Open AccessCivil law obligation reform in Russian Federation and its effect on the institute of damages (losses)
Author(s) -
Yuri E. Monastyrsky,
Vladimir N. Koval,
Anatoliy A. Vlasov
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
vestnik sankt-peterburgskogo universiteta. seriâ 14, pravo/vestnik sankt-peterburgskogo universiteta. pravo
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
eISSN - 2587-5833
pISSN - 2074-1243
DOI - 10.21638/spbu14.2021.306
Subject(s) - damages , debtor , civil code , law , obligation , political science , russian federation , business , civil procedure , legal liability , liability , law and economics , creditor , economics , debt , finance , economic policy
When an economic actor resorts to recovery of damages as a legal remedy, the main question that arises is what legal provisions govern the claim raised by such an actor. At a first glance, the answer is simple: both Chapter 25 (“Liability for violation of obligations”) and Article 15 (“Reimbursement of damages”) of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation contain provisions governing the terms of satisfaction of financial claims. However, such claims do not always arise from a failure to perform obligations and sometimes are even raised in the absence of an offence per se as stated by law. Therefore, quite often we need to consider the extent to which it would be lawful or, perhaps, even appropriate to invoke some of the provisions contained in Subsection 1 “General provisions on obligations” of Section III of the Civil Code. More detailed provisions on obligations introduced in March 2015 to Civil Code of RF may not be compatible with circumstances of losses. Articles 310, 311, 313, 314, 328, 407, 416 if applicable to damages recovery claims would undermine the said remedy as such. They grand a debtor the legal basis assumed and adopted as his limited protection in obligatory relationship as a whole to avoid the burden of full reimbursement by suspension of performance, counter demands, etc.