No abstract

No abstract

In the Russian justice system, the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil was developed at the case law level and is used to prevent abuse in corporate relationships on the part of those who control a legal entity in detriment to the property rights of the legal entity's creditors. Since the principle of limited liability is important for Russian civil circulation, it is necessary to identify the relevant grounds for the application of said doctrine and its application criteria. Our objective is to justify not only the need for preservation of the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil in the Russian legal system, but also the development of the doctrine by giving it concrete substance based on generalization of existing case law. The criteria for applying the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil are: monitoring the activities of a legal entity by another entity which can influence commercial companies' decision making, actually or legally; violations or abuse of rights; existence of a cause-and-effect relationship between a violation or an abuse of rights on the part of the beneficiary and the creditor's losses; the existence of exceptional circumstances in which it is impossible to protect the creditors' legitimate interests with other legal measures; and dispute arising from private law relations. The main consequence of applying the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil is the disregard for the corporate entity. Autonomy can manifest in three areas (extension of a party's debts to the legal entities under its control; acknowledgement that the rights and liabilities are actually vested in the party which managed the legal entity; acknowledgement of the legal entity as a representative of the controlling legal entity).

The article analyzes the jurisprudence regarding the decision on the applicability of the statute of limitations to the claim for recognition of property rights as absent. The resolution of the stated dilemma is built by identifying the characteristic features of the claim for recognition of property rights as absent. It is concluded that the statute of limitations does not apply to a claim recognizing property rights as absent, since this requirement is aimed at challenging the registered right to immovable things, and by virtue of Art. 195 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the statute of limitations applies only to claims based on a violation of the law, and not a dispute.

Рассматривается проблема определения критериев обоснованности применения негаторного иска. За основу проведения исследования взяты метод анализа судебной практики и метод сравнительного правоведения (с доктриной немецкого гражданского права). В результате исследования автор приходит к выводу, что негаторный иск не является универсальным способом защиты. Негаторная защита имеет четкие пределы применения, а нарушение, которое устраняется данным требованием, характеризуется не только отсутствием лишения владения, но и еще многими признаками. Ключевые слова: гражданское право, вещное право, право собственности, вещные иски, негаторный иск.