graduate student from 01.01.2024 until now
Russian Federation
Introduction. Compulsory termination of ownership’s rights has traditionally been viewed as an exception from the fundamental principle of property inviolability. The debate in the doctrine about the relationship between “grounds” and “methods” of compulsory termination of ownership is kept, because civil law does not employ the term “mode of termination”, providing the grounds for this termination. In modern circumstances, the basis for compulsory termination of ownership is not only the formal definiteness of such cases by law, but also a clearly established purpose of property seizure, that makes it possible to assess the appropriateness and necessity of the chosen method of termination. Methods. The research is based on the application of a formal-legal method, systems-structural analysis methods and comparative doctrinal analysis. The main method of research is a formal-legal method, which allowed to explore the conceptual and categorical apparatus of grounds and ways of coercive termination of ownership, to conduct an analysis of the relevant norms that provide the property seizure. With the help of the system-structural analysis method, the main methods of coercive termination of property right were identified and the purposes of property seizure were classified. Results. While studying the mechanism of compulsory termination of ownership, it is justified that the purpose of property seizure is the criterion for the permissibility of ownership restriction (termination), choosing the necessary and strictly conditioned by these purposes method of terminating the right of ownership (compulsory property seizure, sale of property, compensation payment) and guarantee amount.
property right, seizure of property, methods of termination of property right, grounds for termination of property right, state needs, public interest, interests of society
1. Makin R. Iz'yatie imuschestva dlya publichnyh nuzhd. Chast' I: publichno-pravovye aspekty iz'yatiya // Civilistika. 2024. T. 2, № 4. S. 3–59.
2. Schennikova L. V. Sistema osnovaniy prekrascheniya (lisheniya) prava sobstvennosti kak neobhodimoe uslovie effektivnoy realizacii principa neprikosnovennosti sobstvennosti // Vestnik Permskogo universiteta. Yuridicheskie nauki. 2019. Vyp. 44. S. 329–351. https://doi.org/10.17072/1995-4190-2019-44-329-351
3. Mal'cev V. A. Vidy interesov sub'ektov pravootnosheniy v sferah obespecheniya bezopasnosti, zakreplennye v konstitucionnom zakonodatel'stve zarubezhnyh stran // Vestnik Voronezhskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya: Pravo. 2017. № 3 (30). S. 50–57.
4. Andreev Yu. N. Interesy v sovremennom rossiyskom prave: teoriya i praktika : monografiya. Moskva : Prospekt, 2023. 496 s.
5. Sharov D. V. Normy ob'ektivnogo prava kak sredstvo udovletvoreniya zakonnyh interesov // Vestnik ekonomicheskoy bezopasnosti. 2025. № 3. S. 174–177. https://doi.org/10.24412/2414-3995-2025-3-174-177
6. Andrianov V. M. K voprosu o sootnoshenii lichnyh, kollektivnyh, obschestvennyh i publichnyh interesov v grazhdanskom prave Rossii // Zhurnal pravovyh i ekonomicheskih issledovaniĭ. 2023. № 2. S. 69–72. https://doi.org/10.26163/GIEF.2023.60.14.010
7. Afanas'eva E. N. Rekviziciya: grazhdansko-pravovye problemy / nauch. red. R. P. Manankova. Tomsk : Tomskiy gosudarstvennyy universitet, 2009. 176 s.
8. Filatova U. B. Prekraschenie prava obschey dolevoy sobstvennosti na neznachitel'nuyu dolyu v prave sobstvennosti na zhiloe pomeschenie: problemy teorii i pravoprimeneniya // Sibirskiy yuridicheskiy vestnik. 2013. № 2 (61). S. 49–55.
9. Semenova E. G. Pravovoe obespechenie zaschity interesov lic pri prinuditel'nom prekraschenii prava sobstvennosti: problemy i perspektivy sovershenstvovaniya // Nauchnye trudy : Rossiyskaya akademiya yuridicheskih nauk. Moskva : Yurist, 2025. S. 365–372.
10. Sinicyn S. A. Institut ekspropriacii inostrannoy sobstvennosti: de facto & de jure // Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Seriya 11: Pravo. 2023. № 3. S. 33–54.
11. Krassov O. I. Pravo chastnoy sobstvennosti na zemlyu. Moskva : Yurist, 2000. 379 c.
12. Syroedov N. A. Vozniknovenie prava na zemlyu // Gosudarstvo i pravo. 2004. № 10. S. 65–72.
13. Devickiy E. I. Publichnyy i chastnyy interes v pravotvorchestve: kriterii otgranicheniya // Prolog: zhurnal o prave. 2020. № 1 (25). S. 2–16.
14. Vavilin E. V., Babakov V. A. Grazhdansko-pravovaya zaschita interesov gosudarstva v realiyah cifrovoy transformacii obschestvennyh otnosheniy : monografiya. Moskva : Statut, 2025. 426 s.
15. Golubcov V. G. Rossiyskaya Federaciya kak sub'ekt grazhdanskogo prava. Moskva : Statut, 2019. 272 s.
16. Kuznecova O. A., Stepanov V. V. Mezhotraslevaya pravovaya priroda konfiskacii imuschestva // Zhurnal rossiyskogo prava. 2018. № 2 (254). S. 27–37. https://doi.org/10.12737/art_2018_2_3
17. Usataya E. S. Nacionalizaciya kak sposob prekrascheniya prava sobstvennosti // Gosudarstvennaya vlast' i mestnoe samoupravlenie. 2025. № 12. S. 11–15. https://doi.org/10.18572/1813-1247-2025-12-11-15
18. Mazaev V. D. Konstitucionalizaciya nacionalizacii // Zakonodatel'stvo. 2024. № 4. S. 37–43. https://doi.org/10.58741/16818695_2024_4_37
19. Karpov M. Yu. Nacionalizaciya: tendencii razvitiya doktriny i zakonodatel'stva // Lex Russica. 2016. № 5 (14). S. 133–146. https://doi.org/10.17803/1729-5920.2016.114.5.133-146
20. Sitdikova L. B., Pomazkova S. I., Enikeev I. S. Nacionalizaciya kak institut grazhdanskogo prava // Yurist. 2023. № 2. S. 40–44. https://doi.org/10.18572/1812-3929-2023-2-40-44
21. Altengova O. L. Grazhdansko-pravovaya konfiskaciya kak osnovanie prinuditel'nogo prekrascheniya prava sobstvennosti // Vestnik Volgogradskoy akademii MVD Rossii. 2016. № 2 (37). S. 44–48.
22. Potapova L. A. Grazhdansko-pravovoy mehanizm iz'yatiya ob'ekta nedvizhimosti u lic, vklyuchennyh v perechen' prichastnyh k ekstremizmu i terrorizmu // Pravovye voprosy nedvizhimosti. 2024. № 1. S. 5–9.
