1. The owner has the rights to own, use and dispose of his property.

2. The owner has the right, at his own discretion, to take any actions in relation to his property that do not contradict the law and other legal acts and do not violate the rights and interests protected by law of other persons, including alienating his property into the ownership of other persons, transferring it to them, while remaining the owner , the right to own, use and dispose of property, pledge property and encumber it in other ways, dispose of it in any other way.

3. Possession, use and disposal of land and other natural resources, to the extent that their circulation is permitted by law (Article 129), is carried out by their owner freely, if this does not cause damage to the environment and does not violate the rights and legitimate interests of other persons.

4. The owner can transfer his property into trust management to another person (trustee). The transfer of property into trust management does not entail the transfer of ownership rights to the trustee, who is obliged to manage the property in the interests of the owner or a third party specified by him.

Commentary on Article 209

The right of ownership, along with other real rights, is characterized as exclusive and absolute, while in its content it is the most complete. The content of the subjective right of ownership in domestic civil law is usually revealed through a triad of powers: possession, use and disposal.

The right of ownership is a legally enforceable possibility of actual control over property.

The right to use is exercised by the owner extracting its useful properties from the property in his own interests. As a general rule, the owner owns the products, fruits and income received as a result of the exploitation of the property.

An order is a power, the implementation of which is aimed at determining the legal fate of property. As a rule, it is carried out through civil transactions, but can also be expressed in the commission of unilateral actions that do not give rise to obligations of third parties, for example, such as the destruction of property.

The composition of legally significant acts of behavior of a subject of property rights is specified in Part 2 of Article 209 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, which contains an approximate list of possible methods of use and disposal. These include alienation by way of purchase and sale, transfer of rights of ownership and use (mainly under a lease agreement), will, etc. In the same context, the right of the owner, provided for in Part 4 of Article 209, to transfer his property into trust management should be considered.

At the same time, the main imperative requirement for the implementation of any of the powers is the inadmissibility of violating the rights of third parties. In relation to such objects of property rights as land and natural resources, a requirement has been established to ensure the preservation of the environment during their use. In addition, it is possible to legislatively limit the possibility of free disposal of these types of property by limiting their circulation.

Do you think you are Russian? Were you born in the USSR and think that you are Russian, Ukrainian, Belarusian? No. This is wrong.

Are you actually Russian, Ukrainian or Belarusian? But do you think that you are a Jew?

Game? Wrong word. The correct word is “imprinting”.

The newborn associates himself with those facial features that he observes immediately after birth. This natural mechanism is characteristic of most living creatures with vision.

Newborns in the USSR saw their mother for a minimum of feeding time during the first few days, and most of the time they saw the faces of the maternity hospital staff. By a strange coincidence, they were (and still are) mostly Jewish. The technique is wild in its essence and effectiveness.

Throughout your childhood, you wondered why you lived surrounded by strangers. The rare Jews on your way could do whatever they wanted with you, because you were drawn to them, and pushed others away. Yes, even now they can.

You cannot fix this - imprinting is one-time and for life. It’s difficult to understand; the instinct took shape when you were still very far from being able to formulate it. From that moment, no words or details were preserved. Only facial features remained in the depths of memory. Those traits that you consider to be your own.

System and observer

Let's define a system as an object whose existence is beyond doubt.

An observer of a system is an object that is not part of the system it observes, that is, it determines its existence through factors independent of the system.

The observer, from the point of view of the system, is a source of chaos - both control actions and the consequences of observational measurements that do not have a cause-and-effect relationship with the system.

An internal observer is an object potentially accessible to the system in relation to which inversion of observation and control channels is possible.

An external observer is an object, even potentially unattainable for the system, located beyond the system’s event horizon (spatial and temporal).

Hypothesis No. 1. All-seeing eye

Let's assume that our universe is a system and it has an external observer. Then observational measurements can occur, for example, with the help of “gravitational radiation” penetrating the universe from all sides from the outside. The cross section of the capture of “gravitational radiation” is proportional to the mass of the object, and the projection of the “shadow” from this capture onto another object is perceived as an attractive force. It will be proportional to the product of the masses of the objects and inversely proportional to the distance between them, which determines the density of the “shadow”.

The capture of “gravitational radiation” by an object increases its chaos and is perceived by us as the passage of time. An object opaque to “gravitational radiation”, the capture cross section of which is larger than its geometric size, looks like a black hole inside the universe.

Hypothesis No. 2. Inner Observer

It is possible that our universe is observing itself. For example, using pairs of quantum entangled particles separated in space as standards. Then the space between them is saturated with the probability of the existence of the process that generated these particles, reaching its maximum density at the intersection of the trajectories of these particles. The existence of these particles also means that there is no capture cross section on the trajectories of objects that is large enough to absorb these particles. The remaining assumptions remain the same as for the first hypothesis, except:

Time flow

An outside observation of an object approaching the event horizon of a black hole, if the determining factor of time in the universe is an “external observer,” will slow down exactly twice - the shadow of the black hole will block exactly half of the possible trajectories of “gravitational radiation.” If the determining factor is the “internal observer,” then the shadow will block the entire trajectory of interaction and the flow of time for an object falling into a black hole will completely stop for a view from the outside.

It is also possible that these hypotheses can be combined in one proportion or another.

1. The owner has the rights to own, use and dispose of his property.

2. The owner has the right, at his own discretion, to take any actions in relation to his property that do not contradict the law and other legal acts and do not violate the rights and interests protected by law of other persons, including alienating his property into the ownership of other persons, transferring it to them, while remaining the owner , the right to own, use and dispose of property, pledge property and encumber it in other ways, dispose of it in any other way.

3. Possession, use and disposal of land and other natural resources, to the extent that their circulation is permitted by law (Article 129), is carried out by their owner freely, if this does not cause damage to the environment and does not violate the rights and legitimate interests of other persons.

4. The owner can transfer his property into trust management to another person (trustee). The transfer of property into trust management does not entail the transfer of ownership rights to the trustee, who is obliged to manage the property in the interests of the owner or a third party specified by him.

Commentary on Article 209 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation

1. Property law is an integral part of the civil legislation of any developed state. In the Civil Code section is devoted to real rights. II, containing more than 100 articles. An analysis of these articles allows us to identify a number of distinctive features of property rights under Russian legislation:

a) the range of real rights, in contrast to obligations, is exhaustively named by the law itself. In this case, the law means the Civil Code (Articles 209, 216, etc.) and other federal laws. A person does not have the right to create new types of real rights at his own discretion. On the contrary, a participant in an obligatory relationship may, according to Art. 8 of the Civil Code to enter into transactions both provided for and not provided for by law, but not contrary to it.

In addition to the ownership and rights listed in Art. 216 of the Civil Code, real property also includes the right of pledge (Article 334 of the Civil Code); rights of family members of the owner of residential premises (Article 292 of the Civil Code); the right of an institution to dispose of property received as a result of permitted economic activities (Article 298 of the Civil Code);

b) real right, in contrast to obligation, is a type of absolute right, i.e. The owner of the property right (the right of economic management, etc.) is confronted by an unlimited circle of subjects who are obliged not to violate his right to the thing. The owner of the right of obligation is opposed by a circle of persons limited by the obligation relationship, and only they, strictly speaking, are obliged not to violate his right (passenger - carrier, customer - service provider, etc.);

c) the owner of the property right has the right to follow. It means that the owner of a property right continues to retain it even when the thing passes to a new owner. For example, the owner of a thing that has been removed from possession against his will continues to remain the owner and has the right to reclaim the thing from someone else’s illegal possession (Article 301 of the Civil Code), with the exception of cases provided for in Art. 302 Civil Code. The same can be said about the right of pledge, which is preserved in the event of a transfer of ownership of the pledged property (Article 353 of the Civil Code). The general rule that the transfer of ownership of property to another person is not a basis for the termination of other real rights to this property is enshrined in paragraph 3 of Art. 216 Civil Code;

d) a distinctive feature that allows one to distinguish a property right from other absolute rights (to a name in copyright, to life, freedom of movement, etc.), as well as from obligatory rights, is its object. The object of property law is individually defined property (clause 16 of the information letter of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated April 28, 1997 No. 13). Things defined by generic characteristics, as well as various intangible benefits (see Chapter 8 of the Civil Code) are not objects of property rights. As the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation indicated, the court cannot recognize ownership of a certain number of square meters. m of living space, without determining its composition in kind (Resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated May 21, 1996 N 405/96 // Bulletin of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation. 1996. N 9. P. 46).

The peculiarities of the objects of property rights largely explain the presence of specific methods of their protection. For example, the owner or holder of another property right can claim his individually defined thing (car, painting, etc.) from someone else’s illegal possession (vindication claim). For more information on ways to protect property rights, see the commentary. to ch. 20.

2. In Sect. II Civil Code most often refers to property as an object of property rights (Articles 209, 212, 216, 217, etc.). Since in Art. 128 of the Civil Code, property is understood as both the thing itself and property rights; this gives grounds to classify not only individually defined things (a car, a residential building, etc.) as objects of property rights, but also in a number of cases property rights (i.e. n. incorporeal things).

It should be noted that judicial practice treats property rights as objects of property rights with caution. In particular, it does not support the conclusion that property owned by a citizen, in addition to things, may include rights of obligations, including bank deposits, corporate rights (participation rights in joint-stock companies, LLCs), exclusive rights, etc. The same can be said about the property complex of an institution as an object of property law.

Judicial practice proceeds from the fact that the property of both a citizen and a legal entity consists of various types of things (apartment, building, car), rights of obligation, exclusive rights, etc., where each thing and each right is protected separately.

An exception to the general rule is an enterprise that, according to Art. 132 of the Civil Code is recognized as a single property complex and, as an object of property law, can include not only the things themselves (land, buildings, machines, etc.), but also property rights (for example, rights of claim), as well as debts falling on this property complex. Thus, in the event of the transfer of debts (obligations) of the seller as part of an enterprise that were not specified in the contract or transfer act, the buyer has the right to demand a reduction in the purchase price of the enterprise (clause 4 of the Review of the practice of resolving disputes arising under real estate purchase and sale agreements - appendix to Information letter of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated November 13, 1997 N 21 // Bulletin of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation 1998. N 1).

An enterprise as a property complex, which includes property rights and obligations, should be distinguished from a production and technological property complex as a complex thing (Article 133 of the Civil Code). Thus, according to the Methodological Recommendations on the procedure for state registration of rights to real estate objects - energy production and technological complexes of power plants and electric grid complexes, approved. By Order of the Ministry of Justice of Russia, the Ministry of Economic Development of Russia, the Ministry of Property of Russia and the State Construction Committee of Russia dated October 30, 2001 N 289/422/224/243, the production and technological complex of power plants includes objects of movable and immovable property united by a single economic purpose and forming a single whole (clause 4 ). Claims and debts are not included in such a complex.

Securities that have a documentary form and have individually defined characteristics are also objects of ownership and other proprietary rights. At the same time, according to Art. 28 and 29 of the Securities Market Law, the objects of these rights are the securities themselves, and not the rights secured by them.

Contrary to the general cautious approach to recognizing property rights as objects of property law, judicial practice considers uncertificated securities as an object of property rights. As the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation indicated in the Resolution dated 01.06.99 in case No. 6759/98, ownership of uncertificated securities passes to the acquirer from the moment an entry is made about it in the register of shareholders. Meanwhile, a book-entry security is not a thing, because represents electronic records of rights arising from an order or security, carried out by an authorized person (Article 149 of the Civil Code).

The position on this issue of the legislator himself, who in paragraph 1 of Art. 149 of the Civil Code indicates that the general rules on securities apply to the non-documentary form of fixation of rights, unless otherwise follows from the specifics of such fixation. If it is impossible to apply general rules on securities to uncertificated securities, this approach makes it possible to use other rules of civil law.

In Art. 336 of the Civil Code contains a direct indication that the subject of pledge can be any property, incl. things and property rights (claims). Accordingly, judicial practice, in addition to things, recognizes property rights as the subject of pledge. Thus, if under an agreement only a building or structure is pledged, and the right to lease a land plot is not the subject of the pledge, such an agreement is void (Bulletin of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation, 1998, No. 9, p. 36). The same is stated in paragraph 45 of the Resolution of the Plenums of the RF Armed Forces and the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation No. 6/8.

When pledging property rights, it is necessary to take into account the restrictions that exist in the law in relation to the subject of pledge (Article 336 of the Civil Code). In particular, the right to lease with subsequent purchase cannot be considered a subject of pledge, because this contradicts the legislation on privatization (Bulletin of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation, 1998, No. 6, p. 27).

According to Art. 128 and paragraph 2 of Art. 130 of the Civil Code, money (money) is recognized as things, most often having generic characteristics. Accordingly, cash can be recognized as objects of property rights only in exceptional cases when their individual nature is beyond doubt (for example, a collection of coins, banknotes, etc.). In another case, the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation came to the conclusion that since one of the essential features of a pledge agreement is the possibility of selling its subject, and money does not have this feature, the latter cannot be the subject of a pledge (Bulletin of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation, 1996, No. 10, p. 69).

As for non-cash funds placed in banking institutions under a bank account agreement (Article 845 of the Civil Code) or a bank deposit (Article 834 of the Civil Code), they are not the property of the owner and represent the latter’s obligatory right of claim against the bank (see, for example, Bulletin of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation, 1997, No. 1, p. 64).

In paragraph 4 of Art. 454 of the Civil Code contains the rule that general provisions on the sale and purchase of goods (things) can be applied to the sale of property rights, unless otherwise follows from the content or nature of these rights. The objects of such a sale include a share in the authorized capital of a limited liability company (Article 93 of the Civil Code, clause 12 of the Resolution of the Plenums of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation and the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation N 90/14), a share in the share capital of a general partnership (Article 79 of the Civil Code) and some others. Naturally, their sale should be carried out taking into account the specifics of these rights (for example, taking into account the right of first refusal).

The very possibility of purchase and sale, donation, will, etc. This kind of obligatory rights indicates the extension to them in certain cases of the regime of an individual thing.

A full-fledged object of property law is a share in the right of common ownership (Articles 250 and 255 of the Civil Code), and the share in the right of ownership of real estate must be subject to the regime of the real estate itself (Part 2 of Article 251 of the Civil Code).

The division of things into movable and immovable (see Article 130 and commentary thereto) is practically important from the point of view of state registration of real estate. The moment of such registration of the Civil Code (Article 131) and the Law on Registration of Rights to Real Estate (Articles 2 and 4) are associated with the transfer of property rights from one owner to another. On the contrary, the transfer of a proprietary right to a movable thing usually does not require state registration.

3. The right of ownership is fundamental (initial) among other property rights. All other rights (the right of economic management, the right of lifelong inheritable ownership of a land plot, etc.) are derived from it and are limited real rights.

The owner has the right to dispose of the property belonging to him in the most absolute manner. At the same time, the main content of property rights in the Civil Code is revealed through the three most important powers of the owner. According to paragraph 1 of Art. 209 the owner has the right with his property:

a) own, i.e. really possess it;

b) use, i.e. derive from it the benefit for which the property is intended; as a general rule, it is the owner who receives fruits, products and income from his property (see Article 136 and commentary thereto);

c) dispose, i.e. determine its legal fate: sell, donate, lease, pledge, etc.

In addition to those mentioned, the owner has the rights listed in paragraph 2 of Art. 209. He can use his property for business purposes and even destroy it, if this does not violate the norms of the law or other legal acts, as well as the rights and interests protected by law of other persons. By transferring certain powers (possession, use and even disposal), a person does not lose his right of ownership of property.

4. In relation to the content of ownership of a land plot, in addition to paragraph 3 of the commented article, Art. 40 and paragraph 1 of Art. 42 of the Land Code. In particular, in Art. 40 of the Land Code lists the main powers of the owner to use the land plot. It also says that it is the owner of the land plot who, as a general rule, is the owner of crops and plantings of agricultural crops, the owner of the agricultural products themselves and the income from their sale. In addition, the owner of the land plot acts, with the exception of cases provided for by the Forest Code, as the owner of the perennial plantings located on the plot.

5. One of the specific cases of transfer by the owner of the powers belonging to him to other persons is provided for in paragraph 4 of Art. 209 the ability to transfer property into trust management. Moreover, this does not entail the transfer of ownership rights to the trustee. Chapter 53 Civil Code.

With the adoption of parts one and two of the Civil Code, Decree of the President of the Russian Federation dated December 24, 1993 N 2296 “On entrusted property (trust)” (CA RF, 1994, N 1, Art. 6). Although it has not been formally canceled, a similar conclusion arises taking into account the following. According to paragraph 21 of the Decree, its full effect was linked to the entry into force of the new Civil Code. Since the Civil Code gives a different character to the regulation of similar relations, Art. 4 of the Introductory Law. In accordance with the latter, acts previously adopted on the territory of the Russian Federation are not applied if they contradict the Civil Code.

6. In a number of cases, the owner may be deprived of all three most important powers to own, use and dispose of property (for example, seizure of property). But this does not mean automatic termination of ownership. This situation is temporary: the owner will either be restored to his rights (see Article 304 and commentary thereto), or on the grounds provided for by law, his right will be terminated.

7. The right of ownership in a number of cases may be limited. The legal basis for this is Art. Art. 34, 36, part 3 art. 55 and art. 56 of the Constitution. Yes, Art. Article 36 of the Constitution prohibits the owner of land from causing damage to the environment or violating the rights and legitimate interests of other persons. Article 209 of the Civil Code extends this prohibition to owners of natural resources. In doing so, you need to keep the following in mind:

a) according to paragraph 2 of Art. 1 of the Civil Code, restrictions on property rights, as well as other civil rights, can be introduced only by federal law and only to the extent necessary to protect the foundations of the constitutional system, morality, health, rights and legitimate interests of other persons, ensuring the country’s defense and security, protection of human life and health, protection of nature and cultural values ​​(see Article 1 and commentary thereto). Restrictions on property rights contained in other legal acts - decrees of the President of the Russian Federation, decrees of the Government of the Russian Federation, acts of federal ministries and departments, legislative and executive authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, decisions of local governments - are illegal and cannot be enforced. Judicial practice also follows this path (see Bulletin of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, 1992, No. 1, p. 12; 1996, No. 12, p. 11, 12).

According to Part 2 of Art. 4 of the Introductory Law, restrictions previously introduced by acts of the President of the Russian Federation, the Government of the Russian Federation, and resolutions of the Council of Ministers of the USSR on issues that can only be regulated by federal laws are valid until the relevant laws are put into effect;

b) in a number of cases, restrictions on property rights are of a special nature, due to the special legal regime of the property owned. So, according to Art. 129 of the Civil Code, certain objects of civil rights (land, subsoil, weapons, etc.) can be completely or partially withdrawn from civil circulation, which explains the existence of restrictions on rights to such property.

For example, any plots that are in state or municipal ownership can be provided for private ownership, with the exception of those that, in accordance with the Land Code and other federal laws, cannot be privately owned (see more about this in Article 212 , 213 and commentary thereto).

8. The limits of the exercise of the right of ownership itself should be distinguished from the limitation of the range of actions that the owner can perform (clause 2 of Article 209). In particular, a number of prohibitions on the actions of the owner arise from fire safety, sanitary and other rules. Thus, an owner who sells food products must undergo an appropriate medical examination, his workplace must be located in a specially equipped area, etc.

When assessing the legality of such restrictions, as well as the actions of the owner himself, if they were committed, it is necessary to be guided by the second mandatory criterion provided for in paragraph 2 of Art. 209, - whether the rights and interests protected by law of other persons were (could be) violated. The imaginary rights and interests of these persons are not grounds for imposing a ban on the actions of the owner.

Recently, cases of violation by vehicle owners of the provisions of the Road Traffic Rules (TRAF) on stopping and parking a vehicle have become more frequent. By leaving a vehicle on tram tracks, on a bridge, in a tunnel, etc., the owner violates not only traffic rules, but also the rights and legally protected interests of other persons (other drivers, public transport passengers, pedestrians, etc.).

The need to take administrative measures against such drivers (most often they are owners) is beyond doubt. However, how these issues are resolved in the Code of Administrative Offenses, and after it in the Rules for detaining a vehicle, placing it in a parking lot, storage, and prohibiting operation (Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation of December 18, 2003 N 759 - SZ RF, 2003, N 51, Art. 4990), can hardly be considered satisfactory:

a) according to the note to Art. 12.19 of the Code of Administrative Offenses, in case of a driver’s violation of the rules for parking or stopping vehicles, the procedure for using municipal, commercial or other parking lots, the use of blocking devices, evacuation of vehicles, keeping them in parking lots, removal of license plates, and the use of other coercive measures not provided for by law are prohibited.

At the same time, in sub. 7 clause 1 art. 27.1 and Art. 27.13 of the Code of Administrative Offenses, among other measures to ensure proceedings in cases of administrative offenses, includes such a measure as the detention of a vehicle. Under the Rules of December 18, 2003 N 759, detention is understood as a temporary forced cessation of the use of a vehicle, including (if it is impossible to eliminate the cause of detention at the scene of an administrative offense) placing it in a specialized parking lot (clause 2).

There is a contradiction between the note to Art. 12.19 Code of Administrative Offenses and Art. 27.13 Code of Administrative Offences. After all, the detention of a vehicle, accompanied by its forced movement to a place other than that chosen by the owner (to a special parking lot), is nothing more than a forced evacuation;

b) the Code of Administrative Offenses lacks proper consistency on the issue of detaining a vehicle as a measure to ensure administrative proceedings. So, according to Art. 27.13 of the Code of Administrative Offenses, a vehicle that obstructs the movement of other vehicles or was left in a tunnel (Part 4 of Article 12.19 of the Code of Administrative Offenses) can be detained. A vehicle that creates obstacles to the movement of pedestrians (Part 3 of Article 12.19 of the Code of Administrative Offenses) is not subject to detention and placement in a specialized parking lot. However, there is no significant difference in the severity of the offenses committed and their consequences;

c) in accordance with paragraphs. 8 and 9 of the Rules for the detention of a vehicle, the latter can be issued to the owner (possessor) only on the basis of the written permission of an official who has confirmed that the reasons for the detention have been eliminated. But if a car (motorcycle, etc.) is detained for illegal parking, then the reasons for such detention are eliminated when the vehicle is placed in a specialized parking lot. Consequently, there are no facts that the official is obliged to confirm.

In any case, the official who drew up the protocol on the administrative offense (on the detention of the vehicle) and the official responsible for its storage in a specialized parking lot do not have the right to demand that the owner (possessor) pay a fine in exchange for the release of the vehicle.

Firstly, the detention and parking of a vehicle is only a measure to ensure administrative proceedings, but not a punitive measure (Chapter 3 of the Administrative Code). Secondly, the officials who drew up the protocol are, as a rule, not those persons who are authorized to determine punishment under Art. 12.19 of the Code of Administrative Offenses (Articles 23.3 and 28.3 of the Code of Administrative Offenses).

Taking into account the above, there is reason to believe that the issue of detention, placement in a specialized parking lot and forced storage of a vehicle should be resolved directly in the Administrative Code. Essentially, there is no longer a restriction on the actions of the owner, but a restriction on the right of ownership (Part 3 of Article 55 of the Constitution, Paragraph 2 of Article 1 of the Civil Code), since the owner’s property is disposed of against his will.

9. An agreement between the owner and the person exercising possession, disposal or use of his property may provide for private restrictions on the actions of the owner. In this case, they arise at the will of the owner himself, who, however, has no right to violate them in the future. Especially often, such restrictions are introduced into contracts of a long-term nature (lease, exploration and use of subsoil, etc.).

Often the desires and interests of the owner come into conflict with the obligations he has assumed under the contract. For example, having concluded a purchase and sale agreement, the owner then enters into a new one on more favorable terms.

When resolving disputes of this kind, it is necessary to rely on Art. 398 Civil Code. The article does not question the very possibility of the owner to repeatedly dispose of his property, because he is the owner of the absolute right to the thing. In Art. 398 of the Civil Code defines priorities for the case when the right to demand an individually defined thing from the owner belongs to several creditors (buyers, investors, etc.).

Thus, in one of the cases, the arbitration court rightly recognized both contracts for the sale of the same real estate as valid. However, the right to receive the property into ownership was recognized only for one of the buyers - the one to whom the property was transferred under the transfer and acceptance certificate (Article 398 of the Civil Code). The second buyer was explained his right to go to court with a claim for compensation for losses caused by the owner’s failure to fulfill the contract (see: Commentary on judicial and arbitration practice: Issue 7. M., 2000. P. 42 - 45).

10. The right of ownership of real estate may be limited by the rights of the owner of the easement. An easement is a limited real right to use someone else’s real estate and is established by agreement between the owners. In the absence of an agreement, the dispute over the establishment of an easement is resolved by the court (for more information on this, see the commentary to Articles 274 - 277).

In accordance with the Civil Code (Articles 609, 651, 658, 1017, etc.), Land Code (Articles 23, 25, 26, etc.), paragraph 4 of Art. 48 of the Federal Law of June 25, 2002 N 73-FZ “On objects of cultural heritage (historical and cultural monuments) of the peoples of the Russian Federation” (SZ RF, 2002, N 26, art. 2519), art. 1, clause 3, art. 8, Art. 26 - 30 of the Law on Registration of Real Estate Rights, a whole series of restrictions (encumbrances) on the ownership of real estate (easement, mortgage, trust management, obligations to preserve real estate cultural heritage, certain types of real estate lease) are subject to mandatory registration in the Unified State Register of Rights.

Another comment on Article 209 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation

1. The commented article reveals the provisions characterizing the content of property rights. The Civil Code, like any other law, does not provide a general legal concept of property rights. Meanwhile, the contours of this right and its place in the general system of civil rights provided for by civil legislation must be determined quite accurately. The right of property is a fundamental right, influencing directly or indirectly in essence all other civil rights.

The most characteristic features of property rights, which distinguish it from other civil rights, are as follows: 1) property rights are an original subjective right, directly arising from the law. There are no other subjects of law between the law defining the powers of the owner and the owner. The latter only oppose the owner as persons obligated not to violate his property rights. The right of ownership is a real right (see commentary to Article 216); 2) the right of ownership in its content represents the most complete property right provided for by civil law. It is based on the principle of permission to perform any actions not prohibited by law; 3) the right of ownership is valid for the entire time that the corresponding property that is its object continues to exist; 4) ownership rights are based on the principle: one thing - one owner (several owners combined with each other). All other real rights to a thing are of a nature dependent on the right of ownership. They can exist only insofar as there is their basis - the right of ownership; 5) the right of ownership has an exclusive nature: it excludes all other persons from the exercise of powers belonging to the owner.

2. The object of property rights, as stated in paragraph 1 of the commented article, is property. We are talking about property that is available for the duration of the ownership right and which can be individualized and appropriated by the owner, to the exclusion of all other persons from possessing it. Therefore, for example, outer space, the Sun, other celestial bodies not mastered by man, atmospheric air are not considered as property that can be the object of property rights. For the same reason, it is very doubtful to classify the animal world as an object of state property rights as a set of living organisms of all species that permanently or temporarily inhabit the territory of the Russian Federation and are in a state of natural freedom (Article 4 of the Law on Wildlife). Objects of property rights cannot leave the owner’s possession against his will, except in cases expressly specified in the law. This necessary condition is absent in some of the many wild animals that can freely migrate from one country to another. Wild animals can be the object of property rights in cases where they live in closed natural areas protected by the state (reserves, etc.), or when they are removed from their natural habitat.

With the development of science and technology, the range of objects that can be objects of property rights is constantly expanding.

In terms of its composition, property, which is the object of property rights, consists of things and individual property rights specified in the law. Property that constitutes the object of property rights is narrower than the concept of property that can be the object of civil rights (Article 128 of the Civil Code). It does not include future things and many property rights that act as objects of rights in obligations.

As for property rights that are objects of property rights, according to the Civil Code, such are property rights embodied in securities (according to the wording of the law - the securities themselves, clause 1 of Article 142 of the Civil Code). These property rights provide their owners with direct access to material assets: funds, investments, goods.

The law does not contain prohibitions in relation to other property rights that can act as objects of property rights. The foregoing does not apply to the results of intellectual activity (intellectual property), since they do not relate to objects of ownership of property subject to Section. II "Ownership and other property rights" Civil Code.

3. The commented article defines the rights (more precisely, the powers) included in the content of property rights, and the methods of their implementation.

Clause 1 indicates the basic rights that make up the content of property rights in their static state. This is the right of ownership, i.e. the owner’s right to possess the property belonging to him, the right to use, i.e. the owner’s right to extract and appropriate the useful properties of the property, and the right to dispose, i.e. the right to determine the legal fate of property (sale, lease, use by the owner himself, etc.). At the same time, these rights mean the opportunities provided to the owner to exercise these rights, but not the actual actions themselves related to the exercise of ownership rights.

The list of rights included in the content of property rights given in paragraph 1 of the commented article is not exhaustive. It can and should also include other rights, primarily the right of management and the right of control. As society develops economically, the content of property rights does not remain unchanged. Evidence of this is the aforementioned right of management and the right of control, which are becoming important in the modern period, when the management of property, especially enterprises owned by owners, passes into the hands of professional managers.

In paragraphs 2 and 4 of the commented article, methods for exercising the rights belonging to the owner, primarily the right of disposal, are revealed. The list of these methods is not exhaustive. When characterizing them, three circumstances must be taken into account. Firstly, the owner has the right to exercise his rights at his own discretion. He is not bound by the will of other persons in choosing and taking actions in relation to his property, which distinguishes him favorably from subjects of other real rights to this property. Secondly, the range of actions that the owner can perform to exercise his rights is limited only by the framework established by law or other legal act. At the same time, the provision of paragraph 2 that he can transfer to other persons, while remaining the owner, the rights to own, use and dispose of property, is questionable. In reality, we are talking about the transfer of property into the possession, use and disposal of other persons, the boundaries of which are determined by the owner, but not the right itself as the possibility of ownership, use and disposal of property belonging to him. Otherwise, upon transfer of all these three rights, he is deprived of ownership rights. Thirdly, two types of restrictions are provided for in the area of ​​exercising property rights. Actions performed by the owner must not contradict the law and other legal acts, for example, not violate fire safety requirements. Actions performed by the owner must also not violate the rights and legally protected interests of other persons, for example, the right to use the property by the tenant, transferred by the owner under the lease agreement.

In paragraph 4, the actions of the owner to transfer his property into trust for another person are highlighted in a separate category. This is explained by the fact that trust management at the legal level is being introduced into the sphere of civil circulation for the first time.

4. Clause 3 of the commented article confirms the rule that in relation to the ownership, use and disposal of land and other natural resources, general rules of civil law, including property rights, apply, subject to the inclusion of these objects in circulation by the relevant laws on natural resources (see Article 129 of the Civil Code).

1. The owner has the rights to own, use and dispose of his property.

2. The owner has the right, at his own discretion, to take any actions in relation to his property that do not contradict the law and other legal acts and do not violate the rights and interests protected by law of other persons, including alienating his property into the ownership of other persons, transferring it to them, while remaining the owner , the right to own, use and dispose of property, pledge property and encumber it in other ways, dispose of it in any other way.

3. Possession, use and disposal of land and other natural resources, to the extent that their circulation is permitted by law (Article 129), is carried out by their owner freely, if this does not cause damage to the environment and does not violate the rights and legitimate interests of other persons.

4. The owner can transfer his property into trust management to another person (trustee). The transfer of property into trust management does not entail the transfer of ownership rights to the trustee, who is obliged to manage the property in the interests of the owner or a third party specified by him.

Expert comment:

The peculiarity of the owner’s powers and its difference from other real rights lies in the completeness of the content of the right to own, use and dispose of a thing. The remaining property legal relations are derived directly from the existing property right

Section II of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation is devoted to issues of legal regulation of property rights, containing Art. Art. 209 – 306. They consistently reveal the rules applicable in this area and consider many particular issues related to the burden of maintenance, risks arising during the possession, emergence, transfer and termination of rights. The section opens with Art. 209 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, which determines the assignment to the owner of the right to own, use and dispose of his property

Comments to Art. 209 Civil Code of the Russian Federation

The right of ownership, along with other real rights, is characterized as exclusive and absolute, while in its content it is the most complete. The content of the subjective right of ownership in domestic civil law is usually revealed through a triad of powers: possession, use and disposal.

The right of ownership is a legally enforceable possibility of actual control over property.

The right to use is exercised by the owner extracting its useful properties from the property in his own interests. As a general rule, the owner owns the products, fruits and income received as a result of the exploitation of the property.

An order is a power, the implementation of which is aimed at determining the legal fate of property. As a rule, it is carried out through civil transactions, but can also be expressed in the commission of unilateral actions that do not give rise to obligations of third parties, for example, such as the destruction of property.

The composition of legally significant acts of behavior of a subject of property rights is specified in Part 2 of Article 209 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, which contains an approximate list of possible methods of use and disposal. These include alienation by way of purchase and sale, transfer of rights of ownership and use (mainly under a lease agreement), will, etc. In the same context, the right of the owner, provided for in Part 4 of Article 209, to transfer his property into trust management should be considered.

At the same time, the main imperative requirement for the implementation of any of the powers is the inadmissibility of violating the rights of third parties. In relation to such objects of property rights as land and natural resources, a requirement has been established to ensure the preservation of the environment during their use. In addition, it is possible to legislatively limit the possibility of free disposal of these types of property by limiting their circulation.

Full text of Art. 209 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation with comments. New current edition with additions for 2019. Legal advice on Article 209 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation.

1. The owner has the rights to own, use and dispose of his property.

2. The owner has the right, at his own discretion, to take any actions in relation to his property that do not contradict the law and other legal acts and do not violate the rights and interests protected by law of other persons, including alienating his property into the ownership of other persons, transferring it to them, while remaining the owner , the right to own, use and dispose of property, pledge property and encumber it in other ways, dispose of it in any other way.

3. Possession, use and disposal of land and other natural resources, to the extent that their circulation is permitted by law (Article 129), is carried out by their owner freely, if this does not cause damage to the environment and does not violate the rights and legitimate interests of other persons.

4. The owner can transfer his property into trust management to another person (trustee). The transfer of property into trust management does not entail the transfer of ownership rights to the trustee, who is obliged to manage the property in the interests of the owner or a third party specified by him.

Commentary on Article 209 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation

1. The right of ownership represents the broadest set of powers of its owner, which includes:
- possession - actual possession of a thing, an object of law;
- use - extraction of useful properties from an object of property;
- disposal - determination of the future fate of the property.

The right of ownership is exercised by the owner independently at his own discretion. It must not violate the rights and legitimate interests of other persons. In relation to ownership of land and other natural resources, the need to respect the rights and legitimate interests of third parties is coupled with the obligation to protect the environment and not cause harm to it.

The property of an individual or legal entity consists of:
- various kinds of things (apartment, building, car);
- rights of obligations;
- exclusive rights, etc.

Each thing and each right is protected separately. An exception to the general rule is an enterprise, which is recognized as a single property complex and, as an object of property rights, may include:
- actual things (land, buildings, machines, etc.);
- property rights (for example, rights of claim);
- debts falling on this property complex.

2. The owner freely disposes of the objects belonging to him under this right, exercising individual powers or their entirety. The law does not limit the freedom of the owner to exercise his powers. He has no right to violate the law with his actions. In the event of such a violation, the authorized body has the right to demand the elimination of this violation and the restoration of the situation that existed before such a violation.

The transfer of part or all of the owner’s powers, including to trust management, cannot be considered as a basis for changing or terminating the scope of his powers. The term of the lease agreement concluded by the trustee cannot exceed the term of trust management, unless the owner has given his consent to a longer period. The practical implementation of the rights of the owner by the trustee is urgent and limited to the period of trust management of the property transferred to him.

3. Judicial practice:
- information letter of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated November 13, 1997 N 21;
- Resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated 06/07/2011 N 495/11 in case N A46-19789/2009;
- Resolution of the Plenum of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation and the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated April 29, 2010 N 10/22;
- resolution of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Ural District dated July 7, 2014 N F09-3992/14 in case N A60-30638/2013;
- Resolution of the Eleventh Arbitration Court of Appeal dated July 10, 2014 in case No. A49-7321/2013;
- appeal ruling of the Investigative Committee for civil cases of the Astrakhan Regional Court dated June 25, 2014 in case No. 33-1827/2014;
- decision of the Arbitration Court of the Tula Region dated July 10, 2014 in case No. A68-2017/2014;
- decision of the Kimovsky City Court of the Tula Region dated July 15, 2014 in case No. 2-508/2014.