16
doubt the fact that what seems to us to be00:43:18
registered by them as obligatory may be00:43:20
because it is not necessary that00:43:21
it is registered, well, that is, since we00:43:25
are registering shared participation, since we00:43:26
are registering a lease, then this in itself,00:43:28
I think that this will be discussed at00:43:30
the Fast and the Furious, I in itself is a strong argument in the00:43:32
benefit of their personal nature is such a00:43:34
feeling, thank you, you can wish00:43:37
[applause]00:43:41
excuse me, please, could I have one more00:43:43
please,00:43:44
and here you were talking about the fact that00:43:48
legislators need to either act as an00:43:50
engineer and impose on society some00:43:54
principles for determining the factors of00:43:58
whether the acquirer is in good faith or00:44:00
be guided by generally accepted norms00:44:03
turnover and, as it were, based on this,00:44:06
determine but the same factors for the00:44:09
same purposes and why, I have a question,00:44:14
why can’t the legislator act as an00:44:17
engineer based on precisely the00:44:21
principles of turnover, we have a lot of00:44:23
complex norms, such multi-joint and00:44:27
constant ones, that’s why00:44:31
When determining whether00:44:34
the acquirer is in good faith, it is impossible to take00:44:37
into account whether he is the actual00:44:41
owner and whether, when00:44:44
making a transaction, he was guided by the data contained00:44:47
in the register of rights, what is the problem actually00:44:50
and why it is impossible00:44:54
to use a symbiosis of these factors when determining,00:44:56
respectively, good faith or00:45:00
absence and thanks for the question I think00:45:05
that these are two extremes: a social engineer00:45:08
and an obedient student of00:45:11
turnover; in fact, naturally, any00:45:14
rule-making authority because it00:45:16
is rule-making because it not only00:45:18
fixes the facts, but also directs it somewhere,00:45:21
moves it, and so on, the question is00:45:23
where you are on this scale,00:45:26
you radically change what is it done00:45:29
usually or did you look the other way around and00:45:33
place emphasis? yes, it’s natural00:45:36
that there are no pure solutions and no00:45:39
completely radical ones; there are no brittle ones; it’s just00:45:42
a description in the law of what is there; the00:45:44
legislators of the rule-making body00:45:46
choose more actively or less to00:45:49
more conservative or less so00:45:51
on, that is, naturally possible00:45:53
all sorts of decisions that further move away from00:45:57
established standards or, on the contrary,00:45:59
remain directly with them, as for00:46:02
symbiosis, now we have symbiosis, we have00:46:05
ownership and registration00:46:08
and something else, but another thing is that00:46:11
we still need to remember that we have two models00:46:15
here is a model for protecting the00:46:19
actual turnover of ownership and a model for00:46:22
protecting trust in the registry and our symbiosis00:46:27
is just a variation on the theme of protecting the00:46:30
actual turnover of ownership if you00:46:33
want to introduce a system that00:46:35
protects trust in the registry, then you need to00:46:39
close your eyes as much as possible to everything that is outside00:46:42
the registry and outside the registry first of all the most00:46:46
important thing is ownership; by the way, in the00:46:48
concept it says ownership is not00:46:50
registered until ownership of the registry is in it;00:46:53
if you want to build a00:46:55
registry-oriented system, then you00:46:57
still need to turn a blind eye to00:46:59
ownership; here I’m afraid that the symbiosis between00:47:01
them is always the first model; this is always the00:47:04
protection model ownership thank you thank you00:47:10
can I have two more questions yes and I took 20000:47:15
questions yes you can yes Roman Serdkov00:47:17
banov lawyer Krasnodar00:47:19
please tell me last year the00:47:22
legendary decision of the conditioning00:47:24
court under 300 2 articles00:47:26
the Moscow case black realtors and so on it00:47:29
turned out so that the conditioning court00:47:32
actually provided an increased00:47:34
guarantee of protection to those in good faith00:47:36
the acquirer, in the event that the00:47:39
owner whose interests were00:47:42
violated was a public entity,00:47:44
in fact, the console court could00:47:48
expand this norm, the world is not a norm, but00:47:50
could expand its explanations and introduce00:47:53
this effective mechanism for protecting00:47:55
bona fide acquirers not only00:47:57
in relation to a public entity, but00:48:00
also in principle with all the other00:48:02
owners who were he did not00:48:04
do this, so don’t you think that the00:48:08
legislator, the pension court, as also a00:48:11
subject00:48:12
influencing legislation at the present00:48:15
time, they are either not ready or not00:48:18
interested, they believe that the00:48:20
mechanism operates effectively and00:48:24
there is no point in changing it now because what00:48:27
was done was provided, well, in00:48:30
civil relations we have equal rights between00:48:32
the state and the municipalities and that’s all, but here00:48:35
increased protection was provided00:48:37
specifically in relations with00:48:40
state authorities and local00:48:41
self-government,00:48:42
thank you thank you thank you for the question,00:48:46
we touched on canson and the court and 10 we have00:48:49
one here the speaker who00:48:51
heads the management in the concert00:48:53
judge wants to answer this question and00:48:55
stage at us from the end of the blow to you, you00:48:58
did bafta Haiti there is a slightly00:49:00
different situation just to00:49:03
be done in which the collection court is00:49:06
still not a legislator, so when making a00:49:10
decision on the case, he gets there I proceeded from the00:49:13
fact that for this it is necessary, of course, to00:49:14
ensure equality of owners,00:49:16
yes, in our country it seems like the street owner is a00:49:18
private owner, they are equal, but sometimes00:49:20
in order to ensure equality00:49:22
one of the participants needs to slightly00:49:25
infringe on the rights of discrimination to carry out discrimination in order to00:49:27
equalize restore this00:49:30
balance this is equality of rights and also00:49:32
underpants, the court there proceeded from the fact that00:49:37
completely unequal interests are protected00:49:39
in the event that we are on the same side00:49:42
of the scale, we are simply the owner of an individual00:49:45
who has lost living quarters, and it is a00:49:49
completely different situation when00:49:51
the owner is a public00:49:52
entity that has received the right of00:49:53
ownership to premises00:49:57
like windows, escheat property in one00:49:59
case, we not only have00:50:01
property rights, but not yet a00:50:02
moral right, the right to housing,00:50:04
which we have in Europe, and a lesson for00:50:07
loudly for or not, well, well, but there are00:50:09
parables, you admit that there is a certain00:50:12
non-property right, the right to00:50:14
he has a home, he has the right00:50:15
to property and there is a non-property00:50:17
right in00:50:18
public education, these are the00:50:20
non-property components, no, so the00:50:23
right of an individual is protected here in a00:50:27
slightly different way,00:50:28
so the protection mechanisms here are00:50:30
simply different in principle, from this the00:50:33
conditional soup came from the fact that, in principle, the00:50:35
situation is not are exactly the same, so00:50:38
maybe it’s just not worth looking for00:50:40
any other meanings in this in this00:50:42
decision,00:50:48
I would like to say one very important remark in00:50:51
connection with the report on00:50:53
dreamhack, not in the order of pinching just00:50:55
my remark personally, it seems to me that00:50:58
there is a very interesting An example of00:51:00
this is when the highest courts00:51:03
tried to act as a00:51:05
social engineer and they couldn’t do it00:51:07
consistently. I’m00:51:09
watching these with great interest. These are00:51:12
similar issues00:51:13
relating to trust in the powers of a director of a00:51:17
legal entity. Generally speaking,00:51:21
we have a charter which can limit the00:51:24
powers of a Vedic person and the00:51:27
code says that the one who knows about00:51:29
what to break with a feeling is limited, this00:51:33
does not protect his trust in the fact that the00:51:38
direct message in the register says that this person is the00:51:40
director and seems to be the 10th mythical person00:51:42
and it’s very interesting that the highest00:51:45
arbitration the court in the process of becoming a prisoner00:51:47
impasto 4 wrote it in such a way that it seemed to be a00:51:50
positive law that in00:51:52
fact it is written who is the director in the register00:51:55
and there is no need to check anything further,00:51:56
but what is actually in the charter does00:51:59
not need to be read and the Supreme Court00:52:04
continued with 25 prisoners although it’s strict, if00:52:07
you look at the text that captivity after 400:52:09
that 25, it’s not written there in the forehead, but the00:52:12
way it was written for some reason was written00:52:15
quite clearly, and moreover,00:52:16
this is the banner, you don’t need to read the00:52:20
charters, trust who is the director of the registry00:52:22
but now it’s been picked up by Anton00:52:25
than the blacksmith and he’s telling everyone00:52:27
that he doesn’t need to read the statutes, and he’s00:52:30
just frankly admitting that he00:52:32
hates this idea that people read the00:52:34
statutes and that’s how to fight over it, that is,00:52:36
this is social engineering that’s00:52:38
directly spelled out in Rumor has it that he is the00:52:39
main modern preacher of this00:52:41
idea and we see that the Supreme Court also00:52:44
seems to be striving for the text of the resolutions,00:52:47
but it is interesting that all these 1000:52:48
years this has not been happening, that is, it seems that00:52:51
the highest courts are saying that society does not00:52:53
need to read the statutes, but people are reading and in00:52:57
my opinion they are doing this correctly, that is,00:53:00
in addition to everything else that needs to be understood00:53:04
before society, it00:53:05
is interesting that it is also necessary to understand the00:53:08
limits of influence on it, that is, even00:53:10
if we give and indeed00:53:13
maybe in some cases the right creates00:53:14
such things for those who want to change00:53:16
society, they only positive law00:53:18
must also be borne in mind that there are00:53:20
serious limits of influence here and one should not be00:53:22
under the illusion that what00:53:26
law always creates can change society and00:53:28
this is very restorative, for example, it00:53:30
should be kept in mind by all those who00:53:32
really want that this is a controversial idea00:53:35
to change society this is also00:53:37
possible here, and this seems to me like this is a00:53:39
very living example00:53:40
[music]00:53:42
[applause]00:53:45
Andrei Mikhailovich, can I have some small00:53:47
questions 1 remarks first, a replica under the00:53:49
protection of bona fide acquirers of00:53:51
subjective rights, you said that he has00:53:53
nothing to cling to of obligatory rights00:53:55
if the right not tested, how00:53:58
will he develop good faith? We are the00:53:59
first example that I came up with, this is the foreclosure of00:54:01
accounts receivable in00:54:03
enforcement00:54:04
proceedings, so we are in captivity,00:54:06
indeed, this situation unfortunately did00:54:07
not fall into which a colleague quite00:54:09
rightly pointed out in his question, but00:54:12
if I come to a public auction00:54:15
and I buy sellable00:54:17
receivables, but it’s hard to imagine greater00:54:20
conscientiousness than participation in public00:54:21
auctions, but if00:54:24
there is no conspiracy, of course we intend00:54:26
this, in principle, I am certainly00:54:27
conscientious and nevertheless we00:54:30
left him without protection00:54:31
and put him at risk in this sense, I00:54:34
think In general, the turnover of obligatory rights is to a00:54:36
significant extent, if you00:54:37
mean the turnover is not such that I personally00:54:40
concede to you, but the market for obligatory rights is a00:54:42
debt market in general, which needs the00:54:44
protection of integrity00:54:46
as an organized one, including the market, but00:54:48
this is a remark00:54:49
and a small question,00:54:51
please bring your thoughts to the end I00:54:53
understand correctly that you are in the system00:54:55
that should be this00:54:57
registration system without possession,00:54:59
paragraph six of Article 81 of the Civil00:55:01
Code should be changed and it00:55:05
says that00:55:06
someone who could and should have00:55:08
known that the Vester entry was made00:55:10
unreasonably, that is, this paragraph, cannot be considered conscientious should00:55:12
be excluded if we rely only00:55:15
on the register and everything else is taken out of00:55:17
the bracket, then there is no reason to leave this00:55:21
point in paragraph 6. Those who know that00:55:25
an entry has been made cannot be based on cannot00:55:27
refer to the register, right now it’s there, so to00:55:28
speak, thank you, such a possibly00:55:34
radical00:55:36
registration system with in which the00:55:40
acquirer 3rd party has the right to rely00:55:43
on the registry regardless of whether they know they do00:55:45
not know about the actual probably this is00:55:50
what is usually called a torrent system00:55:53
but we are focused on a different model00:55:59
which is enshrined in Article 8100:56:02
the registry is reliable for everyone except those who00:56:05
know that it is unreliable00:56:06
and this the same is enshrined in the second paragraph of00:56:08
paragraph 2 51 for the register of legal entities,00:56:12
this is a German decision, understandable, I look at the00:56:16
register, for me it is reliable, but if it00:56:18
proves that I knew that in fact the00:56:20
tone was not delivered to me, it was00:56:23
also said there should have known, but it00:56:26
should have this property is to talk to00:56:28
neighbors, find out the whole story, so if00:56:31
we take the property out of the bracket, then we00:56:33
see and take it out with it, and that’s00:56:35
absolutely right, it all comes down to how00:56:38
the courts fill the words with content before00:56:40
the word should have known, I don’t00:56:44
think at all that we need it now are ready to00:56:46
switch to this system, but I00:56:49
say there may be several systems,00:56:51
including what is now enshrined in Article 51 of the00:56:54
public truth of the game and from this00:56:58
the courts can do whatever they want, if they00:57:01
should have known it, they checked the00:57:03
constituent documents,00:57:04
then all that remains of it are horns and legs,00:57:07
for example if he should have known this00:57:10
only00:57:12
yes, because of some published00:57:14
sources, he had relatives and so00:57:17
on, that is, the disc how far the courts will00:57:20
interpret how broadly to interpret00:57:23
the words he should have known and will00:57:25
ultimately determine the appearance of this system00:57:30
[applause]00:57:33
colleagues there is still a small remark I would00:57:36
also like to add, it’s not for nothing that in00:57:41
the registration register, with those in ours,00:57:43
such a tool appeared as a00:57:44
mark of objections, a mark of claims, doesn’t00:57:48
this mean that you should have known, does this00:57:52
mean that if you looked at00:57:53
the registry, you would see a mark there, then you00:57:56
would know about the problems with a registered00:57:59
title, it seems to me that the00:58:01
more developed the technologies for entering00:58:04
an objection specifically into the register, the less important00:58:06
should be the actual00:58:08
inspection of things inspected while owning, let’s say00:58:11
I can imagine some00:58:13
more or less distant future there when00:58:18
later, using the application, I will be able to add00:58:20
a mark to the register to place at the snap of a00:58:24
finger someone who has paid through for the most with00:58:26
some kind of duty, theoretically this is00:58:28
conceivable then it turns out that the legitimacy of00:58:31
the tion and the value of ownership will00:58:33
tend to zero I would of course probably00:58:37
would welcome such a system00:58:38
and a simplified placement of objections in the00:58:40
register but in good faith I have studied00:58:42
the register will be an objection went to00:58:43
a deal should be protected by the aroma of Sergey the00:58:46
cat the person who threatens with a pistol00:58:49
will make a mark in the register00:58:50
of claims or like my old pipes and00:58:52
ready for progression this is another00:58:54
question this is a question of whether00:58:56
we defend the lands in good faith in the event that the00:58:58
loss of legitimation occurred against the will of00:59:02
this the question is not related to the question of good00:59:05
conscience, this is a policy,00:59:08
theoretical wires, I can also imagine such a thing00:59:10
when it doesn’t matter how00:59:13
the title of the granny was damaged or against her will she was00:59:17
registered in this registry, but the00:59:19
victim always receives compensation00:59:22
on the principle ruble for ruble from some00:59:24
compensation fund that00:59:25
the registrar has in fact, as far as I00:59:27
understand this, the main ideas of the00:59:29
city's thorens need to be tough, merciless, yes,00:59:31
it protects the acquirer very seriously,00:59:33
but the loser always00:59:35
receives compensation a hundred times, there are00:59:37
cases when even the acquirer is not00:59:38
protected, help to get a compensator, a00:59:40
zero-sum game turns out no00:59:43
one ever loses, but us00:59:45
such a novel by Sergei Chukhno property00:59:46
is not only money but also personality,00:59:48
and when you take away my apartment from me,00:59:49
it’s not only that you don’t have to00:59:51
spend money on a button, but I can00:59:54
do it and mega menu I can return00:59:56
this argument to00:59:57
the acquirer here you pay the money and01:00:00
it turns out that when the01:00:02
buyer demands an apartment from you, your children01:00:04
live there and you have a mortgage loan on your shoulders,01:00:06
I’m not sure that this argument works, yes,01:00:09
thank you in all aspects of the work, yes, thank you01:00:11
very much, sorry cube legal forum dot01:00:15
ruDescription:
20 апреля 2018 года в Краснодаре прошел Второй Кубанский юридический форум http://kublegalforum.ru В мероприятии приняло участие более 1200 юристов. Организаторы форума: Фонд "Кубанский юридический форум" http://kublegalforum.ru Юридическая фирма MIALEGIS http://mialegis.ru http://familylaw23.ru http://pristav23.ru Краснодарское региональное объединение Ассоциации юристов России http://www.alrfkuban.ru Исследовательский центр частного права им. С.С. Алексеева при Президенте РФ http://privlaw.ru Северо-Кавказский филиал Российского государственного университета правосудия http://nc-raj.ru В качестве спикеров выступили: Бевзенко Роман Сергеевич – к.ю.н., профессор Исследовательского центра частного права им. С.С. Алексеева при Президенте РФ; Ширвиндт Андрей Михайлович – к.ю.н., доцент кафедры гражданского права Юридического факультета МГУ им. М.В. Ломоносова, член научно-консультативного совета при Верховном Суде РФ; Шварц Михаил Зиновьевич – к.ю.н., доцент кафедры гражданского процесса юридического факультета Санкт-Петербургского государственного университета, член научно-консультативного совета при Верховном Суде РФ; Церковников Михаил Александрович – к.ю.н., доцент кафедры общих проблем гражданского права Исследовательского центра частного права им. С.С. Алексеева при Президенте РФ Рыбалов Андрей Олегович – к.ю.н., начальник Управления конституционных основ частного права Конституционного Суда РФ Зайцев Олег Романович – к.ю.н., консультант Исследовательского центра частного права им. С.С. Алексеева при Президенте РФ Башкатов Максим Леонидович – преподаватель кафедры гражданского права Юридического факультета МГУ им. М.В. Ломоносова, директор направления в АНО «Центр международных и сравнительно-правовых исследований» Рыбаков Алексей Игоревич – председатель Комиссии Федеральной нотариальной палаты по методической работе; Латыев Александр Николаевич – к.ю.н, партнер, руководитель практик «Внешнеэкономическая деятельность и международное частное право», «Правовая защита недвижимости», Группа правовых компаний ИНТЕЛЛЕКТ-С Генеральный информационный партнер: https://pravo.ru Партнеры форума: АПИ "Гарант" http://www.apigarant.ru Национальная юридическая компания "Митра" http://mitralaw.ru Экспертно-оценочная компания LegalServices http://legal23.ru Первая социальная сеть для юристов Закон.ru https://zakon.ru Русско-Азиатская Ассоциация юристов http://www.rala.org.ru Группа правовых компаний "Интеллект-С" http://www.intellectpro.ru Информационный портал Lawfirmmanagement https://www.lawfirmmanagement.ru Учебный центр MIALEGIS http://юр-семинары.рф Второй Кубанский юридический форум посвящен 60-й годовщине образования Юридического факультета им. А.А. Хмырова Кубанского государственного университета
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 "Защита добросовестного приобретателя недвижимости, владение и гос. регистрация | Ширвиндт А.М." 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 "Защита добросовестного приобретателя недвижимости, владение и гос. регистрация | Ширвиндт А.М." 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 "Защита добросовестного приобретателя недвижимости, владение и гос. регистрация | Ширвиндт А.М." 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 "Защита добросовестного приобретателя недвижимости, владение и гос. регистрация | Ширвиндт А.М." 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 "Защита добросовестного приобретателя недвижимости, владение и гос. регистрация | Ширвиндт А.М."?
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 "Защита добросовестного приобретателя недвижимости, владение и гос. регистрация | Ширвиндт А.М."?
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.