CC BY
20синтетической отравой, которая каждую неделю уносит жизни наших граждан, а именно нашей молодёжи [5].
Подводя итоги можно со всей уверенностью сказать, что закон актуальный и очень важный для России. Автор на личном опыте видел многие обсуждения в Государственной Думе ФС РФ, присутствуя на круглых столах фракции ЛДПР. Как помощник депутата Государственной Думы, автор участвовал во многих молодёжных обсуждениях данного закона (ещё до прохождения думских чтений), внося свои предложения и замечания, направленные на улучшение юридической стороны вопроса и практической реализации будущего нормативно-правового акта.
Самое главное из всего этого материала, чтобы наша нация была здоровой, сильной, и что самое главное - без наркотиков. В наших силах сделать нашу страну сильной, здоровой и юридически подкованной. Как только мы изменим себя - уйдёт и наркотик, потому что не будет рынка сбыта. И, конечно же, немаловажный фактор для преступников будет заключаться в ответственности за свои противоправные действия, которые как раз исходят от обсуждаемого нами закона.
Будущее России - в наших надёжных руках.
Литература
1. Конституция Российской Федерации (принята всенародным голосованием 12.12.1993)
2. Единая Конвенция о наркотических средствах (Нью-Йорк, 30 марта 1961 г.) (с изменениями и дополнениями)
3. Федеральный закон от 8 января 1998 г. "О наркотических средствах и психотропных веществах" N 3-ФЗ
4. Федеральный закон от 3 февраля 2015 г. N 7-ФЗ "О внесении изменений в отдельные законодательные акты Российской Федерации"
5. Приказ ФСКН от 18.02.2015 "Об утверждении Порядка формирования и содержании Реестра новых потенциально опасных психоактивных веществ, оборот которых в Российской Федерации запрещен" N 69
6. Росстат. Оценка численности постоянного населения на 1 января 2015 года и в среднем за 2014 год (опубликовано 17 марта 2015 год).
7. Законопроект № 638953-6 "О внесении изменений в отдельные законодательные акты Российской Федерации" (в части противодействия обороту новых психоактивных веществ). [Электронный ресурс]. -URL: http://asozd2.duma.gov.ru /main.nsf/(Spravka) ?OpenAgent&RN=638953-6
8. В ЛДПР «спайсы» назвали оружием против России // Парламентская газета. 12.11.2014 г. Вып. №44 (2673). С. 5.
9. Владимир Путин подписал закон о запрете"спай-сов"// Российская газета - Федеральный выпуск №6592 от 04.02.2015
10. Опубликование антиспайсового закона // Российская газета. №6595 от 06.02.2015
11. В России 5,5% населения - наркоманы. Официальная статистика - в 16 раз меньше. [Электронный ресурс]. - URL:
12. http://www.newsru.com/russia/15jun2005/narkoma ny.html
13. Госдума рассматривает законопроекты о спайсах и доступе к сильнодействующим препаратам. [Электронный ресурс]. - URL: http://www.1tv.ru/news /social/273726
14. Марьяна Торочешникова. Сколько в России наркоманов? [Электронный ресурс]. - URL: http://www. svoboda.org/content/article/25109339.html
15. Фонд "Город без наркотиков". [Электронный ресурс]. - URL: http://www.nobf.ru/
ГРАЖДАНСКАЯ ОТВЕТСТВЕННОСТЬ ЗА НАРУШЕНИЕ ДОГОВОРНЫХ ОБЯЗАТЕЛЬСТВ:
СРАВНИТЕЛЬНЫЙ АНАЛИЗ
Коровкина Анастасия Ваерьевна
НИУ Высшая школа экономики, г. Москва
CIVIL LIABILITY FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT: COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS Korovkina Anastasiya, NRU Higher school of economics
АННОТАЦИЯ
Настоящая статья посвящена сравнительному исследованию гражданско-правовой ответственности за нарушение договорных обязательств в российском и англо-американском праве. Автор рассматривает классификацию средств правовой защиты на основе их дифференциации согласно определенным критериям, проводит анализ форм гражданско-правовой ответственности в России и странах общего права и делает вывод о наиболее значимых сходствах и различиях.
ABSTRACT
This article is dedicated to comparative study of civil liability for breach of contract in Russian and Anglo-American law. The author considers the classification of contract remedies on the basis of its differentiation according to certain criteria, analyzes the forms of civil liability in Russia and common law countries and concludes what the most important similarities and differences are.
Ключевые слова: гражданско-правовая ответственность; средство правовой защиты договора; сравнительный анализ.
Key words: civil liability; contract remedies; comparative analysis.
Contract remedies: comparative models
The comparative models of the system of measures, provided by the sanctions for breach the contract are classified to some models according to the next criteria: 1) the moment of breach of contract; 2) which interests are protected; 3) which sanctions are applied for the protection of creditor's rights, when contract is breached; 4) whether it is provided, except recovery of damages, specific performance or termination of contract remedy as sanctions for breach of contract; 5) punitive damages as the sanction of contract law are permitted or not; 6) what is the role of guilt doctrine. To research the aspects of two models (Russian and Anglo-American law) it is sufficient to analyze some of these criteria and highlight the main characteristics of each of them.
Specific performance
In Russian civil law a creditor has a right to demand performance of the obligations in kind, if it is really possible because specific performance is provided by Art. 396 of Civil Code [1], which states "1. The payment of the liquidated damages and the compensation for damages in case of an improper discharge of the obligation shall not absolve the debtor from the performance of the obligations in kind, unless otherwise stipulated by the law or by the contract". In Anglo-American model, where the philosophical mindset is against specific performance, this sanction is granted very grudgingly to the plaintiff.
Which interests are protected
In Russian law three general interests are protected by the measures of contract sanction. These are exceptional interest, reliance interest and restitutionary interest. But according to the general rule the system of contract sanction in Russian law does not protect the interest, which is named in Anglo-American law disgorgement interest or windfall profit interest.
Anglo-American model of contract law protects the same three interests, which Russian civil law provides the protection. Moreover, Anglo-American model does not permit unconscionable enrichment of the person, who breaches the contract or windfall profit for
Punitive damages
Russian model does not permit punitive damages, but permits punitive liquidated damages. Anglo-American model, where the philosophical mindset is against punitive liquidated damages, in exceptional cases permits punitive damages.
Moment of breach of contract
In the system of Anglo-American common law it is considered, that breach of contract takes place (i.e., one party has already breached the contract), when other party at once (i.e., immediately) or after the notification of the other party about its intent to file a suit has an ability to demand application of the measure of sanction against the party, which breached the contract at the base, that the latter did not perform its contract obligation or there is substantial certainly, that this party would not perform its contract obligation on time, stated in the contract [2, p. 367].
To identify the moment of breach of contract there are two complementary criteria in Anglo-American common law: occurrence of legal deficiency in performance is a criterion of "present deficiency test" and substantial certainly of the immediate occurrence of legal deficiency in performance is a criterion of "future deficiency test".
The criterion of "present deficiency test" exists, when
there is one of the next conditions: nonperformance of affirmative duty to act; improper performance of affirmative duty to act; breach of duty not to complete.
The criterion of "future deficiency test" means that breach of contract takes place (i.e., one party has already breached the contract) if there is anticipatory repudiation of the contract by one party. Due to this theory other party has a right to file a suit immediately without waiting for the period of performance specified in the contract or actual breach of contract by the other party to the contract.
To identify the moment of breach of contract in Russian civil law it is necessary to apply only one criterion - the criterion of present deficiency test". The Russian system of law does not recognize the criterion of "future deficiency test" that is applied in common law.
Contract remedies: forms of civil liability
Russian Law
The Code contemplates five forms of remedies for breach of contract. These include damages, liquidated damages, payment for interests, forfeiture or doubling of earnest money and specific performance.
Damages
Damages are a form of universal remedy (measure of civil liability) for breach of contract in that they may be combined with other remedies and may be imposed in any situation, regardless of whether the payment of damages is stipulated by law or contract. The burden of proof of damages rests with the plaintiff. As such, to receive the damages, the creditor must prove the unlawful conduct on the part of the debtor, that he suffered a material loss, a causal connection between the debtor's unlawful conduct and the loss suffered and the exact amount of loss suffered.
The definition of damages encompasses actual losses and lost profit, both of which are classified as direct damages. Actual losses include expenses and loss of, or damage to, property. Specifically, actual losses include costs incurred by a creditor in obtaining from a third party performance of the non-performed or improperly performed obligation.
Lost profits are any and all gains that the creditor would have received if the contract had been performed properly. This elastic interpretation of "lost profits" under Russian law would conceivable include the separate notions of "incidental and consequential damages" and even "future damages" under American law. Also, if the debtor derived any gains from his breach of the obligation, under the provision of Art. 15, para. 2, clause 2 of Civil Code, the creditor may seek to recover lost profit in an amount not be less than such gains received by the debtor. In sum, the overarching concept of "lost profit" in Russian law would include the separate American notions of restitutionary (disgorgement) damages, incidental and consequential damages and future damages in addition to the more narrowly defined American notion of lost profits. Compensation for lost profits requires proof of a high degree of certainly and foreseeability.
Liquidated damages
Liquidated damages perform two functions on Russian law, i.e., as a security device and as measure of civil liability. There are four distinct types of liquidated damages: discounted, alternative, exclusive and punitive. A peculiar feature of Russian contract law is that liquidated damages may be collected in addition to damages (punitive liquidated damages) or in combination with actual damages (discounted liquidated damages).
Payment of interest
A third specific form of civil liability under Russian contract law is the exaction of interest in the event of breach of a monetary obligation. There is a debate among Russian civil law scholars as to whether interest paid on breach of a monetary obligation is a separate form of civil liability, if it is just another form of payment for the use of funds of another person or if it is a form of damages for breach of a monetary obligation. Case law tends to favor the position that it is a separate form of civil liability. As a form of civil liability, interest paid on the breach of a monetary obligation, like liquidated damages, operates in direct relation to damages. Damages for breach of a monetary obligation are paid only in the amount by which they exceed interest.
Other remedies
Another form of remedy under Russian law is forfeiture or doubling of earnest money. Earnest money performs two functions in Russian law, i.e., as a security device and as a measure of civil liability. A party that secures the performance of a contract with earnest money shall forfeit his security payment in the event of his breach of the contract. If the party receiving the earnest money is responsible for nonperformance of the contract, he shall pay the other party double the amount of the earnest money. When earnest money is used to secure the performance of a contract, forfeiture or doubling of earnest money shall be the only remedy available to the aggrieved party in the event of a breach of such contract. In other word, this form of civil sanction may not be combined with any other civil remedy for breach of contract. Because the forfeiture and doubling of earnest money meets all the definitional requirements of a "measure of civil liability", it should be included in that classification alongside damages, liquidated damages and payment of interest.
Specific performance is also an available remedy. The availability of specific performance as an additional remedy for breach of contract depends on whether the breach resulted from improper performance or nonperformance of the contract. In the event of improper performance of an obligation, payment of damages and / or liquidated damages does not release the obligor from performance of the obligation in kind. There may, however, be situations in which further performance in kind of an improperly performed obligation is not possible. In that case, payment of damages and/or liquidated damages shall release the obligor from specific performance. Also, in the event of nonperformance of an obligation, payment of damages and/or liquidated damages shall release the obligor from specific performance.
The judicial enforcement of a judgment for specific performance under the Russian system, however, lacks the effectiveness of the U.S. system, where the courts may invoke their power of contempt, and the decisiveness of the German system, where a court may impose criminal punishment (in the form of imprisonment and/or monetary fines) on a reluctant defendant. The Russian mechanism for enforcing an order for specific performance resembles the toothless French concept of astreinte, a form of private punishment.
While on the topic of "Other remedies", it is important to comment briefly on "injunctive relief" (i.e., mandatory injunction) that is mentioned in Art. 398 of Civil Code. The rule states that the creditor has the right to file suit to compel a transfer of a thing if the debtor fails to perform. This procedure requires three steps: 1) filing a lawsuit; 2) judgment by a
court in favor of the creditor; and 3) enforcement of that judgment by a court bailiff.
In Russian legal literature, two questions are raised in the connection with this provision: whether injunctive relief is a separate form of civil liability and whether Art. 398 of Civil Code is applicable only to individually defined things. The uniform answer to the first question is that the injunctive relief is not a separate form of civil remedy for breach of contract. On the second question, Russian case law holds that Art.398 of Civil Code may be used to compel the transfer of a thing that is not individually defined. If a thing has generic qualities, but can be individually identified by the parties or by a court, its transfer to the creditor may be compelled by a court pursuant to Art. 398 of Civil Code[3, p.143-148].
Anglo-American Law
Anglo-American common law provides three different types of contract remedies: common law contract remedies, equitable remedies, other remedies under UCC. During the research of this system of law we found out the next 14 forms of common law remedies: 1) damages; 2) expectation damages (damages = the size of the benefits that the injured party would have received if the contract would be performed properly); 3) reliance damages (damages = the amount of money, which the injured party spent in the hope that the contract would be performed properly); 4) general damages (damages arising naturally from the breach of contract and does not requiring evidence from the plaintiff); 5) special damages (damages arising from special facts and situations and requiring higher degree of certainly); 6) nominal damages; 7)consequential damages; 8) disgorgement damages; 9) future damages; 10) punitive damages (the main purpose of then - to punish a violator and they are not measured by the size of the losses incurred by the plaintiff, or benefits received by the defendant, and based on the necessity of punishment for breach of contract); 11) emotional distress damages (compensated only in two cases: A) the breach of contract is accompanied by injury to the person's body; B) the contract or the breach of this contract of such kind that a serious emotional distress is a particularly likely result); 12) liquidated damages; 13) interests (they are paid only in situations where the monetary obligation is breached; if they are provided by the contract, they are paid in excess of damages, if they are not provided by the contract, the plaintiff still has the right to demand them); 14) unilateral rescission (it is applied, when there is fundamental breach of contract by one party).
Equitable remedies include three types: 1) specific performance (it is not applied, if compensation of damages is considered as adequate remedy); 2) restrictive order, prohibitive injunction; 3) restitution, restitutionary damages (the main purpose of it - to make the defendant to disgorge all benefits, which were received by him in bad faith due to the breach of contract; they are measured not the size of plaintiff's damages, but the amount of defendant's benefits).
There are of 5 kinds of other remedies under UCC: 1) right to rescind the contract unilaterally; 2) right to reject goods; 3) right to revocation of acceptance of goods; 4) demand assurance of due performance; 4) other rights [2, p. 495].
There are significant differences in the legal regulation of application of liquidated damages between Russian and Anglo-American civil law. Firstly, common law does not recognize legal liquidated damages only liquidated damages which are fixed in the contract. Secondly, unlike Russian
model of civil liability (where are four types of liquidated damages), Anglo-American one accepts exclusive liquidated damages. In common law the purpose of applying liquidated damages is to compensate damages, not to punish, and to estimate the amount of damages in case of breach of contract, not to enforce a contract or to impose a penalty.
All the above remedies fulfill some functions, which are researched by English and American lawyers for a long time. They mention in research work five main functions: 1) to compensate the damages, caused to the creditor by this breach of obligation; 2) prevent unjust enrichment of any party; 3) prevent unfair enrichment of violator of contract; 4) prevent windfall profit interest of violator of contract; 5) in exceptional cases - punish a violator of contract.
In Anglo-American law the provisions of contract can limit the size of damages or provide the certain form of liability or exclude a certain type of damages. All these provisions are considered valid, but in some cases they can be declared
invalid at the base of unconscionability.
If there are no provisions fixed the forms of remedies in contract, the plaintiff has a right to choose some of mentioned above, except of liquidated damages, because common law does not recognized legal liquidated damages, only contract. Some remedies are incompatible. For example, it is impossible to choose expectation damages and reliance damages or damages and liquidated damages.
Literature
1. Гражданский кодекс Российской Федерации (часть первая) от 30.11.1994 N 51-ФЗ (ред. от 06.04.2015) // СЗ РФ. - 1994. - № 32. - Ст. 3301;
2. Osakwe C. Comparative Law: schematic comment // "Yurist", Moscow, 2008;
3. Osakwe C. Russian Civil Code: Text and Analysis // Wolters Kluwer, 2008.
СРОКИ НА ПОДАЧУ АПЕЛЛЯЦИОННЫХ ЖАЛОБ ПО ГРАЖДАНСКИМ ДЕЛАМ В РОССИЙСКОЙ ИМПЕРИИ И РОССИЙСКОЙ ФЕДЕРАЦИИ: СРАВНИТЕЛЬНО-
ПРАВОВОЙ АНАЛИЗ
Крайнова Екатерина Романовна
помощник судьи Первого арбитражного апелляционного суда, г. Владимир
TERMS ON THE SERVE OF PETITIONS OF APPEAL ON CIVIL CASES IN THE RUSSIAN EMPIRE AND THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION: COMPARATIVE - LEGAL ANALYSIS
Kraynova Ekaterina, deputy judge of The First appeal arbitration court, Vladimir АННОТАЦИЯ
В статье сравниваются хронодискретные нормы о сроках апелляционного обжалования решений судов по гражданским делам в Российской империи и Российской Федерации. ABSTRACT
The article compares chrono-discrete rules about the terms of appeal of decisions of courts in civil cases in the Russian Empire and the Russian Federation.
Ключевые слова: апелляционная инстанция; срок на подачу апелляционной жалобы; Устав гражданского судопроизводства 1864 года; Гражданский процессуальный кодекс Российской Федерации; хронодискретное моногеографическое сравнительное правоведение.
Key words: appeal court; term on making an appellate complaint; Code of Civil Procedure 1864; the Civil procedural code of the Russian Federation; chrono-discrete mono-geography comparative law.
С принятием Федерального закона «О внесении изменений в Гражданский процессуальный кодекс Российской Федерации» от 9 декабря 2010 года №353-Ф3 вопросы, касающиеся апелляционного порядка проверки не вступивших в законную силу судебных актов судов общей юрисдикции, приобрели актуальность.
В истории России уже имелась практика функционирования института апелляции. По нашему мнению, изучение богатого отечественного опыта, представляет значительный интерес для современного законодателя и правоприменителя. Различие жалоб, приносимых на судебные места, по содержанию на частные и апелляционные проводится с Судебника Ивана III. Юридически апелляционный порядок обжалования судебных актов оформился в Учреждении о губерниях и закрепился в Уставе гражданского судопроизводства 1864 года. Декретом СНК
РСФСР «О суде» № 1 от 24 ноября 1917 года апелляционные суды были упразднены, и вплоть до введения апелляционного производства по пересмотру решений и определений мировых судей в 2000 году [4], единственным порядком обжалования судебных актов была кассационная инстанция.
Использование методологии хронодискретного моногеографического сравнительного правоведения позволяет сравнить функционирующий правовой институт с аналогичным российским институтом второй половины XIX - начала ХХ века в условиях отсутствия прямой преемственности и выработать на основе проведенного сравнения практические рекомендации по совершенствованию действующего законодательства [1, с. 9].
Некоторые вопросы о процессуальных сроках исследовались учеными, однако, нормы, регулирующие сроки на подачу апелляционных жалоб по гражданским
