Preview

Actual Problems of Russian Law

Advanced search

The Doctrine of Subrogation and the Specifics of its Interaction with Regression in Russian and Foreign Law

https://doi.org/10.17803/1994-1471.2024.161.4.066-080

Abstract

The author examines the doctrine of subrogation in historical and comparative legal aspects. The paper analyzes the interaction of the rules on subrogation and regression and examines the cases of applying the rules on subrogation to regression claims. The interaction between regression and subrogation is not limited to the default use of one or another model, depending on the normative regulation of the legal institution. This concerns the application of the nemo subrogat contra se principle to impose the prohibition to act to the detriment of the creditor under the main obligation in case of its partial fulfillment, the possibility of transferring recourse obligations to other persons through the subrogation mechanism. In some cases, the fulfillment of a recourse obligation may result in the subrogation of the regressant’s rights to the regredient. The author analyzes the choice of the legislator in terms of the model of the reverse claim in surety and insurance. It is indicated that in a situation where the rule of law does not allow the executor to exercise the rights of the creditor through subrogation, he is given the opportunity to reimburse his expenses through recourse. Regression in this regard does not mean an improvement in the position of such a person, but allows an individual to protect his interest where, for formal reasons, he does not have other legal means, which fully corresponds to the regime of a subsidiary remedy. The paper elucidates the arguments for and against the ability of the executor to independently choose the model of the reverse claim. It is concluded that de lege ferenda there are grounds for the executor in a number of cases (primarily with a joint obligation) to independently choose a model of a reverse claim, if this is not carried out to the detriment of the interests of the debtor and third parties.

About the Author

A. I. Kosov
Kutafin Moscow State Law University (MSAL)
Russian Federation

Alexander I. Kosov - Master Student

 Moscow



References

1. Arkhipova A. G. Subrogatsiya v lichnom strakhovanii: sokhranenie zapreta ili ustranenie ogranicheniy? // Vestnik ekonomicheskogo pravosudiya Rossiyskoy Federatsii. — 2021. — № 4. — S. 98–119.

2. Baron Yu. Sistema rimskogo grazhdanskogo prava. Vypusk tretiy. Kn. IV: Obyazatelstvennoe pravo / perevel s pyatogo nemetskogo izdaniya L. Petrazhitskiy. — 2‑e izd. (ispravl. po 9‑mu nem. izd.). — SPb.: Tipografiya M. M. Stasyulevicha, 1899. — VIII. — 260 s.

3. Novitskiy I. B. Grazhdanskiy kodeks: prakticheskiy kommentariy / pod red. A. M. Vinavera i I. B. Novitskogo. — M.: Pravo i zhizn, 1924. — 35 s.

4. Vindsheyd B. Ob obyazatelstvakh po rimskomu pravu / per. s nem. pod red. i s primech. red.-izd. «Sudebnogo vestnika» A. B. Dumashevskogo. — SPb.: Tipografiya A. Dumashevskogo, 1875. — XXII. — 593 s.

5. Godeme E. Obshchaya teoriya obyazatelstv: per. s fr. — M.: Yurid. izd-vo MYu SSSR, 1948. — S. 470–478.

6. Golmsten A. Kh. Opyt postroeniya obshchego ucheniya o prave regressa. — SPb.: Senatskaya tipografiya, 1911. — 511 s.

7. Dedikov S. V. Regress i subrogatsiya po dogovoram OSAGO // Khozyaystvo i pravo. 2004. — № 9. — S. 41–48.

8. Dernburg G. Pandekty: Obyazatelstvennoe pravo. — Prosmotreno i soglasovano s 7‑m izd. podlinnika. — T. 2: Vyp. 3 / per. s nem. pod red. P. Sokolovskogo; red.: A. E. Vorms, I. I. Vulfert. — 3‑e rus. izd. — M.: Pech. A. I. Snegirevoy, 1911. — 412 s.

9. Egorov A. V., Novitskaya A. A. Dogovory i obyazatelstva: sbornik rabot vypusknikov Rossiyskoy shkoly chastnogo prava pri Issledovatelskom tsentre chastnogo prava imeni S.S. Alekseeva pri Prezidente RF: v 2 t. T. 2: Osobennaya chast. — M.: ITsChP imeni S.S. Alekseeva pri Prezidente RF, 2018. — 989 s.

10. Yoffe O. S. Obyazatelstvennoe pravo. — M.: Yurid. lit., 1975. — 880 s.

11. Ispolnenie i prekrashchenie obyazatelstva: kommentariy k statyam 307–328 i 407–419 Grazhdanskogo kodeksa Rossiyskoy Federatsii (Elektronnoe izdanie. Redaktsiya 2.0) / otv. red. A. G. Karapetov. — M.: M-Logos, 2022. — 1494 s.

12. Karselyan A. S. Regress i subrogatsiya: neodnoznachnyy vybor zakonodatelya // Vestnik ekonomicheskogo pravosudiya. — 2020. — № 4. — S. 82–99.

13. Kashnikov N. B. Obratnoe trebovanie poruchitelya: regress, subrogatsiya (chast pervaya) // Vestnik ekonomicheskogo pravosudiya. — 2022. — № 2. — S. 115–151.

14. Kashnikov N. B. Obratnoe trebovanie poruchitelya: regress, subrogatsiya (chast vtoraya) // Vestnik ekonomicheskogo pravosudiya. — 2022. — № 3. — S. 137–173.

15. Kisel I. V. Obyazatelstva s uchastiem tretikh lits: dis. … kand. yurid. nauk. — M., 2002. — 200 s.

16. Lomidze O. G. Pravonadelenie v grazhdanskom zakonodatelstve Rossii. — SPb.: Yuridicheskiy tsentr-Press, 2003. — 535 s.

17. Lunts L. A., Novitskiy I. B. Obshchee uchenie ob obyazatelstve. — M.: Gosyurizdat, 1950. — 416 s.

18. Morander L. Zh. Grazhdanskoe pravo Frantsii: v 3 t. / per. s fr. i vstup. st. E. A. Fleyshits. — M., 1960. — T. 2. — 728 s.

19. Musin V. A. Izbrannoe. — SPb.: ANO «Redaktsiya zhurnala “Treteyskiy sud”»; M.: Statut, 2014. — 464 s.

20. Plyaniol M. F. Kurs frantsuzskogo grazhdanskogo prava. Ch. 2: Dogovory / per. s fr. i predisl. V. Yu. Gartmana. — Petrokov: Izdanie tipografii S. Panskogo, 1911. — 976 s.

21. Rasskazova N. Yu. Posledstviya ispolneniya obespechitelnogo obyazatelstva // Vestnik grazhdanskogo prava. — 2010. — T. 10. — № 6. — S. 92–130.

22. Savate R. Teoriya obyazatelstv. Yuridicheskiy i ekonomicheskiy ocherk. — M.: Progress, 1972. — 440 s.

23. Savini F. K. Obyazatelstvennoe pravo. — M., 1876. — 580 s.

24. Sarbash S. V. Poruchitelstvo. Kommentariy k postanovleniyu Plenuma Verkhovnogo Suda RF ot 24.12.2020 № 45 «O nekotorykh voprosakh razresheniya sporov o poruchitelstve». — M.: M-Logos, 2021. — 551 s.

25. Sinayskiy V. I. Russkoe grazhdanskoe pravo. Vyp. II: Obyazatelstvennoe, semeynoe i nasledstvennoe pravo. — Kiev: Tipografiya R. K. Lubkovskogo, 1915. — 451 s.

26. Tololaeva N. V. Passivnye solidarnye obyazatelstva: rossiyskiy podkhod i kontinentalno-evropeyskaya traditsiya: monografiya. — M.: Statut, 2020. — 144 s.

27. Tsitovich P. P. Obyazatelstva po russkomu grazhdanskomu pravu. — Kiev, 1894. — 104 s.

28. Shershenevich G. F. Kurs torgovogo prava. T. 2: Tovar. Torgovye sdelki. — 4‑e izd. — SPb.: Izdanie br. Bashmakovykh, 1908. — 694 s.

29. Shirvindt A. M., Shcherbakov N. B. Opyty tsivilisticheskogo issledovaniya: sbornik statey. — M.: Statut, 2016. — 448 s.

30. Yudelson K. S. Osnovnye problemy prava regressa v sovetskom grazhdanskom prave // Uchenye trudy VIYuN. — M.: Yurid. izd-vo MYu SSSR, 1947. — Vyp. 9. — S. 178–238.

31. Brand O. Schadensersazrecht. — München: C. H. Beck, 2021. — 168 S.

32. Dieckmann J. A. Scots Influence on English Law: the Guarantor’s Right to Derivative Recourse (Subrogation) // Edinburgh Law Review. — Vol. 8. — Iss. 3. — P. 329–359.

33. Meier S. Chapter 10. Plurality of Parties // Commentaries on European Contract Laws / ed. by J. Nils, R. Zimmermann. — New York: Oxford University Press, 2018. — P. 1557–1625.

34. Mitchell C. Claims in Unjustified Enrichment to Recover Money Paid Pursuant to a Common Liability // Edinburgh Law Review. — 2001. — Vol. 5. — No. 2. — P. 186–220.

35. Terré Fr. Simler P. Lequette Yv., Chénedé Fr. Droit civil les obligations. — 12e ed. — Dalloz, 2019. — 2036 p


Review

For citations:


Kosov A.I. The Doctrine of Subrogation and the Specifics of its Interaction with Regression in Russian and Foreign Law. Actual Problems of Russian Law. 2024;19(4):66-80. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17803/1994-1471.2024.161.4.066-080

Views: 486


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.


ISSN 1994-1471 (Print)
ISSN 2782-1862 (Online)