Foundations and Limits of Negatory Protection

A negatory lawsuit is one of classic ways to protect property rights. Despite the large number of research papers devoted to this institution, there is a wide range of opinions in the legal literature regarding the grounds and limits of negatory protection. Thus, there is a widespread point of view, according to which a negatory claim is a way of protecting the right to use and it is applied only if the owner creates obstacles in the use of the thing. This approach is based on the existence of a triad of powers that all together form a subjective right of ownership. However, qualification of a negatory claim as a claim for the protection of the right to use and the possibility of its application only in the case of putting impediments to use is erroneous, since violation of the right is associated only with obstacles to the exercise of the right, since the rights to own, use and dispose of the property determined in the doctrine represent ways of exercising the right and do not reflect the essence of the property right. Meanwhile, violation of the right is not limited to impediments in the exercise of the right. Violation of the property right may include both action and inaction of the debtor, which, in turn, may be of a factual and legal nature. A negatory claim in Russian civil law is a way to protect property rights from a wide range of infringements, but this is not the basis for concluding that such a claim is applied for any violations of property rights. The choice of the method of the right’s protection is determined based on the nature of the subjective right and the offense. A negatory claim has its own conditions for application and should not replace other ways of the right protection.

1. Vaskovskiy E. V. Uchebnik grazhdanskogo prava. — M., 2003. — 382 s.

2. Vorozhevich A. S. Predely osushchestvleniya i zashchity isklyuchitelnogo prava patentoobladatelya. — M.: Statut, 2018. — 320 s.

3. Ivanov A. A. Intellektualnaya sobstvennost i veshchnye prava: problemy sootnosheniya // Zakon. — 2017. — № 1. — S. 84–90.

4. Kolodub G. V. Ispolnenie grazhdansko-pravovoy obyazannosti: teoreticheskoe issledovanie. — Saratov: Izd-vo Saratovskoy gosudarstvennoy yuridicheskoy akademii, 2014. — 229 s.

5. Luneva E. V. Pravovoy rezhim zemelnykh uchastkov v osobo okhranyaemykh prirodnykh territoriyakh. — M.: Statut, 2018. — 159 s.

6. Lyushnya A. V. Zashchitnye vozmozhnosti negatornogo iska // Zakon. — 2007. — № 2. — S. 141–150.

7. Morgunov S. V. Aktualnye voprosy osparivaniya zaregistrirovannogo prava na nedvizhimost // Vestnik VAS RF. — 2008. — № 5. — S. 9–29.

8. Nikolskiy S. V. Grazhdansko-pravovaya zashchita imushchestvennykh prav: dis. … kand. yurid. nauk. — Saratov, 2003. — 194 s.

9. Podshivalov T. P. Iskovaya davnost na trebovanie o priznanii veshchnogo prava otsutstvuyushchim // Grazhdanskoe pravo. — 2020. — № 6. — S. 12–15.

10. Podshivalov T. P. Kriterii primeneniya negatornogo iska // Vestnik arbitrazhnoy praktiki. — 2011. — № 3. — S. 21–29.

11. Podshivalov T. P. Negatornyy isk: problemy teorii i pravoprimenitelnoy praktiki // Rossiyskiy sudya. — 2010. — № 10. — S. 11–14.

12. Podshivalov T. P. Negatornyy isk: problemy teorii i praktiki: monografiya. — M.: Infotropik Media, 2019. — 340 s.

13. Podshivalov T. P. Opredelenie sfery primeneniya negatornogo iska // Sovremennoe pravo. — 2010. — № 12. — S. 60–62.

14. Podshivalov T. P. Sudebnoe ustanovlenie servituta // Sovremennoe pravo. — 2012. — № 7. — S. 112–115.

15. Potapenko N. S. Sposoby zashchity prava sobstvennosti na nedvizhimuyu veshch // Rossiyskaya yustitsiya. — 2010. — № 5. — S. 14–17.

16. Potapenko S. V., Zarubin A. V. Nastolnaya kniga sudi po sporam o prave sobstvennosti / pod red. S. V. Potapenko. — M.: Prospekt, 2012. — 248 s.

17. Rossiyskoe grazhdanskoe pravo: uchebnik: v 2 t. T. 1: Obshchaya chast. Veshchnoe pravo. Nasledstvennoe pravo. Intellektualnye prava. Lichnye neimushchestvennye prava / otv. red. E. A. Sukhanov. — M.: Statut, 2015. — 961 s.

18. Rossiyskoe grazhdanskoe pravo: uchebnik: v 2 t. T. 2: Obyazatelstvennoe pravo / otv. red. E. A. Sukhanov. — M.: Statut, 2015. — 1217 s.

19. Savelev V. A. Servituty i uzufrukt v rimskom klassicheskom prave // Zhurnal rossiyskogo prava. — 2011. — № 11. — S. 92–102.

20. Semenov V. V. Negatornyy isk: voprosy teorii i sudebnoy praktiki // Yurist. — 2017. — № 2. — S. 28–32.

21. Sinitsyn S. A. Negatornyy isk v rossiyskom i zarubezhnom prave // Zhurnal rossiyskogo prava. — 2014. — № 4. — S. 84–101.

22. Sklovskiy K. I. Primenenie zakonodatelstva o sobstvennosti. Trudnye voprosy: Kommentariy postanovleniya Plenuma Verkhovnogo Suda RF № 10, Plenuma VAS RF № 22 ot 29 aprelya 2010 g., postanovleniya Plenuma VAS RF ot 11 iyulya 2011 g. № 54, informatsionnogo pisma Prezidiuma VAS RF ot 15 yanvarya 2013 g. № 153. — M.: Statut, 2016. — 205 s.

23. Sukhanov E. A. Veshchnoe pravo: nauchno-poznavatelnyy ocherk. — M.: Statut, 2017. — 560 s.

24. Fayzrakhmanov K. R. Priznanie prava ili obremeneniya otsutstvuyushchim v sisteme sposobov zashchity veshchnykh prav // Aktual’nye problemy rossijskogo prava. — 2016. — № 4 (65). — S. 114–122.

25. Fioshin A. V. Negatornyy isk: nekotorye voprosy teorii i praktiki // Notarius. — 2014. — № 7. — S. 24–27.

26. Khokhlov V. A. Obshchie polozheniya ob obyazatelstvakh: uchebnoe posobie. — M.: Statut, 2015. — 288 s.

27. Shershenevich G. F. Kurs grazhdanskogo prava. — Tula, 2001. — 719 s.