Good Governance and Property Rights of the State: The Dubovets Case before the European Court of Human Rights and the Russian Constitutional Court

IF 0.5 4区 社会学 Q3 LAW Review of Central and East European Law Pub Date : 2019-09-05 DOI:10.1163/15730352-04403002
Grigory Vaypan
{"title":"Good Governance and Property Rights of the State: The Dubovets Case before the European Court of Human Rights and the Russian Constitutional Court","authors":"Grigory Vaypan","doi":"10.1163/15730352-04403002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This contribution discusses the recent Dubovets case before both the European Court of Human Rights and the Russian Constitutional Court, and its implications for the changing design of Russian property law as increasingly shaped by international human rights law and good governance principles. Communicated in December 2016, the application in Dubovets v. Russia continues the line of the European Court’s cases against Russia on the protection of good faith private owners of real estate against property claims by the government. Prompted by this case law, the Russian Constitutional Court in its Judgment of 22 June 2017 No 16-P struck down Article 302 of the Russian Civil Code as unconstitutional insofar as it entitled the government to reclaim possession of state property that had been previously alienated due to the government’s own negligence. This judgment manifests the increasing interdependence between private and public law – of classical property law, on the one hand, and international human rights law and good governance principles, on the other hand. It also contributes to ongoing evolution in the understanding of the state’s property rights in Russia: from the superior status of public property in Soviet times – to formal equality between public and private property rights in the landmark legal instruments of the 1990s – and now to the growing need for special protection of individual property rights vis-à-vis the state, in light of the latter’s double role as both the largest owner and the (quite unrestrained) regulator.","PeriodicalId":42845,"journal":{"name":"Review of Central and East European Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2019-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Review of Central and East European Law","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15730352-04403002","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

This contribution discusses the recent Dubovets case before both the European Court of Human Rights and the Russian Constitutional Court, and its implications for the changing design of Russian property law as increasingly shaped by international human rights law and good governance principles. Communicated in December 2016, the application in Dubovets v. Russia continues the line of the European Court’s cases against Russia on the protection of good faith private owners of real estate against property claims by the government. Prompted by this case law, the Russian Constitutional Court in its Judgment of 22 June 2017 No 16-P struck down Article 302 of the Russian Civil Code as unconstitutional insofar as it entitled the government to reclaim possession of state property that had been previously alienated due to the government’s own negligence. This judgment manifests the increasing interdependence between private and public law – of classical property law, on the one hand, and international human rights law and good governance principles, on the other hand. It also contributes to ongoing evolution in the understanding of the state’s property rights in Russia: from the superior status of public property in Soviet times – to formal equality between public and private property rights in the landmark legal instruments of the 1990s – and now to the growing need for special protection of individual property rights vis-à-vis the state, in light of the latter’s double role as both the largest owner and the (quite unrestrained) regulator.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
善治与国家财产权:欧洲人权法院和俄罗斯宪法法院审理的杜博韦茨案
这篇文章讨论了最近在欧洲人权法院和俄罗斯宪法法院审理的杜博维茨案,及其对日益受到国际人权法和善治原则影响的俄罗斯物权法设计变化的影响。2016年12月,Dubovets诉俄罗斯案的申请延续了欧洲法院针对俄罗斯的案件,即保护善意的房地产私人所有者不受政府财产索赔。在这一判例法的推动下,俄罗斯宪法法院在2017年6月22日第16-P号判决中推翻了《俄罗斯民法典》第302条的违宪规定,因为该条规定政府有权收回此前因政府自身疏忽而被剥夺的国有财产。这一判决显示了私法与公法之间日益增长的相互依存关系——一方面是古典物权法,另一方面是国际人权法和善治原则。它还促进了对俄罗斯国家产权理解的持续演变:从苏联时期公共财产的优势地位——到20世纪90年代具有里程碑意义的法律文书中公私产权的正式平等——到现在越来越需要对-à-vis国家的个人产权进行特殊保护,因为后者既是最大的所有者,又是(相当不受约束的)监管者。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
11
期刊介绍: Review of Central and East European Law critically examines issues of legal doctrine and practice in the CIS and CEE regions. An important aspect of this is, for example, the harmonization of legal principles and rules; another facet is the legal impact of the intertwining of domestic economies, on the one hand, with regional economies and the processes of international trade and investment on the other. The Review offers a forum for discussion of topical questions of public and private law. The Review encourages comparative research; it is hoped that, in this way, additional insights in legal developments can be communicated to those interested in questions, not only of law, but also of politics, economics, and of society of the CIS and CEE countries.
期刊最新文献
Is Transparency Enough? Informal Governance Networks and the Selection Process of a Georgian Judge to the European Court of Human Rights Validity of Jurisdiction Clauses in Standard Terms and Conditions of International Commercial Contracts under Turkish Law Multiplication of Extraordinary Appeal Measures in Polish Criminal Proceedings: A Guarantee of Justice or Erosion of the Principle of Legal Certainty? Balancing Initial Copyright Ownership in Czech and Slovak Private International Law Accented Universality: Exploring Accountability as a Non-Translatable Concept in Central Asia
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1