from 01.01.2018 until now
Russian Federation
Introduction. In contemporary legal doctrine, the discussion about the relationship between the concepts of “matrimonial property” and “the common property of spouses” continues to be significant due to the absence of clear and appropriate terminology. This issue has gained particular relevance, as the notion of “matrimonial property” has been a part of Russian legislation for over half a century. This has led not only to external contradictions between provisions of civil and family law but also to internal contradictions that weaken and undermine the integrity of the common property concept established by the Family Code of the Russian Federation. This issue requires thorough and detailed scientific analysis. Methods. General scientific methods of analysis, induction, deduction, interpretation and systematisation of the categories, the historical-legal method and the method of generalisation are used in the study. The results of the study are both theoretical and practical in nature. They reveal the existence of contradictions between the norms of family and civil law in terms of defining objects of common property, as well as the need to refine the terminological apparatus, which serves not only as the basis for law-making and law enforcement activities, but also as a tool for deep theoretical understanding of legal phenomena and processes. The existing terminological confusion in the Civil Code of the Russian Federation creates internal contradictions in the concept of “matrimonial property”, making it difficult to protect property interests of spouses. To resolve these contradictions and ensure a clear and non-ambiguous understanding of legal norms, it is essential to harmonise the Family legislation regulating the property relations of spouses.
property relations, matrimonial property, things, civil law objects, terminological apparatus, family law, property rights
1. Turanin V. Yu. Yuridicheskaya terminologiya v sovremennom rossiyskom zakonodatel'stve: teoreticheskie i prakticheskie problemy ispol'zovaniya : monografiya. Moskva : Izdatel'stvo SGU, 2010. 259 s.
2. Puchkov V. O. Ponyatiyno-terminologicheskiy apparat pravovedeniya v cifrovuyu epohu: znachimost', teoriya, metodologiya // Grazhdanin. Vybory. Vlast'. 2024. № 4 (34). S. 24–39.
3. Smolickaya E. E. Grazhdansko-pravovye instituty, ponyatiya i terminy v nalogovom prave : monografiya. Moskva : Prospekt, 2018. 174 s.
4. Voplenko N. N., Davydova M. L. Pravovye definicii v sovremennom rossiyskom zakonodatel'stve // Vestnik Nizhegorodskogo universiteta im. N. I. Lobachevskogo. Seriya: Pravo. 2001. № 1. S. 64–71.
5. Tolstik V. A. Trebovaniya, pred'yavlyaemye k yuridicheskoy terminologii: formal'no-logicheskoe i sociokul'turnoe obosnovanie // Yuridicheskaya tehnika. 2016. № 10. S. 302–307.
6. Golovina S. Yu. Ponyatiynyy apparat trudovogo prava : monografiya. Ekaterinburg : Ural'skaya gosudarstvennaya yuridicheskaya akademiya, 1997. 180 s.
7. Moiseeva T. M. Sovmestnaya sobstvennost' suprugov i (ili) obschee imuschestvo suprugov: analiz sovremennogo semeynogo i grazhdanskogo prava // Aktual'nye problemy rossiyskogo prava. 2017. № 5 (78). S. 131–136. https://doi.org/10.17803/1994-1471.2017.78.5.131-136
8. Lokshina M. D. Implicitnoe (neyavnoe) v zakonodatel'nom tekste // Tezisy dokladov na teoreticheskoy konferencii aspirantov Instituta gosudarstva i prava AN SSSR. Moskva : IGPAN, 1988. S. 6–9.
9. Vlasenko N. A. Yazyk prava : monografiya. repr. izd. Moskva : Norma, 2024. 176 s.
10. Reyhel' M. O. Obscheimuschestvennye otnosheniya suprugov v sovetskom prave // Sovetskoe gosudarstvo i pravo. 1940. № 8–9. S. 109–131.
11. Nizamieva O. N. Dogovornoe regulirovanie imuschestvennyh otnosheniy v sem'e : monografiya. Kazan' : Taglimat, 2005. 216 s.
12. Fedorenko M. V. Mysli effektivno. Moskva : Izdatel'skie resheniya, 2019. 240 s.
13. Koncepciya razvitiya grazhdanskogo zakonodatel'stva Rossiyskoy Federacii (odobrena Sovetom pri Prezidente Rossiyskoy Federacii po kodifikacii i sovershenstvovaniyu grazhdanskogo zakonodatel'stva 07.10.2009) / Vstup. stat'ya A. L. Makovskogo // Vestnik Vysshego Arbitrazhnogo Suda Rossiyskoy Federacii. 2009. № 11.
14. Schennikova L. V. Ponyatie veschnogo prava v argumentacii rossiyskih civilistov // Vestnik Permskogo universiteta. Yuridicheskie nauki. 2017. Vyp. 37. C. 361–372. https://doi.org/10.17072/1995-4190-2017-37-361-372
15. Kulagina E. V. Rol' imuschestvennyh otnosheniy v sem'e i pravovye predposylki ih ohrany // Pravo i zaschita sem'i gosudarstvom // Azarova E. G., Korolev Yu. A., Kulagina E. V., Litvinova G. I. [i dr.] ; otv. red. V. P. Mozolin, V. A. Ryasencev. Moskva : Nauka, 1987. S. 46–56.
16. Zhelonkin S. S., Makarova O. A. Razmytie doli v OOO: kollizionnye voprosy semeynyh i korporativnyh otnosheniy // Filosofiya prava. 2024. № 2 (109). S. 91–98.
