Release:2018, Vol. 4. №1
About the author:Dmitriy V. Ulyanov, Postgraduate Student, Department of Civil Law and Procedure, Institute of State and Law, University of Tyumen; email@example.com
This article analyzes the current triad of the proprietary rights in the Russian Federation. That includes the content of the existing rights: possession, use, and disposal. The author notes that the ownership of the land is not as absolute. He looks into the compulsory acquisition of the land for the state and municipal needs, which restricts owners’ rights. The paper provides opinions of the contemporary scholars and specialists in the given area.
The author has analyzed the modern legislation and court practice on the issue. The analyzed examples of the modern court practice show that the acquisition of the land for the state and municipal needs violates owners’ rights, as the procedure is not followed. In some cases, the owners receive unequal or no compensation for the confiscated land, or they are not notified in due time. Thus, the landowners have no opportunity to return the confiscated lands.
This article highlights the importance of observing both the state’s and land owners’ interests. The authors explains the imperfection of the existing triad of landowners’ rights and proves the need for the inclusion of protective warrants in case of land’s compulsory acquisition in the state and municipal needs. That should 1) establish certain ownership protection guarantees for individuals and legal entities, 2) correspond to the principles of legality, equality, and inviolability of ownership, and 3) guarantee the integrity of ownership (which is, according to Art. 2 of the RF Constitution, a direct duty of the state). The article emphasizes a special role of the protective warrant to ensure legality of rights and the interests of citizens. The author formulates specific proposals to improve the civil legislation of land acquisition in the state and municipal needs to protect owners’ rights. He also designates and proposes solutions to one of the significant problems in understanding the ownership right: the absence of a clear definition of the term “land” in the legislation.