Models of Actio Negatoria in the Law of Russia and European Countries
Actio negatoria is necessary in a situation wherein no one questions the ownership of an object by the owner, and the object remains in his possession, but someone exploits it without sufficient legal basis, treats it just as if he was endowed with the opportunity and the right to use someone else’s object. Despite the apparent simplicity of actio negatoria in the legislation of European countries, three models of this lawsuit have been developed, built according to the actio negatoria design that existed at different stages of the development of Roman private law – the common law model, the Roman model, and the German model. This study is based on the method of analysis of judicial practice and the method of comparative law. Based on the results of this study, we conclude that actio negatoria is not a universal method of protection. It is necessary to deviate from the principle of residual attention of the legislator to actio negatoria, residual, first of all, compared to rei vindicatio. Based on the analysis of the three models of actio negatoria that exist in the law of European countries, a new, fourth model of this lawsuit is proposed. Only an immovable object can be the subject of an actio negatoria dispute. Actio negatoria cannot be used to challenge the registered right to immovable objects. Actio negatoria can be used to protect the subjective right of property from a violation of ownership which is produced by interfering with possession and which does not result in dispossession.
About the AuthorTikhon Podshivalov
Head of Private Law Laboratory.
76 Lenin Av., Chelyabinsk, 454080.
1. Bergel J.-L. et al. Les biens (2nd ed., Paris: L.G.D.J., 2010).
2. Caudill D.S. Legal Responses to Body Burdens: Discourses on Low-Dose Toxicity, 18(2) Griffith Law Review 259 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1080/10383441.2009.10854640
3. Habersack M. Die Mitgliedschaft – subjektives und “sonstiges” Recht (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996).
4. Hohloch G. Die negatorischen Ansprüche und ihre Beziehungen zum Schadensersatzrecht (Frankfurt am Main: Metzner, 1976).
5. Hudson A.H. Trespass or Nuisance, 23(2) Modern Law Review 188 (1960). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1960.tb00586.x
6. Klass A.B. Bees, Trees, Preemption and Nuisance: A New Path to Resolving Pesticide Land Disputes, 32(4) Ecology Law Quarterly 763 (2005).
7. Madden M.S. Toxic Torts Deskbook (Chelsea: Lewis Publishers, 1992). https://doi.org/10.1201/9781351077354
8. Mager H. Besonderheiten des dinglichen Anspruchs, 193(1) Archiv für die civilistische Praxis 68 (1993).
9. Merrill T.W. Trespass, Nuisance, and the Costs of Determining Property Rights, 14(1) Journal of Legal Studies 13 (1985). https://doi.org/10.1086/467764
10. Sanfilippo C. Istituzioni di diritto romano (Soveria Mannelli: Rubbettino, 1996).
11. Smith H.E. The Persistence of System in Property Law, 163(7) University of Pennsylvania Law Review 2055 (2015).
12. Wilhelm J. Sachenrecht (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007). https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110916928
13. Windscheid B. Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts. Bd. 1 (Düsseldorf: Buddeus, 1870).
14. Wolf M. & Wellenhofer M. Sachenrecht (27th ed., Munich: C.H. Beck, 2012).
For citation: Podshivalov T. Models of Actio Negatoria in the Law of Russia and European Countries. Russian Law Journal. 2019;7(2):128-164. https://doi.org/10.17589/2309-8678-2019-7-2-128-164
- There are currently no refbacks.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0.