Sukhanov Evgeny Alekseevich

The article is written on the basis of the author’s report at the XIX Annual International Scientific and Practical Conference of the Law Faculty of Moscow State University and the XV International Scientific and Practical Conference “Kutafin Readings” of the Moscow State Law Academy “Constitution of the Russian Federation and the modern law and order”. The article analyzes the genesis and content of the norms of the Constitution of the Russian Federation on property; The economic category of “form of ownership” and its differences from the legal concept of “ownership” are critically examined. The necessity of fixing the system of real rights in the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and the removal of the “public servitude” construction from the Land Code, as well as the public law nature of the “national wealth” category, is shown. A general conclusion is made about the need for the development of Russian property law and the groundless use of economic concepts in civil law, and civil law concepts in public law.

The article highlights some of the fundamental institutions of the General Part of Civil Law, as well as corporate and property law, which should fix the balance of private and public interests; their shortcomings and possible development prospects are shown. The necessity of a well-known change in understanding the subjects of private and public (public) interests and in their content from the point of view of the common interests of all participants in the civil (property) turnover is substantiated.

The article highlights the pedagogical and educational-methodical work of professor S.M. Korneev, including his work on the systematics of the civil law course. On this basis, the main goals and objectives of university (higher) legal education in the field of civil law are revealed. With reference to the works of the classics of Russian civil law I.A. Pokrovsky, L. I. Petrazhitsky and others, devoted to the issues of methods of teaching civil law, the necessity of studying in law schools not only and not so much the content of the current legislation and the judicial practice of its application (i. e. jurisprudence), as the conceptual foundations of civil science (i. e. jurisprudence) is substantiated on this basis, students develop the skills of legal thinking, based on their understanding of the essence and principles of civil (private) law, the moral side of civil law regulation and its focus on achieving social justice. From these positions, attempts are criticized to fundamentally reorient the university training of lawyers from a general theoretical to a “practice-oriented” model that does not take into account the constant changes in modern legislation, as well as the various shortcomings and errors in both its content and the judicial practice of its application

The article reveals the negative consequences of a straightforward transfer of economic categories and approaches to civil law. In this case both the variety of legal forms of property relations and their historical ties to different legal systems (Continental civil law and Anglo-American common law) are neglected. Thus, the author criticizes the application of the ‘economic analysis of law’ concept, which is based on the economic approach to common law, for legal analysis of Continental legal concepts and ideas, which are alien to it. An observation is made that the scope of this concept is limited to business relations, as the development thereof has brought to life the trend of civil law economization. Conventional and economic nature of the concepts of ‘form of ownership’ and ‘intellectual property’, fallacy of legal definitions of ‘non-cash money’, ‘uncertificated securities’, and ‘digital property’, as well as confusion of economic and legal categories in the Anglo-American classification of property rights are emphasized. The article concludes that it is necessary to replace economic approaches to civil law with a legal analysis of economy, which makes it possible to legally define property relations and exclude unreasonable confusion of economic and legal concepts.