ВОПРОСЫ АКТИВНОЙ ИСКОВОЙ ЛЕГИТИМАЦИИ И ИНИЦИАТИВЫ СУДА ПРИ ПРИЗНАНИИ СДЕЛКИ НИЧТОЖНОЙ В ПРОЕКТЕ ИЗМЕНЕНИЙ ГРАЖДАНСКОГО КОДЕКСА РОССИИ

Abstract

Статья посвящена критическому анализу проекта изменений ГК РФ в части проблемы активной исковой легитимации и инициативы суда в признании ничтожности сделок одной из наименее тщательно проработанных при подготовке Концепции совершенствования ГК и Проекта. Исследование выполнено на средства гранта Президента РФ для государственной поддержки молодых российских ученых докторов наук (МД-714.2010.6). ; The RF Civil Code does not mention such kind of remedy as declaration of the juristic act as and void, does not define the circle of plaintiffs in such suits, and does not provide an opportunity to declare the ity of a juristic act at the court initiative. At the same time the parties of a juristic act or a third party can be interested in elimination of legal uncertainty created by such an act. And this interest needs protection by judicial declaration of ity of a juristic act. The proposals on this issue, contained in the Draft Amendments to the Russian Federation Civil Code (Draft further on), are not consistent and free from contradictions. 1) Systemic discordance between the Draft's rules about juristic acts and general contract provisions is obvious. Such a double regulation is excessive and contradicts the principle of legislative economy. In addition, this mismatch can produce considerable difficulties in legal practice. 2) According to Para 2 Part 3 Art. 166 of the Draft "bringing of a suit for declaration of invalidity of a and void juristic act regardless of the application of consequences of its invalidity is allowed if the plaintiff has the law protected interest in declaring such a juristic act as invalid". But the plaintiff's subjective right or law-protected interest is a necessary precondition for satisfaction of any claim. However, the proposed rule is not only excessive but, moreover, objectionable because it can cause wrong interpretations. 3) The Draft's general provisions about contracts are supplemented by Art. 4311 "Invalidity of Contract". However, it is not clear what specific feature of contract requires the necessity of these special provisions and why they were not included into the general juristic act's provisions. 4) According to Para 1 Part 3 Art. 4311 "suit about declaration of ity of the juristic act … can be brought by any concerned person on condition that this person will provide the evidences of infringement by this contract of his/her rights or law-protected interests". Besides the lack of terminological unity between this rule and the similar provision of Para 2 Part 3 Art. 166, that will cause a lot of collisions during the application process, this rule ignores universally recognized postulates of civil law and civil procedure: (a) the necessity of the right or law-protected interest evidences adducing is a general procedural requirement called "burden of evidence"; (b) the proof of the circumstances referred to by the plaintiff is a condition for claim satisfaction, but not a condition of "bringing" of a suit; (c) the conclusion of the contract itself does not violate subjective rights or law-protected interests; and, therefore, the provision of Para 1 Part 3 Art. 4311 would be impracticable under a strict formal legal approach, and would exclude even a possibility to bring the suit for declaring a juristic act as and void. De lege ferenda the author offers his own version of relevant rules.