Suchergebnisse

Рассматривается проблема влияния невозможности исполнения на динамику обязательства. Опровергается распространенная в цивилистике, основанная на буквальном толковании п. 1 ст. 416 ГК РФ точка зрения о том, что невозможность исполнения, вызванная обстоятельством, за которое отвечает одна из сторон обязательства, влечет его трансформацию из регулятивного в охранительное. Доказывается, что невозможность исполнения, какими бы обстоятельствами она ни была вызвана, влечет прекращение обязательства. ; The impact of impossibility of performance on dynamics of an obligation is considered in this article. The author refutes a wide-spread viewpoint that impossibility of performance for which one of the parties is responsible leads to the transformation of a regulatory obligation into a protective one. This wrong viewpoint is based on the literal interpretation of Article 416(1) of the Russian Civil Code (the RCC further on) that impossibility of performance leads to termination of an obligation only if it is caused by the circumstances for which one of the parties is responsible. The author argues that impossibility of performance causes termination of a contract (regulatory) obligation in all cases, despite the fact that one of the parties is responsible for the occurrence of impossibility of performance. However, if one of the parties is responsible, a contract (regulative) obligation terminates but liability (protective) obligation arises. Arguments in favor of this position are based on the study of correlation between the institute of obligations' termination and institute of civil liability, on analysis of Article 381(1) and Article 405(1) of the RCC, as well as on the interpretation of the right to defense not as one of the elements of any legal right, but as an independent legal right being realized within the framework of a liability (protective) obligation. The latter arises in each case of a breach of an obligation and can't be the result of transformation of a contract (regulatory) obligation. The author's point of view that the impossibility of performance results in the termination of an obligation regardless whether a party is responsible for it coincides with the usually wrongly interpreted position of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of the Russian Federation stated in its Information Letter № 104 dated December 13, 2005. Identifying the reasons for incorrect wording of Article 416(1) of the RCC, the author refers to the drafting history of this provision and supposes that the latter was borrowed from the German Civil Code (the Burgerliches Gesetzbuch, the BGB further on). It is stressed in the present work that the provision of the BGB which was a prototype of Article 416(1) of the RCC was revised during the reform of the German civil legislation that was over in 2001. This, however, is still not taken into account by Russian legislators who, as it can be seen in the Draft Federal Law № 47538-6 "On Amendments to the First, Second, Third and Fourth Parts of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and Certain Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation" have no intention to eliminate the criticized in this article causation between the termination of the obligation by impossibility of its performance and the fact whether one of the parties is responsible for the occurrence of impossibility of performance.

Статья посвящена ранее не исследованной в отечественной цивилистике проблеме соотношения сформулированного в гражданско-правовой науке в начале XX в. понятия экономической невозможности исполнения и концепции практической невозможности исполнения обязательств, разработанной в единообразном праве в 1990-х гг. и впоследствии заимствованной многими национальными правовыми системами, в том числе немецкой. В работе исследуется, насколько последняя новелла помогает регулировать договорные отношения и может ли она быть полезна отечественному гражданскому праву. ; The article is devoted to the problem previously unexplored in the Russian civil doctrine of correlation between the concept of economic impossibility of performance of the obligations, created in the beginning of the 20th century, and the phenomenon of practical impossibility of fulfillment of the obligations, which was developed in the 1990s in the uniform civil law and later borrowed by many national legal systems (including Germany). The aim of the present research is to find out how much this innovation helps the regulation of the contractual relations and if it might be useful for the Russian civil doctrine and legislation, which is currently under the process of reformation. Learning the proceedings of the representatives of the Pandect Law School and the contemporary studies of German Law on obligations, making deep analysis of lex mercatoria (the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts 2010, the Principles of European Contract Law 2002, the Draft. Common Frame ofReference 2009) and Russian civil legislation, revealing the origins of the concepts of the economic and practical impossibility of fulfillment of the obligations, the author comes to a conclusion that the scopes of the concepts of economic and practical impossibility of fulfillment coincide to a certain extent. The author believes that the provisions on practical impossibility of fulfillment in the form they exist in German civil law and lex mercatoria cannot be recommended for the reception by Russian civil legislation, as it will lead to a conflict of the transplanted provisions with Art. 451 of the Russian Civil Code (RCC) and, therefore, to the problems in law enforcement. In the article it is recommended to provide gross disproportion between the expenses and efforts of the debtor, which are necessary for fulfillment and the interest of the creditor in this fulfillment, i.e. practical impossibility of fulfillment of the obligations, which is a type of hardship of fulfillment, as an independent basis for modification or termination of a contract by the court applicable regardless of whether practical impossibility occurred (before or after obligation arose). In this connection, the author proposes to add the following rule to Art. 451 (2) RCC: ''A contract may also be modified or terminated at the request of an interested party, if its specific fulfillment requires from the obliger expenses and efforts which, taking into account the subject matter of the obligation and the requirements of good faith, are grossly disproportionate to the interest in fulfillment of the obliged''.