A Preventive Function of a Negatory Claim

A negatory claim may be applied in case of violation of a subjective right. Giving the negatory claim an uncharacteristic preventive function for the purposes of protecting subjective property rights is not necessary, because the desired goal is achieved by using a different method of legal protection and in relation to another object of legal protection, namely, a legitimate interest. An owner is interested in ensuring that his subjective right is not violated. Therefore, he has an interest in third parties acting in such a way that a violation of his right would be excluded. A violation of such a legitimate interest of the owner is the commission by the debtor of actions that will inevitably lead to a violation of property rights. In view of the fact that a subjective duty does not oppose a legitimate interest, a dispute concerning protection of a legitimate interest provides for the resolution of competition between the protection of the plaintiff’s legitimate interest and the defendant’s freedom of action. The court’s duty in such a dispute is to establish a fair balance between competing legal benefits so that the legitimate interests of one or the freedom of the other are not infringed without sufficient grounds. Prevention of violation of subjective property rights can be carried out by such a general method of protection as the suppression of actions that pose a threat of violation of the right, a special case of which is a claim for the prevention of harm. A special real preventive claim brought to prevent the violation of subjective property rights is possible only if the appropriate method of protection is fixed by law. However, in the conditions of the existence of such a universal method of protection as the suppression of actions that pose a threat of violation of the law applicable to all subjective rights, there is no need to consolidate a special real preventive claim.

1. Burmistrova S. A. O ponyatii zashchity zakonnykh interesov // Yurist. — 2017. — № 23. — S. 41–46.

2. Vaskovskiy E. V. Uchebnik grazhdanskogo prava. — Vyp. 1. Vvedenie i obshchaya chast. — SPb., 1894. — 169 s.

3. Garsia Garrido M. Kh. Rimskoe chastnoe pravo: kazusy, iski, instituty / otv. red. L. L. Kofanov. — M., 2005. — 812 s.

4. Erokhova M. A. V okovakh delikta: usloviya udovletvoreniya negatornogo iska po rossiyskomu pravu // Vestnik grazhdanskogo prava. — 2019. — № 6. — S. 155–172.

5. Karachun A. V. Allergiya, pchely i sosedskie prava: v poiske balansa interesov. Kommentariy k opredeleniyu Sudebnoy kollegii po grazhdanskim delam VS RF ot 28.05.2019 № 37-KG19-4 // Vestnik ekonomicheskogo pravosudiya Rossiyskoy Federatsii. — 2019. — № 11. — S. 20–30.

6. Malko A. V., Subochev V. V. Zakonnye interesy kak pravovaya kategoriya. — SPb., 2004. — 359 s.

7. Mokhov A. A. Dela o preduprezhdenii prichineniya vreda v budushchem (na primere genomnykh issledovaniy i vnedreniya ikh rezultatov v praktiku) // Vestnik grazhdanskogo protsessa. — 2019. — № 2. — S. 105–120.

8. Podshivalov T. P. Primenimost negatornogo iska dlya ustraneniya ugrozy budushchego narusheniya v sudebnoy praktike // Pravo i ekonomika. — 2022. — № 7. — S. 16–21.

9. Podshivalov T. P. Progibitornyy isk: proshloe, nastoyashchee i budushchee // Pravo. Zhurnal Vysshey shkoly ekonomiki. — 2022. — № 2. — S. 164–186.

10. Pokrovskiy I. A. Istoriya rimskogo prava. — SPb.: Letniy sad, 1998. — 560 s.

11. Prava lichnosti v sotsialisticheskom obshchestve / otv. red.: V. N. Kudryavtsev, M. S. Strogovich. — M.: Nauka, 1981. — 272 s.

12. Rimskoe chastnoe pravo: uchebnik / pod red. I. B. Novitskogo, I. S. Pereterskogo. — M.: Knorus, 2021. — 596 s.

13. Romovskaya Z. V. Sudebnaya zashchita okhranyaemogo zakonom interesa // Vestnik Lvovskogo universiteta. — 1983. — Vyp. 22. — S. 74–81.

14. Tarkhov V. A. Okhrana imushchestvennykh prav trudyashchikhsya po sovetskomu grazhdanskomu zakonodatelstvu: dis. … d-ra yurid. nauk. — Saratov, 1965. — 508 s.

15. Filippova S. Yu., Shitkina I. S. Prodazha ili priobretenie biznesa: pravovoe soprovozhdenie sdelki: monografiya. — M.: Statut, 2019. — 191 s.

16. Franchozi D. Institutsionnyy kurs rimskogo prava: per. s it. / otv. red. L. L. Kofanov. — M.: Statut, 2004. — 428 s.