WEKO3
アイテム
ロシアにおける住宅の善意取得をめぐる現状とその法的構造 ―住宅詐欺被害者の救済に焦点を当てて―
https://chuo-u.repo.nii.ac.jp/records/12586
https://chuo-u.repo.nii.ac.jp/records/125862dffbc55-c5e1-4490-9c2e-7d74a1361505
| 名前 / ファイル | ライセンス | アクション |
|---|---|---|
本文を見る (1.0 MB)
|
|
| Item type | 紀要論文 / Departmental Bulletin Paper(1) | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 公開日 | 2020-11-17 | |||||||||
| タイトル | ||||||||||
| タイトル | ロシアにおける住宅の善意取得をめぐる現状とその法的構造 ―住宅詐欺被害者の救済に焦点を当てて― | |||||||||
| タイトル | ||||||||||
| タイトル | Flat Fraud in Russia : Legal Protections for Bona Fide Acquirers | |||||||||
| 言語 | en | |||||||||
| 言語 | ||||||||||
| 言語 | jpn | |||||||||
| キーワード | ||||||||||
| 主題Scheme | Other | |||||||||
| 主題 | ロシア | |||||||||
| キーワード | ||||||||||
| 主題Scheme | Other | |||||||||
| 主題 | 不動産善意取得 | |||||||||
| キーワード | ||||||||||
| 主題Scheme | Other | |||||||||
| 主題 | 住宅詐欺 | |||||||||
| キーワード | ||||||||||
| 主題Scheme | Other | |||||||||
| 主題 | 欧州人権裁判所 | |||||||||
| キーワード | ||||||||||
| 主題Scheme | Other | |||||||||
| 主題 | 近代法 | |||||||||
| キーワード | ||||||||||
| 主題Scheme | Other | |||||||||
| 主題 | 社会主義法 | |||||||||
| キーワード | ||||||||||
| 主題Scheme | Other | |||||||||
| 主題 | ソ連法 | |||||||||
| キーワード | ||||||||||
| 主題Scheme | Other | |||||||||
| 主題 | 不動産登記法 | |||||||||
| キーワード | ||||||||||
| 主題Scheme | Other | |||||||||
| 主題 | 国家補償 | |||||||||
| キーワード | ||||||||||
| 主題Scheme | Other | |||||||||
| 主題 | 民法 | |||||||||
| キーワード | ||||||||||
| 主題Scheme | Other | |||||||||
| 主題 | 憲法裁判所 | |||||||||
| キーワード | ||||||||||
| 主題Scheme | Other | |||||||||
| 主題 | 住宅追奪禁止法 | |||||||||
| 資源タイプ | ||||||||||
| 資源タイプ識別子 | http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501 | |||||||||
| 資源タイプ | departmental bulletin paper | |||||||||
| 著者 |
伊藤, 知義
× 伊藤, 知義
|
|||||||||
| 著者別名(英) | ||||||||||
| 識別子Scheme | WEKO | |||||||||
| 識別子 | 30335 | |||||||||
| 姓名 | ITO, Tomoyoshi | |||||||||
| 言語 | en | |||||||||
| 抄録 | ||||||||||
| 内容記述タイプ | Abstract | |||||||||
| 内容記述 | This paper explains flat (apartment) fraud in Russia: the causes of the problem and legal remedies for the protection of victims as bona fides acquirers. Article 302 of the Russian Civil Code states, “If property has been purchased for a price from a person who had no right to alienate it, and if the acquirer was unaware and could not have been aware of the lack of right (a bona fide acquirer or acquirer in good faith), the owner shall have the right to reclaim the property from the acquirer if the property was lost by the owner or by someone to whom the owner passed the property into possession, or if it was stolen from one or the other, or if it went out of their possession in another way contrary to their will.” In most cases, the owner is the City of Moscow. After the collapse of socialism in Russia, residents of socially owned flats were given the right to privatize them as their own property. In some instances, however, when owners without heirs died before privatizing, others fraudulently pretended to be heirs in order to inherit the property. This took place in conspiracy with employees of the city and notaries who authorized the inheritance documents. The properties were then sold to bona fide acquirers. Knowing that the procedure was illegal, Moscow reclaimed the flats from the acquirers, saying that loss of possession was contrary to its will. The city then required acquirers to leave. The Constitutional Court, in 2003, dismissed an action for restitution resulting from unlawful enrichment based on a null and void purchase contract between a third party and a bona fide acquirer. In 2010, a joint statement by the Supreme Court and the Supreme Economic Court clarified requirements for the application of article 302. The European Court of Human Rights considered such a matter in the 2011 case of Gladysheva v. Russia. A socially owned flat had been privatized illegally and bought by a bona fide acquirer, Mrs. Gladysheva. The Court denied domestic court decisions that the owner, the city, had the right of restitution (rei vindicatio) of the flat against Mrs. Gladysheva based on an allegation that the privatization was illegal and against the will of Moscow. The ECHR ruling had a large impact on Russian judicial practice. In 2014 and 2015, the Russian Supreme Court ruled on cases brought by the governmental entities against citizens for restitution of illegally alienated houses. Referring to concrete cases, the Court said the lower courts should adhere to its decisions, which they had failed to do. The Constitutional Court, in 2017, held that article 302 was, in part, contrary to the Russian Constitution. The article had been used to permit a governmental entity, which had not registered ownership of a flat that was left by an heirless resident, to obtain restitution from a bona fide acquirer. Subsequently, a draft of new law prohibiting governmental entities from obtaining restitution in such cases was presented to the Russian Parliament. In 2019, article 68 of the Act on State Registration of Real Estate was amended, allowing a bona fide acquirer of a flat who has lost possession to the owner to receive compensation from the State. The question arises, why should the state pay compensation to victims of flat fraud? The state has no relation to the dispute between the parties. The answer may well be that this type of protection is left over from the paternalism of Soviet socialist law or the traditional law of Russian Empire. It does not, however, coincide with the principle of individualism, which is one of the most important elements of modern law. |
|||||||||
| 書誌情報 |
中央ロー・ジャーナル 巻 16, 号 4, p. 3-26, 発行日 2020-03-31 |
|||||||||
| 出版者 | ||||||||||
| 出版者 | 中央ロー・ジャーナル編集委員会 | |||||||||
| ISSN | ||||||||||
| 収録物識別子タイプ | ISSN | |||||||||
| 収録物識別子 | 1349-6239 | |||||||||
| 権利 | ||||||||||
| 権利情報 | この資料の著作権は、資料の著作者または学校法人中央大学に帰属します。著作権法が定める私的利用・引用を超える使用を希望される場合には、掲載誌発行部局へお問い合わせください。 | |||||||||
| フォーマット | ||||||||||
| 内容記述タイプ | Other | |||||||||
| 内容記述 | application/pdf | |||||||||
| 著者版フラグ | ||||||||||
| 出版タイプ | VoR | |||||||||
| 出版タイプResource | http://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a85 | |||||||||
