Printer Friendly

The constitutional regulation of property rights.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

  I. Introduction
 II. The importance of constitutional law
     in regulating public relations in the economy sphere
III. The involvement of the institution of property rights
     in some court cases
 IV. The constitutional law concept of private
     property rights
  V. The definitive opinion on the status and rights
     of bona fide owner
Bibliography


I. INTRODUCTION

The period between the 1930s and the 1980s was characterized by the interpenetration of legal and economic doctrines and concepts. The economic analysis was successfully applied by American economists and legal experts to the investigation of the constitutional legal relations and restriction of the property rights in the interests of the society and the state in the USA during the Great Depression in the 1930s. Scientific schools of constitutional economics were created based on the University of Chicago (Friendman, Coase, etc.), Virginia Polytechnic Institute (Buchanan, Tullock) and University of California, Los Angeles (Alchian, Demsetz).

II. THE IMPORTANCE OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW IN REGULATING PUBLIC RELATIONS IN THE ECONOMY SPHERE

Public nature of constitutional law means that economic relations are regulated not only by civil law. Civil law as a private one is unable to guarantee economic freedoms of an individual and to reflect the constitutional order based on the liberties of an individual and a citizen. Being a kind of economic constitution of the state, the Civil Code cannot contradict Constitution of the Russian Federation, and constitutional law still remains the main branch of Russian law, regulating, among other things, public relations in the economy sphere based on the precedence of the rights of human and civil rights, but in the interests of the society and the state as a whole.

In any society, the subject matter of constitutional law includes changing social relations. The globalization of the world economy and the cyclic recurrence of the world economic crisis raise the question of the financial elite's interest in their periodical occurrence, detrimental for the society and state. In this case, willful non-disclosure of the possessed information about the next wave of economic crisis becomes a right abuse of a sort. (2) Then, the opposition between private and public methods of legal regulation of the economy in times of economic depression becomes especially dangerous. (3) Prevention of crisis phenomena in the economy is impossible without the state centralism and unity of command in the administration. However, those public legal enforcement actions generally should not violate human personal liberties guaranteed by the Constitution of the Russian Federation.

III. THE INVOLVEMENT OF THE INSTITUTION OF PROPERTY RIGHTS IN SOME COURT CASES

Property right as a complex legal institution is specified above all by civil standards. Beyond any question, any legal right defined in civil law as a right of property at the same time is a constitutional property right. However, a constitutional property right is not the same with a right of possession, use and disposal in a civil legal sense. A concept of constitutional right of property is broader than that of civil rights. (4)

The theory of law assumes that the moments of the emergence and the termination of the constitutional property rights of a citizen or a legal entity do not coincide with the moments of the emergence and the termination of the civil law right to private property.

A complicated case regarding the termination of the rights of ownership to a residential building and its residential land took place at the time of the seizure of land in Adlersky City District, Sochi, Krasnodar Krai, on the grounds of the Federal Law 'On the organization and holding of the XXII Olympic Winter Games and the XI Paralympic Winter Games 2014 in Sochi CITY, the development of Sochi CITY as a mountain climate resort and the amendment of certain legislative acts of the Russian Federation' No. 310 of December 1, 2007. (5)

Within the preparation for the XXII Olympic Winter Games in 2014, a resident of the urban locality Krasnaya Polyana had his land plot seized and his rights of ownership terminated under a court decision with the payment of the market value compensation. In addition, the court ruling stated that the seizure took place for the sake of the construction of a railroad by JSCo 'RZD' (Joint Stock Company 'Russian Railways'). Subsequently, the route of the monorail railway changed under the process of the road's design. Two years later, the ex-owner of the land plot discovered that a hotel was being built on the alleged site of the construction of the railway, while the hotel in this case was not one of the items of the Program of Olympic objects building according to the Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation of December 29, 2007 No 991 'On the Program of building Olympic objects and development of Sochi as a mountain resort'. The ex-owner applied to a court of general demanding restitution. However, the claim was dismissed because the court considered the seizure of the land plot to be legal, made in accordance with the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. (6) This case was not tried at the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, although its subject meets all the requirements according to the Federal Constitutional Law No. 1-FKZ 'On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation' of July 21, 1994. (7)

An important decision of a similar nature was made by the Constitutional Court of Austria in the beginning of the twentieth century. (8) An Austrian citizen's land plot was seized for the state needs. He received the due pecuniary compensation. However, three years after the withdrawal, the ex-owner discovered that the seized land plot was not being used for the public needs. The ex-owner appealed to the court, demanding to return his land plot under the condition of the repayment of the pecuniary compensation. The appeal was dismissed with a reference to the current civil law. (9) Based on law the courts ruled that, as the civil right itself was terminated as a result of the seizure of the land plot for state needs, the plaintiff's appeal is lack of substantive basis.

However, when the ex-owner appealed to the Constitutional Court, his claims were upheld. The Court's position could be related to the fact that the time of the termination of the constitutional right of private property should be associated not with the moment of the actual seizure of the land plot, but with the realization of the purpose for which the plot had been seized. (10)

IV. THE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW CONCEPT OF PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS

The constitutional right to private property guarantees the existence of a number of other constitutional rights, creating conditions for their realization. (11) The realization of the constitutional right to a free use of the entrepreneurial abilities and other economic activities not prohibited by the law is possible only under the condition of 'private property'. The function of constitutional private property rights to create conditions for the realization of other constitutional rights--is of such great importance that it constitutes the basis for the assumption that the constitutional-legal concept of property rights is broader than the civil law of ownership.

It is this constitutional approach that allows us to extend a legal protection over such property rights, even if from the point of view of a civil concept of property rights that protection is not not applicable to the property right. In particular, the constitutional legal protection guaranteed above all by the rules of the art 35 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, was provided by the Russian Federation Constitutional Court in a number of its decisions. Thus, the judgment of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation No. 8-P, dated by May 16, 2000 stipulates as follows: 'According to art 35 (3) of the Constitution, no one can be deprived of his property except by a court decision; expropriation of property upon state requirements can be made only in case of prior and equal compensation'.

The concept of 'property' mentioned in the Article in its constitutional-legal sense covers, among other things, real rights and the incorporeal rights, including those of creditors. This approach was applied in the judgment of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated 17 December 1996 regarding the testing of the constitutionality of the paragraphs 2 and 3 of the first part of the art 11 (1 (2) (3)) of the Law of the Russian Federation 'On the Federal Bodies of the Tax Police' of June 24, 1993 and corresponds with the interpretation of this concept by the European Court of Human rights, which is the basis of the implementation of the Article 1 of the Protocol No. 1 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms'.

The constitutional concept of private property right is interpreted broader than the civil law one not only by the European Court of Human Rights, but also by many Western European constitutional courts. That interpretation of property right includes a wide range of rights, such as a right of the accumulation of pension funds and the compensation of the income lost due to the infringement of the good name. (12) As pointed out by the European Court of Human Rights in Jatridis case, the concept of 'property' in the art 1 of the Protocol No. 1 to the Convention has an independent content, which definitely is not limited to demesne of fee: some other rights and benefits constituting assets can also be related to 'property law', and thus, to 'property' for the purposes of the given provision. And in Beyeler case court maintained that the concept of 'property' stipulated in the first part of the Article 1 had an autonomous meaning, which did not come down to demesne of fee and was not dependent on the formal qualifications under internal law: some other rights and benefits constituting assets could also be interpreted as 'property rights' and thus as 'possessions' for the purposes of the given provision.

The idea that the Art. 35 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation protects not only the private property rights, but a wide range of property rights, was used once again by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation in its judgement 6-P dated by April 21, 2003 on the case of the constitutionality test of the provisions of art 167 (1) (2) of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. The central matter of that ruling is a contradiction between the two methods of protection of violated civil rights and the opposite legal stances of the general jurisdiction courts and the arbitration courts. In this regard, it is believed that the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation gave preference to vindicatory action, adopting the legal stance of the arbitration courts.

The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation accepted neither the idea that a bona fide owner is the proprietor, nor the idea that illegal bona fide possession is an actual state, and not a legal right. Usually, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation is not open to express its opinion on the issue debated in the doctrine. What is it about that case that forced the court to make an exception? According to professor Gadzhiev, it was being aware that the issue was in achieving a delicate balance between the legitimate interests of the owner, as well as the bona fide purchaser. (13) To solve the problem, it was necessary to apply the general legal pro rata principle. Assuming that the owner enjoys a fully valid legal right, while the bona fide purchaser' possession is only an actual state, searches for a balance were doomed to failure. In this case it is useless to try to apply the constitutional pro rata principle (Constitution of the Russian Federation, art 55 (3), implying a search of the balance of equally protected values.

The discussion whether possession is either a right or a fact has gone on for centuries. As a result, there are two opposite points of view and a compromise one. 'Polar poles' are the points of view of Paul and Papinian in Roman law, of G.Dernburg and B.Vindsheyd in German law, of D. Meyer and G. Shershenevich in Russian civil law. The compromise point of view belongs to V. Khvostov who believed that legal possession was a right, though a right of a very meager content. (14) From our point of view, the approach adopted by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation to a greater extent resembles the position of Khvostov. (15)

First of all, it is important to point out the fact that the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation ruled that based on the content of the art 35 (2) of the Constitution of the Russian Federation in its connection with the arts 8, 34, 45, 46 and 55 (1), the rights of possession, use and disposal of property were provided not only for the owners but also for other participants of the civil circulation. In cases when the property rights to an item of property in a dispute that emerged on the statutory grounds also imply other people apart from the owner, other owners and users of the item in question should be also guaranteed protection of their rights by the state. According to the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, such property rights include rights of bona fide purchasers.

At first glance, this provision may seem extremely controversial. Interpreting the constitutional provision, containing in art 35 (2) of the Russian Constitution, the Constitutional Court considers ownership (which involves the possession with powers such as possession, use and disposal) and possession as autonomous property rights. It turns out that art 35 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation guarantees the state protection not only for the constitutional right to private property, but also for a wide range of various property rights. It is obvious that such an interpretation is very similar to the one by the European Court of Human Rights, the Convention's provisions on respect for property contained in art 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

Thus, bona fide owners can be regarded as holders of property rights specifically only in the light of their participation in the 'civil commerce'. Upon a detailed look at the text of the judgment of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation testing the constitutionality of the provisions of art 167 of the Civil Code it becomes clear why the judgement of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation No. 202-O of November 27, 2001 also links the recognition of the rights of bona fide purchasers of bonded cars to their acquisition 'in the course of turnover'. The civil commerce exception to a large extent explains why as a result of the ruling of the court the state of actual misappropriation becomes a property right of a bona fide owner.

Provement of that the bona fide possession is not just an actual fact, but also a property right can be found in a systematic and logical interpretation of the rules of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. The art 234 (2) of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation contains a rule according to which before the acquisition of a property by virtue of acquisitive prescription a person owning the property is entitled to protect his/her possession rights from third parties who are not owners of the property, as well as from those who cannot own it by virtue of another provision stipulated by law or agreement. It is well-known that a right to protection is merely an element, a legal authority within the content of any civil right. This element of the main content of legal right is sought when other elements of legal right are under a threat, i.e. when legal right is in a special, infringed condition. Thus, the provision on 'right to protection of their possession' of art 234 (2) of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, in combination with art 11 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation stipulating judicial remedies for the violation of civil rights, must be interpreted as a recognition by civil legislation of certain property rights of bona fide owners.

Attention to this problem was drawn by K. Sklovsky. He pointed out that the revival of acquisitive prescription in the Russian legislation (art 234 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation) raised the question whether that originated the right of ownership when judicial remedies were enforceable. In his opinion, an acquisition prescription of a possession is not a reason to be protected either from the owner or other right holder. That is why such ownership cannot be opposed to rights of the owner or other right holder as a competitive right, therefore coexisting with those rights just as a fact. Hence is a recognition of the fairness of the statement by D. Meyer 'As long as a prescription has not led to this right, there is no property right'. However, at the same time monograph by Sklovsky (2000) reflects uncertainty of his position, as he writes: 'If we assume that a right of action itself allows us to consider a relation described in art 234 of the Civil Code to be a right, then in any case that right lacks the features that would allow to consider it an absolute (because it is not protected from any person) and corporeal (because it is not passed along with a property, and is transferred only by way of personal succession).' (16)

Apparently, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation by no accident states that a bona fide possessor has a legal right, calling it fairly abstractly a property right.

V. THE DEFINITIVE OPINION ON THE STATUS AND RIGHTS OF BONA FIDE OWNER

From our point of view, this property right is a new corporeal right. By virtue of this right a bona fide owner obtains the ability to influence the subject directly and to meet entrenchments on it by third parties. (17) In this case, the direct influence on the subject is not to be understood only as 'holding in hands', as the physical possession of the thing. Possession by a bona fide purchaser, as opposed to simply holding, implies a certain property power.

The fact that a legal right is limited in time, as opposed to the majority of absolute rights, does not impede its recognition as a corporeal right. (18) After all, the temporary nature of the right of lifetime inheritable possession does not prevent it from being recognized as a corporeal right.

Obviously, the specific nature of the basis for the origin of bona fide possession right is its characteristic feature. (19) Unlike other corporeal rights bona fide possession as a basis of its complex legal structure has a legal decision by virtue of which this right originates, being a the precondition for its occurrence. Till the moment a judicial decision in favor of bona fide owner is not held, their status is defined as unlawful bona fide possession. At the same time, due to vindication restrictions, a bona fide purchaser obtains a property right. The determination of a good faith is an act of justice, which in accordance with art 118 (1) of the Constitution of the Russian Federation is carried out only by a court, hence the existence of a judicial act is an obligatory condition. The new property right of a bona fide purchaser also arises in the case of the expiry of the statue of limitations regarding vindicatory actions (art 199 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). The good faith of the possession must be acknowledged by court based on certain legal facts.

Thus, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation in its judgement testing the constitutionality of the provisions of art 167 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation acknowledged a property right of bona fide purchasers. The operative part of the judgement stipulates that the provisions of art 167 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation in their constitutional and legal interpretation mean that they cannot be applied to bona fide purchaser, unless directly specified by law. Does this mean that the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation does not consider it possible to apply art 167 of the Civil Code in cases of the reclamation of dwelling premise or other property by its owner from a bona fide purchaser? Can the juddgment of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation be interpreted as stipulating express precedence of property rights of bona fide purchasers over the right of property? We believe that such understanding of the judgment of the Constitutional Court of Russian Federation would be too straightforward. (20) Moreover, if in the past courts of general jurisdiction neglected the enforcement of civil law limiting the owners' right to recover, giving precedence to the enforcement of the provisions of art 167 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation stipulating for restitution, the 'literal' interpretation of the judgment of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation is dangerous as the other extreme. (21)

In fact, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation expressed no opinion on the priority of the property rights of bona fide purchasers, provided by the rules of limited vindication (art 302 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). Section 3 para 1 of the declaration of intent of the judgement of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation confirms that the Civil Code of the Russian Federation in accordance with the arising from the Constitution of the Russian Federation fundamental principles of civil law (art (1) 1 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation) does not limit the citizen's choice of ways of protecting violated rights; citizens and legal entities by virtue of art 9 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation are entitled to make that choice at their own discretion.

The right to choose a method of the state protection of the rights and freedoms can also depend on the essence of the constitutional right under art 45 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation.

Restitution, as it was rightly pointed out by Sklovsky, is a very peculiar requirement in its legal nature: being neither corporeal nor binding, it has a strong public-law element, i.e. it is not purely a private law remedy. (22) Vindication, by contrast, is a typical private law remedy. Thus, the application of restitution with its considerable public-law element does not always allow to have a balance between legitimate interests of the owner and a bona fide purchaser.

In certain cases, it is preferable to use vindication in order to reach that balance. Owners, parties to the agreement, third parties to the agreement, bona fide purchasers--all of them are the members of civil commerce. (23) Based on the general legal principle of justice, the protection of property rights and property rights of bona fide purchasers should be realized on the basis of ratability and proportionality, in order to ensure the balance of rights and legitimate interests of all of the participants of civil commerce (subsection 2, para 4 of the declaration of intent of the judgment of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation No. 6-P of April 21, 2003). Regulating the bases for the origin and termination of the right of ownership and other real rights, contractual and other obligations, the bases and the implications of the invalidity of transactions, federal law should stipulate for such methods and mechanisms of the enforcement of property rights that would protect not only the owners but also the bona fide purchasers as the participants of civil commerce (subsection 2, para 6 of the declaration of intent of the judgment of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation No. 6-P of April 21, 2003).

In order to determine in which cases priority should be given to the protection of the the owner's rights and in which--to the rights of the bona fide purchaser, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation suggested that courts should use two constitutional principles as an objective criterion: a) the principle of ratability and proportionality, and b) the principle of stability of the civil commerce.

The crucial provision for the understanding of the legal stance of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation is contained in the last two paras of Section 3.1 of the declaration of intent of the judgment of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of April 21, 2003: 'The rights of a person who considers him/herself to be a proprietor shall not be protected by a lawsuit against a bona fide purchaser through a legal mechanism set out in art 167 (1) (2) of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation.' So, if between the owner of the property and a bona fide purchaser no deal has been effected, the latter should be regarded as a third party against which no legal action claiming the declaration of invalidity of transaction and the application of the consequences of its invalidity can be taken. Such protection is possible only through upholding of the vindication claim, provided the stipulated by art 302 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation grounds, which authorize the reclamation of the property even from a bona fide purchaser (gratuitousness the property acquisition by the bona fide purchaser, withdrawal of the property from the possession of the owner against their will, etc.).

A different interpretation of provisions of art. 167 (1) (2) of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation would mean that the owner has an opportunity to resort to such a remedy as a recognition of invalidity of all of their assignment of assets transactions, i.e. to demand restitutes not only when it comes to one (the first) unlawful transaction, but also when the disputed property was acquired by a bona fide purchaser through subsequent (second, third, fourth, etc.) transactions.

Thus, there is an objective criterion--the number of deals made between the owner and the bona fide purchaser. A chain of those transactions is part of the civil commerce, the stability of which must be maintained by both constitutional and civil law. (24) If that chain has several links, the interests of the bona fide purchaser tend to outweigh the rights of the owner, for the idea of the stability of the civil commerce is realized in the interests of the purchaser.

The application of the provisions of art 35 (2) of the Constitution of the Russian Federation as providing public recognition and protection for such property rights as the rights of a bona fide owner turned out to be necessary in order to ensure the courts, applying Art. 167 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and having a sufficient degree of discretion, to independently decide in every individual case which measures are appropriate and should be taken based on the need to find a reasonable balance between legitimate interests of the owner and those of the bona fide owner.

By disclosing constitutional legal meaning of art 167 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation demonstrated the importance of the basic principle of private law--the ensuring the stability of the civil commerce.

Bibliography

Banker JH, Ekern Y, Constitutional Law: Principles and Practice (2009)

Conant M, The Constitution and Economic Regulation: Objective Theory and Critical Commentary (Transaction Publishers, 2011)

Dayuan Han, 'Constitutional Protection of the Right to Private Property in China' (2013) 1 China Legal Science

Ellist Mark, 'Drafting Constitutions: Property Rights in Central and Eastern Europe' (1994) 19 Yale Journal Int'l Law

Ely JW, 'The Constitution and Economic Liberty' (2012) 35 Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy

Fishkin J & William E, 'Is the Constitution Responsible for Electoral Dysfunction? The Anti-Oligarchy Constitution' (2014) 94 Boston University Law Review

Gadzhiev G.A., Barenboym P.D., Lafitskiy V.I., Mau V.A. Konstitutsionnaya ekonomika/Otv. red. G.A. Gadzhiev. M.: Yuristinform, 2010 (GA Gadzhiev, PD Barenboym, VI Lafitskiy, VA Mau, Constitutional Economics (GA Gadzhiev ed, Yuristinform 2010))

Gadzhiev G.A. Konstitutsionnye osnovy sovremennogo prava sobstvennosti/Zhurnal rossiiskogo prava. 2006. N 20. (GA Gadzhiev, 'The Constitutional Foundations of the Modern Property Rights' (2006) 20 Journal of Russian Law)

Gerding EF, Bubbles, Law and Financial Regulation (Routledge 2013)

Gregory SA, 'Do Constitutional Property Clauses Matter?' (2007) 33 3 Cornell Law School Forum

Harrison J, 'The Constitution of Economic Liberty' (2008) 45 San Diego Law Review

Heller K, Outline of Austrian Constitutional Law (1989)

Khvostov V.M. Sistema rimskogo prava. Sbornik/M.: Spark, 1996 (VM Khvostov, System of Roman Law (Spark 1996))

Lenaerts K, 'Constitutionalism and the Many Faces of Federalism' (1990) 38 American Journal of Comparative Law

McGrory Daniel, 'Civilizing the Russian Underground Economy: Requirements and Prospects For Establishing a Civil Economy in Russia' (1995) 5 Transnational Law and Contemporary Problems

Sklovskiy K.I. Sobstvennost' v grazhdanskom prave: ucheb.-praktich. posobie/2-e izd. M.: Delo, 2000 (KI Sklovskiy, Ownership in civil law: training manual (Case 2000))

Stelzer M, The Constitution of the Republic of Austria: A Contextual Analysis (Bloomsbury Publishing 2011)

Yueh LY, The Law and Economics of Globalization: New Challenges for a World in Flux (2009)

Ilya Iksanov and Polina Krasnova (Russia)

Authors

Ilya Iksanov

PhD (Law), Lomonosov Moscow State University, 2008 Associate Professor, Constitutional and International Law Chair, Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation, Email: IIksanov@fa.ru

Polina Krasnova

Student, Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation

Email: lina-281196@mail.ru

(1) The work was carried out following the state assignment by the Government of the Russian Federation: scientific research of the Constitutional and Municipal Law Chair of the Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation, year 2013.

(2) K Lenaerts, 'Constitutionalism and the Many Faces of Federalism' (1990) 38 American Journal of Comparative Law 1997.

(3) EF Gerding, Bubbles, Law and Financial Regulation (Routledge 2013).

(4) Han Dayuan, 'Constitutional protection of the right to private property in China' (2013) 1 China Legal Science 6.

(5) Legislation Bulletin of the Russian Federation 2007, No. 49, art. 6071.

(6) ibid (n 4).

(7) Legislation Bulletin of the Russian Federation 1994, No. 13, art. 1447.

(8) K Heller, Outline of Austrian Constitutional Law (1989).

(9) M Conant, The Constitution and Economic Regulation: Objective Theory and Critical Commentary (Transaction Publishers 2011).

(10) M Stelzer, The Constitution of the Republic of Austria: A Contextual Analysis (Bloomsbury Publishing 2011).

(11) JW Ely, 'The Constitution and Economic Liberty' (2012) 35 Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 27.

(12) ibid.

(13) Gadzhiev G.A. Konstitutsionnye osnovy sovremennogo prava sobstvennosti /Zhurnal rossiiskogo prava. 2006. No. 12. S.20-41 (GA Gadzhiev, 'The Constitutional Foundations of the Modern Property Rights' (2006) 12 Journal of Russian Law 20-41).

(14) Gadzhiev G.A., Barenboym P.D., Lafitskiy V.I, Mau V.A. Konstitutsionnaya ekonomika/Otv. red. G.A Gadzhiev. M.: Yuristinform, 2010 (GA Gadzhiev, PD Barenboym, VI Lafitskiy, VA Mau, Constitutional Economics (G Gadzhiev ed, Yuristinform 2010)).

(15) Khvostov V.M. Sistema rimskogo prava. Sbornik/M.: Spark, 1996 (VM Khvostov, System of Roman Law (Spark 1996)).

(16) Sklovskiy K.I. Sobstvennost' v grazhdanskom prave: ucheb.-praktich.posobie/ 2-e izd. M.: Delo, 2000 (KI Sklovskiy, Ownership in Civil Law: Training Manual (Case 2000)).

(17) LY Yueh, The Law and Economics of Globalization: New Challenges for a World in Flux (2009).

(18) JH Banker, Yvonne Ekern, Constitutional Law: Principles and Practice (2009).

(19) J Harrison, 'The Constitution of Economic Liberty7 (2008) 45 San Diego Law Review 709.

(20) SA Gregory, 'Do Constitutional Property Clauses Matter?' (2007) 33 3 Cornell Law School Forum 4

(21) ibid (n 14).

(22) ibid (n 13) 79.

(23) Daniel McGrory, 'Civilizing the Russian Underground Economy: Requirements and Prospects For Establishing a Civil Economy in Russia' (1995) 5 Transnational Law and Contemporary Problems.

(24) M Ellist, 'Drafting Constitutions: Property Rights in Central and Eastern Europe' (1994) 19 Yale Journal Int'l Law 197
COPYRIGHT 2016 Kutafin Moscow State Law University
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2016 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:LAW AND ECONOMY
Author:Iksanov, Ilya; Krasnova, Polina
Publication:Kutafin University Law Review
Article Type:Report
Geographic Code:4EXRU
Date:Apr 1, 2016
Words:5323
Previous Article:The balance between human rights and investment treaty obligations in oil and gas industry.
Next Article:Regulatory decisions of the Constitutional Council of the Republic of Kazakhstan and their impact on developing an effective system to protect the...
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2021 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters