235 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation content of property rights. Civil Code of the Russian Federation (Civil Code of the Russian Federation)

Article 235. Grounds for termination of ownership rights

1. The right of ownership shall terminate when the owner alienates his property to other persons, the owner renounces the right of ownership, the destruction or destruction of property, and when the right of ownership to property is lost in other cases provided for by law.

2. Forced seizure of property from the owner is not permitted, except in cases where, on the grounds provided for by law, the following is carried out:

1) foreclosure of property for obligations ();

2) alienation of property that, by virtue of law, cannot belong to to this person ();

3) alienation real estate in connection with the seizure of the site ();

4) redemption of mismanaged cultural property and domestic animals (Articles 240 and 241);

7) alienation of property in the cases provided for in paragraph 4 of Article 252, paragraph 2 of Article 272, paragraphs 4 and 5 of Article 1252 of this Code; (as amended by Federal Law dated December 18, 2006 N 231-FZ)

8) application by a court decision to the income of the Russian Federation of property in respect of which is not presented in accordance with the law Russian Federation on anti-corruption evidence of its acquisition with legitimate income; (Clause 8 introduced by Federal Law dated December 3, 2012 N 231-FZ)

9) application by a court decision to the income of the Russian Federation of money, valuables, other property and income from them, in respect of which, in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation on countering terrorism, the person has not provided information confirming the legality of their acquisition. (Clause 9 introduced by Federal Law dated November 2, 2013 N 302-FZ)

By decision of the owner in the manner prescribed by the laws on privatization, property in state or municipal ownership is alienated into the ownership of citizens and legal entities.

Contact state property property owned by citizens and legal entities (nationalization) is carried out on the basis of the law with compensation for the cost of this property and other losses in the manner established by Article 306 of this Code.

Article 236. Renunciation of ownership rights

A citizen or legal entity may renounce the right of ownership of property owned by him by declaring this or taking other actions that definitely indicate his removal from the possession, use and disposal of property without the intention of retaining any rights to this property.

Relinquishment of the right of ownership does not entail the termination of the rights and obligations of the owner in relation to the relevant property until the acquisition of ownership of it by another person.

Article 237. Levy of execution on property for the obligations of the owner

1. Seizure of property by foreclosure against the owner’s obligations is carried out on the basis of a court decision, unless a different procedure for foreclosure is provided for by law or agreement.

2. The right of ownership to the property subject to foreclosure shall cease with the owner from the moment the right of ownership to the seized property arises from the person to whom this property is transferred.

Article 238. Termination of a person’s right of ownership to property that cannot belong to him

1. If, on the grounds permitted by law, a person owns property that by force of law cannot belong to him, this property must be alienated by the owner within a year from the moment the right of ownership to the property arises, unless a different period is established by law.

2. In cases where the property is not alienated by the owner within the time period specified in paragraph 1 of this article, such property, taking into account its nature and purpose, by a court decision made at the request of a state body or local government body, is subject to forced sale with transfer to the former to the owner of the proceeds or transfer to state or municipal ownership with compensation to the former owner for the value of the property determined by the court. In this case, the costs of alienation of property are deducted.

3. If in the ownership of a citizen or legal entity, on grounds permitted by law, there appears to be a thing for the acquisition of which a special permit is required, and its issuance to the owner is refused, this thing is subject to alienation in the manner established for property that cannot belong to this owner.

Article 239. Alienation of real estate in connection with the seizure of the plot on which it is located

1. In cases where seizure land plot for state or municipal needs or due to improper use of land is impossible without termination of ownership of buildings, structures or other real estate located on a given site, this property may be seized from the owner through redemption by the state or sale at public auction in the manner prescribed respectively and 284 - 286 of this Code.

The demand for seizure of real estate is not subject to satisfaction unless the state body or local government body that filed this demand with the court proves that the use of the land plot for the purposes for which it is seized is impossible without termination of the right of ownership to this real estate.

2. The rules of this article are applied accordingly when the right of ownership to real estate is terminated in connection with the seizure of mining allotments, water bodies and other isolated natural objects on which the property is located. (as amended by Federal Law No. 118-FZ of July 14, 2008)

Article 240. Redemption of mismanaged cultural property

In cases where the owner of cultural property, classified in accordance with the law as especially valuable and protected by the state, mismanages these values, which threatens them with losing their value, such values, by a court decision, can be confiscated from the owner through redemption by the state or sale at public auction .

When purchasing cultural property, the owner is reimbursed for its value in the amount established by agreement of the parties, and in case of a dispute, by the court. When selling at public auction, the proceeds from the sale are transferred to the owner minus the costs of conducting the auction.

Article 241. Redemption of domestic animals in case of improper treatment of them

In cases where the owner of domestic animals treats them in clear contradiction with the rules established by law and the norms of humane treatment of animals accepted in society, these animals can be seized from the owner by buying them out by a person who has submitted a corresponding demand to the court. The ransom price is determined by agreement of the parties, and in case of a dispute, by the court.

Article 242. Requisition

1. In cases of natural disasters, accidents, epidemics, epizootics and other circumstances of an emergency nature, property in the interests of society, by decision of state bodies, may be confiscated from the owner in the manner and under the conditions established by law, with payment to him of the value of the property (requisition ).

2. The assessment, according to which the owner is reimbursed for the value of the requisitioned property, may be challenged by him in court.

3. A person whose property has been requisitioned has the right, upon termination of the circumstances in connection with which the requisition was made, to demand in court the return of the remaining property to him.

Article 243. Confiscation

1. In cases provided for by law, property may be confiscated from the owner free of charge by a court decision in the form of a sanction for committing a crime or other offense (confiscation).

2. In cases provided for by law, confiscation may be carried out administratively. A decision on confiscation made administratively may be challenged in court. (as amended by Federal Law dated December 18, 2006 N 231-FZ)

2. Forced seizure of property from the owner is not permitted, except in cases where, on the grounds provided for by law, the following is carried out:

1) foreclosure on property for obligations (Article 237);

2) alienation of property that, by virtue of law, cannot belong to a given person (Article 238);

3) alienation of real estate in connection with the seizure of a land plot due to its improper use (Article 239);

3.1) alienation of an unfinished construction project in connection with the termination of a lease agreement for a land plot in state or municipal ownership (Article 239.1);

3.2) alienation of real estate in connection with the forced alienation of a land plot for state or municipal needs (withdrawal of a land plot for state or municipal needs (Article 239.2);

4) redemption of mismanaged cultural property and domestic animals (Articles 240 and 241);

5) requisition (Article 242);

6) confiscation (Article 243);

7) alienation of property in cases provided for in Article 239.2, paragraph 4 of Article, paragraph 2 of Article, Articles , , , paragraphs 4 and 5 of Article 1252 of this Code;

8) by a court decision, the transfer to the income of the Russian Federation of property in respect of which, in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation on combating corruption, evidence of its acquisition with legal income has not been provided;

By decision of the owner, in the manner prescribed by privatization laws, property in state or municipal ownership is alienated into the ownership of citizens and legal entities.

The conversion of property owned by citizens and legal entities into state ownership (nationalization) is carried out on the basis of law with compensation for the value of this property and other losses in the manner established by article of this Code.

Commentary to Art. 235 Civil Code of the Russian Federation

1. Paragraph 1 of the commented article in general terms indicates the grounds for termination of ownership rights at the will of the owner, as well as due to objective circumstances that cannot be qualified as actions of anyone aimed at terminating the ownership rights. This norm is a reference one (see, in particular, the commentary to Articles 217, 218, 223, 225, 226, 236 of the Civil Code). Although the list of grounds for termination of property rights contained in it is formulated as exhaustive, in reality it is not so. For example, it does not name such methods of terminating ownership rights as returning to the previous owner an animal that has retained affection for it (see commentary to Article 231 of the Civil Code) and cancellation of donation (see commentary to Article 578 of the Civil Code).

The basis for the termination of the right of ownership, which at the same time is not the basis for the emergence of this right in another person, is the destruction (destruction) of the thing mentioned in paragraph 1 of the commented article, which has already been discussed in the commentary. to Art. 209 Civil Code. One may come across the opinion that the destruction of a thing in the process of its consumption is the exercise of only the right to use it (i.e., not disposal), since the will of the owner is not aimed at terminating the right of ownership, but at extracting from things have their beneficial properties (for example, burning wood in a fireplace). However, the qualification of an action as an order depends rather on whether the property is retained by the owner as a result, rather than on the direction of the owner’s will. As long as the thing can still be used for its intended purpose, use takes place; at the moment of irreversible loss of purpose, disposal occurs by destroying the thing. In this case, strictly speaking, the right of ownership to the material remains of the destroyed thing is present. So, from Art. Art. 86, 89 VK, we can conclude that a destroyed aircraft is an object of ownership, but this is a new right to a new object that has changed in its essence.

2. Article 35 of the Constitution determines that no one can be deprived of their property except by a court decision. Forced alienation of property can be carried out subject to prior and equivalent compensation. The norm of paragraph 2 of the commented article, reference in its form, is precisely devoted to the general description of cases of forced seizure of property from the owner, as well as the concept of privatization (see also commentary on Article 217 of the Civil Code). Termination of ownership rights against the will of the owner can be considered in a number of cases as a sanction (see commentary to paragraph 3 of Article 220, paragraph 3 of Article 222, Article 237, 238, 240, 241, 243, 284, 285 , 293, paragraph 2 of Article 578, 1252 Civil Code); as a way to ensure the most important state and public interests (see commentary to Articles 239, 242, 243, 279 - 283 of the Civil Code); as a means of maintaining a balance of competing private interests (see commentary to paragraph 4 of Article 252 of the Civil Code).

The grounds for the forced termination of property rights must be directly and comprehensively provided for by federal law, which follows both from the general principle of inviolability of property (clause 1 of article 1 of the Civil Code) and the direct indication of clause 2 of the commented article.

3. The process of forced conversion of property belonging to individuals and legal entities into state ownership is called nationalization (paragraph 10, paragraph 2 of the commented article). Nationalization is carried out on the basis of a special federal law with compensation for the value of seized property and other losses in the manner established by Art. 306 Civil Code.

In most capitalist states, nationalization largest enterprises was carried out by exchanging shares for government securities with a fixed income. At the same time, the benefit of the shareholders was that they received the right, instead of an uncertain dividend that fluctuates during periods of crisis, to demand payment of a fixed amount of income, and the state benefited from the fact that it gained the opportunity to influence the decision-making of the enterprise it was interested in. In particular, the post-war nationalization of the Bank of England, coal industry enterprises and railway enterprises in England was carried out in this way during the period of Thatcherism (see for more details: Belov V.A. Nationalization in Russian civil law: history and modernity // Legislation. 1999 . N 2, 3).

In economics and some foreign legal orders, for example the USA, there is also the concept of “creeping expropriation”, i.e. hidden nationalization, when no special law is adopted, but such unbearable conditions for doing business in a particular country are created that investors themselves are looking for an opportunity to get rid of their assets in favor of the state.

At present, a special federal law on nationalization has not been adopted in Russia (in 2005, the Government of the Russian Federation withdrew the corresponding bill from consideration in State Duma RF). According to Art. 35 of the Constitution, forced alienation of property for state needs can be carried out subject to not only equal, but also preliminary compensation. Therefore, the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, before a final decision on nationalization is made, must, with the help of executive authorities, determine in advance the approximate number of owners whose property will be nationalized, the total amount of compensation and approve the costs of compensating them for losses as a separate line in federal budget for the coming year.

Judicial practice under Article 235 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation

"Review of the practice of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation for 2017"

16. By ruling No. 1163-O dated June 6, 2017, the Constitutional Court revealed the meaning of the provisions of subparagraph 8 of paragraph 2 of article of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, as well as part 1 of article 4, part 3 of article 16, article 17 and part 2 of article 18 of the Federal Law "On control over the compliance of the expenses of persons holding public positions and other persons with their income.”

Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated January 19, 2017 N 308-ES16-18902 in case N A53-22889/2015

Guided by articles of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, Article 32 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, having established that the land plot on which the real estate belonging to the company is located has been seized for municipal needs, the company is deprived of the opportunity to use the property belonging to it non-residential premises and in connection with the demolition apartment building there will be a forced termination of the company's ownership of them, the courts upheld the claim, determining the amount of compensation for the seized premises, taking into account the results of the forensic examination carried out in the case.

Determination of the Judicial Collegium for Economic Disputes of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated January 24, 2017 in case No. 305-KG16-10570, A40-78400/2015

The courts of the first and appellate instances, citing Article 36 of the Land Code of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as the Land Code of the Russian Federation), which was in force until 03/01/2016, articles of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as the Civil Code of the Russian Federation), part 1 of Article 36 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as - LC RF), Article 20 of Law N 122-FZ, explanations given in paragraph 8 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated July 23, 2009 N “On some issues of the practice of considering disputes about the rights of premises owners to the common property of a building” (hereinafter - Resolution of the Plenum No. 64), came to the conclusion that the Rosreestr Office has no grounds for state registration the Company's ownership rights to the disputed land plot.

Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 02/08/2017 N 305-ES16-20533 in case N A41-8521/2016

The courts of first and appellate instances, having examined and assessed the evidence presented in the case materials according to the rules of articles 69 and 71 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, guided by articles of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, explanations given in paragraph 52 of the resolution of the Plenum Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated April 29, 2010 N /22 “On some issues arising in judicial practice when resolving disputes related to the protection of property rights and other real rights", the legal position of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation, given in the Resolution of the Presidium dated October 20, 2010 N 4372/10 in case N A40-30545/09 and in the resolution dated September 24, 2013 N 1160/13 in case N A76-1598/2012, taking into account the results of the construction and technical examination carried out to determine the presence of controversial objects on the land plot, the expert’s opinion and the circumstances established by the arbitration courts when considering case N A41-28014/2012 , recognized the defendant’s registered ownership of the disputed real estate as terminated due to their death (destruction).

Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 02/08/2017 N 304-KG16-19909 in case N A46-1758/2016

The courts of the first and appellate instances, having examined and assessed the evidence presented in the case materials, guided by articles 197, 198, 200, 201 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, articles of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, articles 3, 4 of the Federal Law of December 8, 2011 N 423-FZ "On the procedure for the gratuitous transfer of military real estate into the ownership of constituent entities of the Russian Federation - federal cities of Moscow and St. Petersburg, municipal property and amendments to certain legislative acts Russian Federation" (as amended on July 2, 2013), Articles 16 and 18 of the Federal Law of July 21, 1997 N 122-FZ "On state registration of rights to real estate and transactions with it" (as amended on January 1, 2017), legal position of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, given in the ruling dated December 4, 2007 N 828-O-P, with the explanations given in paragraph 52 of the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated April 29, 2010 N / 22 “On some issues arising in judicial practice when resolving disputes related to the protection of property rights and other property rights", taking into account the circumstances established by the arbitration courts when considering case No. A46-7548/2014, we came to the conclusion that there were no grounds for satisfying the stated claims.

Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated February 10, 2017 N 307-ES16-17333 in case N A13-15131/2015

Under such circumstances, guided by articles , , of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, articles 44 and 53 of the Land Code of the Russian Federation, articles 198, 200, 201 of the Arbitration Procedural Code of the Russian Federation, article 36 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, article 16 of the Federal Law of December 29, 2004 N

Yurguru.ru / Civil Code of the Russian Federation / Chapter 15. Termination of ownership rights / Article 235. Grounds for termination of ownership rights

Civil Code of the Russian Federation. Chapter 15. Termination of ownership rights

Article 235. Grounds for termination of ownership rights

2. Forced seizure of property from the owner is not permitted, except in cases where, on the grounds provided for by law, the following is carried out:

1) foreclosure on property for obligations (Article 237);

2) alienation of property that, by virtue of law, cannot belong to a given person (Article 238);

3) alienation of real estate in connection with the seizure of a plot (Article 239);

4) redemption of mismanaged cultural property and domestic animals (Articles 240 and 241);

5) requisition (Article 242);

6) confiscation (Article 243);

7) alienation of property in cases provided for in paragraph 4 of Article 252, paragraph 2 of Article 272, Articles 282, 285, 293, paragraphs 4 and 5 of Article 1252 of this Code.

By decision of the owner, in the manner prescribed by privatization laws, property in state or municipal ownership is alienated into the ownership of citizens and legal entities.

The conversion into state ownership of property owned by citizens and legal entities (nationalization) is carried out on the basis of law with compensation for the cost of this property and other losses in the manner established by Article 306 of this Code.

Article 235 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation Grounds for termination of ownership rights- the full text of the document with comments from lawyers and the opportunity to exchange opinions with legal professionals, ask questions or express your opinion regarding articles of regulatory legal acts, study comments from colleagues.

Other articles Chapter 15. Termination of property rights.

New edition of Art. 235 Civil Code of the Russian Federation

2. Forced seizure of property from the owner is not permitted, except in cases where, on the grounds provided for by law, the following is carried out:

1) foreclosure on property for obligations (Article 237);

2) alienation of property that, by virtue of law, cannot belong to a given person (Article 238);

3) alienation of real estate in connection with the seizure of a land plot due to its improper use (Article 239);

3.1) alienation of an unfinished construction project in connection with the termination of a lease agreement for a land plot in state or municipal ownership (Article 239.1);

3.2) alienation of real estate in connection with the forced alienation of a land plot for state or municipal needs (withdrawal of a land plot for state or municipal needs (Article 239.2);

4) redemption of mismanaged cultural property and domestic animals (Articles 240 and 241);

5) requisition (Article 242);

6) confiscation (Article 243);

7) alienation of property in cases provided for in Article 239.2, paragraph 4 of Article 252, paragraph 2 of Article 272, Articles 282, 285, 293, paragraphs 4 and 5 of Article 1252 of this Code;

By decision of the owner, in the manner prescribed by privatization laws, property in state or municipal ownership is alienated into the ownership of citizens and legal entities.

Commentary to Art. 235 Civil Code of the Russian Federation

1. The termination of the right of ownership of property by one person is often inextricably linked with the emergence of the right of ownership of the same property by another person. Therefore, many grounds for termination of property rights are considered in connection with the methods (usually derivatives) of acquiring property rights (see commentary to Chapter 14).

Sometimes it is indicated that it would be more accurate in derivative methods of acquiring property rights to speak not about the moment of termination of property rights from one person and the moment of its emergence in another person, but about the transfer of property rights from one person to another.

2. Clause 1 of the commented article lists the grounds for termination of ownership rights at the will of the owner:

1) alienation of property to other persons, which necessarily entails the transfer of ownership rights to these persons;

2) voluntary refusal the owner from his property, which may entail the acquisition of ownership rights by other persons (Article 236 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation).

3. In addition, paragraph 1 of the commented article indicates a special basis that cannot lead to the emergence of property rights in another person - death or destruction of property. The destruction of property can occur both at the will of the owner (including as a result of using the property for its intended purpose - the use of food and other consumables), and against his will as a result of an accident (Article 211 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation) or due to the fault of specific persons, which entails the emergence of the owner.

4. Part 1 of clause 2 of the commented article provides an exhaustive list of grounds for depriving the owner of property against his will, regardless of whether the property is forcibly confiscated free of charge (subclauses 1 and 6) or for compensation (all other cases). Subsequent articles of the Civil Code specify these grounds.

Part 3 of paragraph 2 of the commented article specifically indicates another basis for the forced confiscation of property from the owner - nationalization. There is no nationalization law yet.

Deprivation of a right against the will of the subject of this right, which is generally not typical for civil law (), allows the legislator to focus precisely on the moment of termination, and not the emergence of property rights, and justifies the allocation of rules on the termination of property rights in a separate chapter.

Privatization as a basis for termination of ownership rights presupposes the expression of the will of the owner (see Article 217 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). The mention of privatization among the grounds for forced deprivation of property rights is made exclusively in connection with the mention of nationalization (as its counterweight) and, thus, reflects the specificity of the subject composition of the transfer of property rights during privatization and nationalization.

Another comment on Art. 235 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation

1. The significance of the commented article is that it is impossible to terminate ownership by other means than those described in it.

Clause 1 lists cases of termination of property at the will of the owner, as well as due to other circumstances that cannot be considered as actions of third parties specifically aimed at terminating ownership rights. This norm is primarily of a reference nature and is not exhaustive.

Termination of ownership at the will of the owner are transactions for the alienation of a thing (clause 2 of Article 218 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation), refusal of ownership (Article 226 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation).

The termination of property rights at the will of the owner is also accompanied by the termination of a legal entity, since the legal fate of its property is determined by the founders.

The destruction of a thing, as well as the loss of its individuality due to, for example, processing, entails the termination of the right of ownership due to the peculiarities of this right itself, which is possible only for an individually defined thing.

2. It is clear that in all cases of the emergence of property rights in the original way(Articles 225 - 228, 231, 234 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation) the ownership right of the previous owner has already been terminated. Although in a precise sense it cannot be said here that the right of ownership is terminated at the will of the owner (except for individual cases, for example, abandonment of a thing - Article 226), all these cases, however, cannot be considered forms of forced seizure of a thing, since the owner loses possession as a result of his own actions, and his loss of ownership is only a consequence of the loss of actual possession of the thing.

3. In paragraph 2 of Art. 235 lists cases when forced seizure of property is carried out against the will of the owner. From the wording of paragraph. 1 item 2 art. 235, which states that in cases other than those specified in this paragraph, seizure of property is not allowed, it follows that this list is exhaustive.

This refers only to those cases of seizure of property when the right of ownership is simultaneously terminated. When the seizure of property is carried out only for the purpose of ensuring certain rights of third parties without termination of the right of ownership (seizure of property as determined by a court or customs authority, etc.), the provisions of Art. 235 are not applicable.

Seizure of property in the sense of Art. 235 does not mean taking away an individually defined thing from a debtor who has not fulfilled the obligation to transfer this thing (Article 398 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). In the case provided for in Art. 398, the seizure is carried out by the creditor due to the previously expressed will of the debtor to alienate upon the conclusion of the relevant agreement or other basis that gave rise to the obligation to alienate the thing, and therefore cannot be considered committed against the will of the owner.

Seizure of property for the purpose of termination of ownership rights must comply with Art. 35 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, i.e. not be carried out except by a court decision.

At the same time, the grounds and procedure for seizure must be regulated by federal law.

Civil Code of the Russian Federation, along with those adopted in accordance with it federal laws, is the main source of civil legislation in the Russian Federation. Civil law norms contained in other normative legal acts cannot contradict the Civil Code. The Civil Code of the Russian Federation, work on which began at the end of 1992, and initially proceeded in parallel with work on the Russian Constitution of 1993, is a consolidated law consisting of four parts. Due to the huge volume of material that required inclusion in the Civil Code, it was decided to adopt it in parts.

The first part of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, entered into force on January 1, 1995, (with the exception of certain provisions), includes three of the seven sections of the code (Section I “General Provisions”, Section II “Property Rights and Other Property Rights”, section III"General part of the law of obligations"). This part of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation contains the fundamental norms of civil law and its terminology (about the subject and general principles of civil law, the status of its subjects (individuals and legal entities)), objects of civil law (various types of property and property rights), transactions, representation , limitation period, property rights, as well as the general principles of the law of obligations.

The second part of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, which is a continuation and addition to part one, came into force on March 1, 1996. It is entirely devoted to Section IV of the code “Certain types of obligations”. Based on the general principles of the new civil law of Russia, enshrined in the 1993 Constitution and part one of the Civil Code, part two establishes a detailed system of rules on individual obligations and contracts, obligations arising from causing harm (torts) and unjust enrichment. In terms of its content and significance, part two of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation is a major stage in the creation of new civil legislation of the Russian Federation.

The third part of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation includes section V “Inheritance Law” and section VI “Private International Law”. Compared to the legislation in force before the entry into force of Part Three of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation on March 1, 2002, the rules on inheritance have undergone major changes: new forms of wills have been added, the circle of heirs has been expanded, as well as the range of objects that can be transferred in the order of hereditary succession; Detailed rules have been introduced regarding the protection and management of inheritance. Section VI of the Civil Code, dedicated to the regulation of civil law relations complicated by a foreign element, is a codification of the norms of private international law. This section, in particular, contains rules on the qualification of legal concepts when determining the applicable law, on the application of the law of a country with plurality legal systems, on reciprocity, return, establishment of the content of norms of foreign law.

The fourth part of the Civil Code (entered into force on January 1, 2008) consists entirely of Section VII “Rights to the results of intellectual activity and means of individualization.” Its structure includes general provisions- norms that apply to all types of results of intellectual activity and means of individualization or to a significant number of their types. The inclusion of norms on intellectual property rights in the Civil Code of the Russian Federation made it possible to better coordinate these norms with the general norms of civil law, as well as to unify the rules used in the field intellectual property terminology The adoption of the fourth part of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation completed the codification of domestic civil legislation.

The Civil Code of the Russian Federation has passed the test of time and extensive application practice, however, economic offenses, often committed under the guise of civil law, have revealed the lack of completeness in the law of a number of classical civil law institutions, such as the invalidity of transactions, the creation, reorganization and liquidation of legal entities, assignment claims and transfer of debt, pledge, etc., which necessitated the need to introduce a number of systemic changes to the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. As noted by one of the initiators of making such changes, President of the Russian Federation D.A. Medvedev, “The existing system does not need to be restructured, fundamentally changed... but to be improved, to reveal its potential and to develop implementation mechanisms. The Civil Code has already become and should remain the basis for the formation and development of civilized market relations in the state, an effective mechanism for protecting all forms of property, as well as the rights and legitimate interests of citizens and legal entities. The Code does not require fundamental changes, but further improvement of civil legislation is necessary..."<1>.

On July 18, 2008, Decree of the President of the Russian Federation No. 1108 “On improving the Civil Code of the Russian Federation” was issued, which set the task of developing a concept for the development of civil legislation of the Russian Federation. October 7, 2009 The concept was approved by the decision of the Council for Codification and Improvement Russian legislation and signed by the President of the Russian Federation.

________
<1>See: Medvedev D.A. Civil Code of Russia - its role in development market economy and the creation of the rule of law // Bulletin of Civil Law. 2007. N 2. T.7.