The Institution of Harm Prevention in Russian Civil Law: A Current Status and Areas of Improvement

The study is devoted to the issue of possible ways and directions of improving the institute of harm prevention in Russian civil law. The author substantiates the necessity of securing the subjective right of a person whose rights and legitimate interests are threatened by the danger of harm in the future to have such danger prevented by independent actions both within their own economic sphere and by influencing the economic sphere of the person whose activities create the danger. The subjective right of a person to prevent danger is compared with the subjective right to self-defense within such institutions as necessary defense and extreme necessity; despite the presence of a similar basis in the form of the presence of danger, it is concluded that their significant differences can be found in the ways of eliminating such danger and the legal consequences of the actions of the authorized person. It is proposed to expand the scope of application of such grounds for claim refusal for prohibition and suspension of activities under Article 1065 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation as contradicting to public interests. On the basis of foreign experience of law enforcement, the author substantiates the necessity of constructing legal guarantees in case of the claim refusal under Article 1065 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation in connection with a contradiction to public interests in the form of the possibility of awarding a single or periodic monetary compensation to compensate for potential harm. The priority of such a form of payment for future harm as periodic payments is justified. It is concluded that the claim for compensation for future harm is an independent way of protection, and such compensation itself is a kind of remuneration paid to a person for being in a state of danger. On the issues raised, a brief overview of international acts, legislation and judicial practice of a number of foreign countries is presented.

1. Bogdanov D. E. Evolyuciya grazhdansko-pravovoj otvetstvennosti s pozicii spravedlivosti: grazhdanskopravovoj aspekt : monografiya. — M. : Prospekt, 2016. — 304 s.

2. Bogdanova E. E. Dobrosovestnost’ uchastnikov dogovornyh otnoshenij i problemy zashchity ih subektivnyh grazhdanskih prav : avtoref. dis. … d-ra yurid. nauk. — M., 2010. — 63 s.

3. Gribanov V. P. Predely osushchestvleniya i zashchity grazhdanskih prav. — M. : Statut, 2001. — 411 s.

4. Zueva Yu. V. Samozashchita v sisteme yuridicheskih mekhanizmov obespecheniya social’no-pravovogo statusa subekta prava (vvedenie v problemu) // Yuridicheskaya nauka i praktika: Vestnik Nizhegorodskoj akademii MVD Rossii. — 2019. — № 1 (46). — S. 239–244.

5. Kuznecova O. A. Vosstanovitel’naya napravlennost’ grazhdansko-pravovogo regulirovaniya // Problemy pravoponimaniya i pravoprimeneniya v proshlom, nastoyashchem i budushchem civilizacii : sb. st. Mezhdunar. nauchn.-prakt. konf. : v 2 ch. / pod red. I. A. Man’kovskogo. — Minsk : Mezhdunarodnyj universitet «MITSO», 2016. — Ch. 1. — S. 136–141.

6. Kuznecova O. A. K voprosu o vybore sposoba zashchity grazhdanskih prav // Rossijskaya pravovaya politika v sfere chastnogo prava : materialy kruglogo stola zhurnalov «Gosudarstvo i pravo» i «Pravovaya politika i pravovaya zhizn’» (Kazan’, Kazanskij (Privolzhskij) federal’nyj universitet, 22 iyunya 2010 g.) / otv. red. A. V. Mal’ko, D. N. Gorshunov. — M. : Statut, 2011. — S. 53–61.

7. Kuznecova O. A. Ponyatie, osnovanie i effektivnost’ vosstanovleniya narushennyh grazhdanskih prav // Tendencii razvitiya prava i ekonomiki v XXI veke : sb. materialov Vserossijskoj nauch.-prakt. konferenciya / otv. red. R. V. Novikov. — Perm’ : Permskij institut FSIN, 2016. — S. 8–13.

8. Mikshis D. V. Samozashchita v grazhdanskom prave Rossii : dis. … kand. yurid. nauk. — Ekaterinburg, 2006.

9. Mikshis D. V. Sposoby samozashchity grazhdanskih prav // Yuridicheskaya nauka i pravoohranitel’naya praktika. — 2011. — № 1 (17). — S. 40–48.

10. McBride N. J., Bagshaw R. Tort Law. — Pearson Education Limited, 2018. — 944 p.

11. Principles, Definitions and Model Rules of European Private Law. Draft Common Frame of Reference (DCFR) / C. Bar, E. Clive, H. Schulte-Nölke [et al.]. — 2008. — 4795 p.