Instituto de Estudios Políticos y Derecho Público "Dr. Humberto J. La Roche"
de la Facultad de Ciencias Jurídicas y Políticas de la Universidad del Zulia
Maracaibo, Venezuela
Esta publicación cientíca en formato digital es continuidad de la revista impresa
ISSN-Versión Impresa 0798-1406 / ISSN-Versión on line 2542-3185Depósito legal pp
197402ZU34
ppi 201502ZU4645
Vol.39 N° 71
2021
Recibido el 15/10/2021 Aceptado el 25/11/2021
ISSN 0798- 1406 ~ De pó si to le gal pp 198502ZU132
Cues tio nes Po lí ti cas
La re vis ta Cues tio nes Po lí ti cas, es una pu bli ca ción aus pi cia da por el Ins ti tu to
de Es tu dios Po lí ti cos y De re cho Pú bli co “Dr. Hum ber to J. La Ro che” (IEPDP) de la Fa-
cul tad de Cien cias Ju rí di cas y Po lí ti cas de la Uni ver si dad del Zu lia.
En tre sus ob je ti vos fi gu ran: con tri buir con el pro gre so cien tí fi co de las Cien cias
Hu ma nas y So cia les, a tra vés de la di vul ga ción de los re sul ta dos lo gra dos por sus in ves-
ti ga do res; es ti mu lar la in ves ti ga ción en es tas áreas del sa ber; y pro pi ciar la pre sen ta-
ción, dis cu sión y con fron ta ción de las ideas y avan ces cien tí fi cos con com pro mi so so cial.
Cues tio nes Po lí ti cas apa re ce dos ve ces al año y pu bli ca tra ba jos ori gi na les con
avan ces o re sul ta dos de in ves ti ga ción en las áreas de Cien cia Po lí ti ca y De re cho Pú bli-
co, los cua les son so me ti dos a la con si de ra ción de ár bi tros ca li fi ca dos.
ESTA PU BLI CA CIÓN APA RE CE RE SE ÑA DA, EN TRE OTROS ÍN DI CES, EN
:
Re vicyhLUZ, In ter na tio nal Po li ti cal Scien ce Abs tracts, Re vis ta In ter ame ri ca na de
Bi blio gra fía, en el Cen tro La ti no ame ri ca no para el De sa rrol lo (CLAD), en Bi blio-
gra fía So cio Eco nó mi ca de Ve ne zue la de RE DIN SE, In ter na tio nal Bi blio graphy of
Po li ti cal Scien ce, Re vencyt, His pa nic Ame ri can Pe rio di cals In dex/HAPI), Ul ri ch’s
Pe rio di cals Di rec tory, EBS CO. Se en cuen tra acre di ta da al Re gis tro de Pu bli ca cio-
nes Cien tí fi cas y Tec no ló gi cas Ve ne zo la nas del FO NA CIT, La tin dex.
Di rec to ra
L
OIRALITH
M. C
HIRINOS
P
ORTILLO
Co mi té Edi tor
Eduviges Morales Villalobos
Fabiola Tavares Duarte
Ma ría Eu ge nia Soto Hernández
Nila Leal González
Carmen Pérez Baralt
Co mi té Ase sor
Pedro Bracho Grand
J. M. Del ga do Ocan do
José Ce rra da
Ri car do Com bel las
An gel Lom bar di
Die ter Nohlen
Al fre do Ra mos Ji mé nez
Go ran Ther born
Frie drich Welsch
Asis ten tes Ad mi nis tra ti vos
Joan López Urdaneta y Nil da Ma rín
Re vis ta Cues tio nes Po lí ti cas. Av. Gua ji ra. Uni ver si dad del Zu lia. Nú cleo Hu ma nís ti co. Fa-
cul tad de Cien cias Ju rí di cas y Po lí ti cas. Ins ti tu to de Es tu dios Po lí ti cos y De re cho Pú bli co
“Dr. Hum ber to J. La Ro che”. Ma ra cai bo, Ve ne zue la. E- mail: cues tio nes po li ti cas@gmail.
com ~ loi chi ri nos por til lo@gmail.com. Te le fax: 58- 0261- 4127018.
Vol. 39, Nº 71 (2021), 543-553
IEPDP-Facultad de Ciencias Jurídicas y Políticas - LUZ
Concept and grounds for the acquisition
of ownership rights in the civil law of the
Russian Federation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.46398/cuestpol.3971.31
Svetlana S. Aleeva *
Maria Ye. Zhukova **
Svetlana A. Ivanova ***
Albina V. Kachmazova ****
Elena B. Kozlova *****
Abstract
The purpose of the article was to study the legal nature,
concept, and motives for the acquisition of property rights in
Russian civil law. The main method of documentary research. The
article also uses the inductive method, the method of systematic
scientic analysis, comparative legal methods, and historical
methods. The main method underlying the solution of the problem is to
study the legal bases and characteristics of the acquisition of property
rights. The article demonstrates the theoretical irresolubility of the problem
of scientic understanding of the grounds for acquiring property rights
in the civil law of Russia and other countries. The authors of the article
consider that the interpretation of Russian legal norms on property rights
is multidimensional in contrast to the relatively recent past. It is concluded
that judicial argumentation has occupied an important place in the modern
scientic interpretation of civil law rules on property rights. Both the
modern legal state and the constitution were created by interpretation and
argumentation, including the rules of the property law institute.
Keywords: human rights; civil code; property institute; private property;
law in Russia.
* Russian State University named after A.N. Kosygin, Moscow, Russia. ORCID ID: https://orcid.
org/0000-0003-3362-0540
** Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia, Moscow, Russia. ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-
4591-4458
*** Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation, Moscow, Russia. ORCID ID:
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2489-569X
**** Gorsky State Agrarian University, Vladikavkaz, Russia. ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-
6300-0636
***** All-Russian State University of Justice, Moscow, Russia; Center for Scientic and Expert Analytics
of the Russian State Institute of Intellectual Property, Moscow, Russia. ORCID ID: https://orcid.
org/0000-0002-6112-8441
544
Svetlana S. Aleeva, Maria Ye. Zhukova, Svetlana A. Ivanova, Albina V. Kachmazova y Elena
B. Kozlova
Concept and grounds for the acquisition of ownership rights in the civil law of the Russian Federation
Concepto y motivos para la adquisición de derechos de
propiedad en el derecho civil de la Federación de Rusia
Resumen
El propósito del artículo fue estudiar la naturaleza legal, el concepto y
los motivos para la adquisición de derechos de propiedad en el derecho
civil de Rusia. El principal método de investigación documental. El
artículo además utiliza el método inductivo, el método de análisis cientíco
sistemático, los métodos jurídicos comparativos y los métodos históricos.
El método principal que subyace a la solución del problema es estudiar los
fundamentos jurídicos y las características de la adquisición de derechos
de propiedad. El artículo demuestra la irresolubilidad teórica del problema
de la comprensión cientíca de los motivos para adquirir derechos de
propiedad en el derecho civil de Rusia y otros países. Los autores del
artículo consideran que la interpretación de las normas jurídicas rusas
sobre los derechos de propiedad es multidimensional en contraste con el
pasado relativamente reciente. Se concluye que la argumentación judicial
ha ocupado un lugar importante en la interpretación cientíca moderna de
las normas de derecho civil sobre los derechos de propiedad. Tanto el estado
legal moderno como la constitución fueron creados por la interpretación
y la argumentación, incluidas las normas del instituto del derecho de
propiedad.
Palabras clave: derechos humanos; código civil; instituto de propiedad;
propiedad privada; derecho en Rusia.
Introduction
Based on the analysis of the legislation of countries with developed
market economies, we observe that new trends in the legislation of
economically developed countries do not mean a reduction in the role of
private ownership. The grounds for the emergence of real rights are usually
divided into initial and derivative ones. In a subjective sense, the ownership
right is considered as a subjective civil law, i.e., as a legal measure of the
possible (permissible) behavior of the authorized person (owner).
The content of the ownership right (Article 209 of the Civil Code of
the Russian Federation) determines the legal possibilities. The possession
means the ability to have a thing in its real ownership. The utilization, as the
right of the owner, is the use of an object, the extraction of useful properties
from a thing. The disposal is the ability to perform any legal, factual actions
in relation to a thing (sale of a thing, renting out, donating, destroying, etc.)
(Shevchenko et al., 2019).
545
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 39 Nº 71 (2021): 543-553
Let us consider some types of state registration of ownership rights in
the Russian Federation.
State registration of the ownership rights of housing association
members based on the housing association certicate of the paid share.
The basis is a certicate of the paid share, and the registration of the right
is at the same time the state registration of the right of common shared
ownership to common ownership that is inextricably linked to it.
State registration of rights to newly created immovable property. The
right is registered based on documents conrming the fact of the creation
of the object. The basis for state registration can be: Resolution on the
construction of an object, land acquisition (lease or other grounds), an act
of acceptance of a nished object into operation by a state commission, data
from the TIB. If the rights to an object under construction are registered, it
is registered based on the land allocation for the construction of this object
with its description or design and estimate documentation attached.
State registration of rights based on a contract for the transfer of
residential premises in the order of privatization. The basis for state
registration is an application and a transfer agreement between the citizens
occupying the area and the owner of the housing.
State registration during the alienation of residential premises
(purchase and sale, exchange, donation, rent, etc.). Both the contract
and the resulting right (transfer of the right) are registered. A basis is a
contract. When the rent is registered, both the right of the renter and the
pledge by virtue of the law in favor of the renter are registered, the amount
of maintenance per month is indicated.
The encumbrance of the pledge is terminated by the death of the renter.
The rights and obligations under the contract are considered to have
arisen and are binding after the state registration of the transaction with
the appropriate inscription on the contract. Registration of the right can
be made both simultaneously with the contract, and after the parties fulll
their obligations to each other (Singer, 1993).
In relation to the real estate object, the information is indicated in
accordance with the plan of the primary (secondary) real estate object, the
cadastral plan of the land plot, the passport for the apartment. After the
court makes a decision, the judge should pay attention to the indication of
information about the rightsholder and the real estate object in the court
decision, and also make sure that the court has copies of all necessary
documents: a photocopy of the owner’s passport, a certicate of registration
of a legal entity, a certicate of assignment of a TIN, a plan of the real estate
object, etc.
546
Svetlana S. Aleeva, Maria Ye. Zhukova, Svetlana A. Ivanova, Albina V. Kachmazova y Elena
B. Kozlova
Concept and grounds for the acquisition of ownership rights in the civil law of the Russian Federation
After receiving the decision from the oce, it is necessary to check the
presence of the specied information in the decision and the absence of
technical errors in it. The decision must be signed by a judge and sealed
with an ocial stamp, and the decision must be with a mark on its entry into
legal force. If the solution is on several sheets, it must be sewn, numbered,
and sealed with the stamp of the oce (Grudtsina et al., 2018).
If there is no information about the right holder and the real estate object
in the decision submitted for registration, the registration of the ownership
right is suspended and an application for clarication of the procedure for
its execution is sent to the court that issued the decision. The court, having
received the specied application, makes a ruling, which actually corrects
the operative part of the decision. The ownership right will eventually be
registered, but the applicant will still lose his/her time.
1. Methods
The leading method of studying the problem was the deductive method,
which allowed studying the legal nature and features of the acquisition of
ownership rights in the civil law of Russia. The article uses the inductive
method, the method of systematic scientic analysis, comparative-legal,
and historical methods (Ryan, 2008).
There is trust ownership in the countries of the Anglo-American legal
system. Russian legal system has Romano-Germanic roots. Therefore, trust
management in Russian law diers from trust ownership in the Anglo-
American legal system (Pilyugina, 2009).
2. Results
State ownership and citizens’ ownership are distinguished in the
Fundamentals of Civil Legislation of 1991. Since the beginning of the 90s,
the current civil legislation has been created, the rst part of the Civil Code
of the Russian Federation has been adopted. Russia has taken the path of
creating private ownership in 1992-1994. The Constitution of the Russian
Federation establishes the equality of forms of ownership: private, state,
municipal. Article 212 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation identies
not the forms of ownership rights, but the forms of ownership.
According to E.A. Sukhanov, the form of ownership is more of an
economic concept. From the standpoint of civil law, it is necessary to
distinguish the subjects of ownership rights. This position of the legislator
is reected in Article 212 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, which
distinguishes private, state, and municipal forms of ownership through
547
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 39 Nº 71 (2021): 543-553
subjects. E.A. Sukhanov, in principle, proceeded from the fact that the form
of ownership is more an economic category, rather than a legal one (Belov,
2011).
Part 1 of Article 36 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation refers to
the right of associations of citizens to possess land, which can be interpreted
in dierent ways. On the one hand, the concept of «citizens’ associations»
is ambiguous. On the other hand, the Constitution contains provisions
about the dierent types of associations: on religious associations (article
14), on public associations (article 13, 46), which are created with dierent
objectives, and the scope of rights of the Association cannot depend on the
objectives of its creation.
Considering the totality of the provisions of the Constitution of the
Russian Federation, the Russian Constitutional Court in its decision
pointed out that parts 2 and 3 of article 35 of the Constitution apply to legal
persons to the extent that this right is in its nature may apply to them. This
decision is in line with the decisions already taken by the constitutional
courts of other countries in cases of this kind and, creating the possibility of
applying the protection of the rights of legal entities based on constitutional
provisions on ownership, leaves the «door open» for refusal in a specic
case if it is considered that the nature of this legal entity is not compatible
with this right.
The motivation to observe good faith and reasonableness consists in
negative consequences for unfair conduct and privileges for good-faith
behavior. This is most fully illustrated in the Civil Code of the Russian
Federation by the category of bona de and mala de acquirer. The owner
may demand ownership, securities, money from a mala de acquirer,
demand compensation for losses, return of the received income (Articles
15, 147.1, 223, 301, 302 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation).
It is forbidden to make such claims to a bona de acquirer with rare
exceptions (he/she purchased the ownership free of charge, the ownership
was disposed of against the will of the owner). The requirement of good
faith shall be observed when lling in gaps, if the analogy of the law is not
applicable (paragraph 2 of Article 6 of the Civil Code). Good faith is a value
in building relationships between participants in civil turnover. This is one
of the moral and legal categories that allow for a fair social policy without
the forced redistribution of ownership from one person to another (Alchian,
Demsetz, 1972; 2004).
548
Svetlana S. Aleeva, Maria Ye. Zhukova, Svetlana A. Ivanova, Albina V. Kachmazova y Elena
B. Kozlova
Concept and grounds for the acquisition of ownership rights in the civil law of the Russian Federation
3. Discussion
Turning to the regime of ownership turnover, we nd that on the pages
devoted by English, Italian (Chianale, 1990) and German (1989) lawyers
to the transfer of ownership, the most insistent phrase is that, due to the
respect with which the will of the parties should be treated, the ownership
will be transferred based on this latter.
This phrase should not, however, mislead: the will necessary for the
transfer of ownership «between the parties» is expressed in a contract (an
act that is not a gift and, therefore, supported by «consideration»). The
contract alone, moreover, transfers the ownership exclusively «between
the parties»; at least, according to the Sale of Good Act 1893, updated
several times before 1979. The ownership right –after the contract of sale
is concluded– passes at the time set by the parties «between the parties»;
and it is assumed that the parties wanted to make the transfer of ownership
depends on the condition that the price was paid or that the buyer was
granted a loan entailing the establishment of a deadline for payment.
After the contract has been concluded and the payment has been made,
for the transfer of ownership to act concerning everyone and to all purposes,
it will be necessary to deliver the thing.
If the rule of cumulation (proclaimed by ABGB in Austria) was strictly
applied, the rules on improper enrichment should always allow the one who
transferred the thing unreasonably, without a valid title, to destroy it, as
well as to vindicate it (since the ownership could not pass by virtue of the
traditio alone). The ABGB rules on the reverse reclamation of an improper
payment (§ 1432) exclude (Chianale, 1990).
The doctrine considers it indisputable that the exclusion of a claim
for enrichment keeps pace with the exclusion of vindication; this means
that a payment (traditio) made by sine causa and without error transfers
ownership.
The Austrian doctrine did not fail to note this aspect of the phenomenon,
and therefore Savigny’s theories were popular in Austria at one time: the
suciency of the modus, despite the absence of the titulus, sanctioned in
special legislative rules (such as the rule relating to the reverse reclamation
of the unduly paid), annuls the principle of the equal necessity of two
elements, as it is proclaimed in the norm of general signicance (Grudtsina,
Galushkin, 2013).
There is one dierence compared to the BGB mode in Austria: the
abstraction is perfect in BGB, Ubergabe (transmission) has a translational
eect in any case, even if solvens is deluded about the validity of titulus at
the time of execution.
549
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 39 Nº 71 (2021): 543-553
The statement of this dierence in the regime led the Austrian doctrine
to depart from Savigny’s thesis in the analysis of ABGB and to the vision of a
transfer performed without an error and a previous obligation, rather a gift.
Today, nally, the direction prevails, indicating as a causa Ubergabe, along
to full the obligation preceding the transfer, any permissible intention.
Thus, it is recognized that the modus must be accompanied by a causa,
interpreted, however, in the sense of a permissible goal. The Austrian
system, therefore, can be placed in an intermediate position between the
system of simple modus and the system of cumulation titulus plus modus.
Recently, the objectivist interpretation has regained some followers.
The transfer of ownership of movable property in the light of comparative
law, the Code by means of art. 931 subordinates the validity of the gift to
the notarial form. The interpreter has always recognized the validity of
the manual gift, no matter what its cost. The doctrine of the manual gift
reinforces the doctrine of the «state of error», which is meant to subordinate
the demand for payment of the improper: for one who pays what should not
be paid, knowing that he/she owes nothing, can be regarded as a giver.
In France, as in other countries, a person who pays in fulllment of a
natural obligation cannot demand back what he/she paid.
Almost any transfer of ownership, made without an error regarding
the causa to transfer ownership, is carried out either out of a sense of duty
(and falls under the payment of an in-kind obligation), or out of generosity
(and falls under manual donations). In both cases, the ownership will be
transferred as a result of the transfer. The error of solvens opens the way
to the means provided for in his/her favor, namely, a claim for reverse
reclamation. We can say that the transfer has the same degree of abstraction
that we nd in Austria. We can also say that in France, anyone who wants
to alienate has a choice between a system of causal contract and a system
of transfer, accompanied by an unmixed will to alienate (Andreev, 2005).
The actual applicable law and the legislative law also dier in Germany.
The legislative rule in Germany is based on modus. The following are
distributed in business practice: the establishment of ownership, which
takes over the place of transfer, and the commission of the transfer under
the condition (even tacit), according to which such a transfer does not have
an eect if the main contract preceding it is invalid.
In Holland, Switzerland, and Turkey, there is a system of double props,
as in Austria; and, as in Austria, in Switzerland, payment of an improper,
made without error, is considered to be transferring ownership; in Holland
and Turkey, on the other hand, the interpretation rejects this decision as it
considers it to be in conict with the rule giving title to alienation.
In Italy, legal sources voice French decisions, but the interpreter refuses
to deviate from the props of the title, except for very modest concessions
made in the eld of manual donation and natural obligations.
550
Svetlana S. Aleeva, Maria Ye. Zhukova, Svetlana A. Ivanova, Albina V. Kachmazova y Elena
B. Kozlova
Concept and grounds for the acquisition of ownership rights in the civil law of the Russian Federation
The wording of the English denitions does not take into account the
rules inherent in the law applied. In systems that require titulus and modus
for the transfer of ownership, the relationship that exists between one and
another element is the subject of variable denitions. The Austrians could
have believed at one time that the transfer of ownership is caused – at the
same level – by an alienation contract and a transfer, but now they prefer
to think that the transfer of ownership is caused by an alienation contract
(i.e., an agreement between the alienator and the acquirer concluded at the
time of the transfer) and that the contract that generates the obligation is
the causa of the alienation contract.
The Swiss prefer to bring the transfer of ownership under the agreement
that the parties concluded at the time of the commitment agreement. As for
the transfer, in their opinion, it is not a contract, but a material act.
Conclusion
The above allows concluding that the modern civil law regulation of
ownership directly or indirectly bears the imprint of the historical path
passed, in several countries it includes the regulation of dierent layers of
ownership relations by origin.
The understanding of ownership rights in the Constitution has
evolved signicantly with the strengthening of legal control. The bodies of
constitutional control argue their decisions based not on one constitutional
norm, but the diversity of its relations with other constitutional norms,
through the prism of constitutional principles and values, giving preference
to one or the other of them, and taking into account supranational norms
(international law). Thus, in contrast to the relatively recent past, the
interpretation of national constitutional norms is multidimensional.
Judicial argumentation has taken an important place in the modern
scientic interpretation of civil law norms on ownership rights. Both the
modern legal state and the constitution were created by the interpretation
and argumentation, including the norms of the institute of ownership right.
Socialist lawyers (Soviet, Hungarian, German from the GDR) presented
the contract as a genuine causa of the transfer of ownership and reduced
the transfer to specifying the moment of this transition.
It is not easy to say whether these dierent concepts correspond to the
specics of dierent positive systems or simply depend on the systematics
preferred by theorists of dierent countries (which would be equivalent to
a useless multiplication of qualications). If a delivery that does not rely on
an obligation that has existed before it transfers ownership, this phrase does
not yet seem to be a sucient explanation to theorists. They see it rather
551
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 39 Nº 71 (2021): 543-553
as a kind of empirical judgment that needs appropriate qualications to be
explained from a dogmatic point of view. The search for such a qualication
can leads to numerous results.
Sometimes the problem of qualications is solved by the idea of
abstraction: the transfer is an act sucient for itself since it is abstract. We
have seen that a noble doctrine, such as the Savigny doctrine, linked this
decision with German law.
The second explanation is based on gift: if the alienator transferred
the thing without being obliged to do it and not considering himself/
herself mistakenly obligated, he/she wanted to gift it. In English law, this
explanation has an ocial character; it had followers in Austria; to the
extent that the French system allows it, it is not disputed in France; nally,
it is used (but alternatively with other explanations) in Switzerland.
The third explanation is based on the nullity of the acts and on the
possibility of invalidating them: if someone transfers a thing without being
obliged to do so, it means that the transferring party had the intention to
convalidate the act; this explanation prevails in Argentina. Again, three
dierent doctrinal explanations correspond to the phenomenon alone. It
can be stated that the legal doctrine has missed an opportunity here.
So far, we have spoken as if the concept of «transfer of ownership» had
an exact meaning: the most that we have noted is that the English statutory
norm distinguishes the transfer of ownership «between the parties» and
the transfer of ownership «to all purposes». We have not questioned that
the transfer of ownership has a single content.
This position would be perfect only if all the elements of the legal
position of the owner were transferred from the alienator to the acquirer
at the same time.
We will mention the following among the elements of the legal status of
the owner:
– the right to demand the transfer of possession of a thing or its holding
from the opposite party
– and from third parties holding it without a title.
– the right to dispose of the thing in favor of third parties.
– the acquisition of fruits.
– the risk of the item loss.
– the purpose of the thing to serve as a general guarantee for the debts
of the owner.
– liability for damage caused by the thing to third parties.
552
Svetlana S. Aleeva, Maria Ye. Zhukova, Svetlana A. Ivanova, Albina V. Kachmazova y Elena
B. Kozlova
Concept and grounds for the acquisition of ownership rights in the civil law of the Russian Federation
In England and the United States, what we call the transfer of ownership
concerns only the assignment provided for by common law, which (at least
in the real estate sector) can be opposed by equitable interest» (especially
by virtue of trust), considered by common lawyers as a form of proprietary
assignment and transferred (in the equity system) based on completely
dierent procedures.
The right of the buyer to seek the delivery of a thing from a third party
does not always, therefore, depend on the quality of the owner. In many
legal systems, the delivery transfers the ownership, even if there is no
titulus. This creates a contrast with legal systems in which the transfer of
ownership presupposes (in addition to the transfer or without the need
for it) a valid causal contract. Now, however, the moment has come to
remember that ownership acquired without titulus can keep pace with
a restorative obligation (based on the rules on claiming payment of an
improper or unjustied enrichment) and that the construction of ownership
accompanied by a restorative obligation can be very dierent from the
construction of normal ownership.
Since the obligation to return an individually dened thing may lead
to certain protection against third parties, in the sense that a third person
who receives ownership of a thing free of charge from the owner who is
obliged to return this thing may be obliged (in relation to the creditor who
has the right to return) by virtue of the principles of enrichment; and the
same third person, if he/she maliciously acquires ownership of a thing from
the owner who is obliged to return it, may be subject to non-contractual
liability (to the creditor).
Bibliographic References6
ALCHIAN, Armen; DEMSETZ, Harold. 1972. “Production, information costs,
and economic organization” In: American Economic Review. Vol. 62.
No. 5, pp. 777-795.
ALCHIAN, Armen; DEMSETZ, Harold. 2004. “Production, information costs,
and economic organization” In: Istoki [Origins], HSE. Moscow, Russia.
CHIANALE, Antoni. 1990. Obbligazione di dare e trasferimento della proprieta.
Milano, Italy.
DER, Duden. 1989. In Banden. Duden Etymologie: Herkunftsworterbuch der
deutschen Sprache. Au. Mannheim; Wien. Zurich, Suzie.
6 Some cited sources only have the initial of the name of the author or authors because it was impossible
to locate their full name as stable the standard of this journal.
553
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 39 Nº 71 (2021): 543-553
GRUDTSINA, L; IVANOVA, S.A; KOROTKOVA, M.V; SHEVCHENKO, L.I.
2018. “The information in civil society” In: International Journal of Civil
Engineering and Technology. Vol. 9, No. 8, pp. 1652-1663.
GRUDTSINA, L; GALUSHKIN, A.A. 2013. “Questions of modern civil society
development in Russian Federation” In: World Applied Sciences Journal.
Vol. 25, No. 5, pp. 790-793.
SHEVCHENKO, L.I., IVANOVA, S.A., GRUDTSINA, L.Y. 2019. “The legal
nature of the reinsurance contract”, In: International Journal of Civil
Engineering and Technology. Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 1603-1611.
SINGER, Рiter. 1993. Practical Ethics Centre for Human Bioethics Monash
Univ. Cambridge University Press, New York, USA.
ANDREEV, P.P. 2005. Correlation of concepts: the welfare state, social
protection, social risks, social security. Vladimir, Russia.
PILYUGINA, Natalia Sergeevna. 2009. Anthropological method of cognition
of law: theoretical and legal analysis: abstract of a thesis of candidate of
legal sciences]. Kuban State University. Krasnodar, Russia.
RYAN, A. 2008. Sobstvennost [Ownership] In: “The Invisible Hand” of the
Market, pp. 312-318, J. Eatwell, M. Milgate, Newman P.M. (eds). HSE.
Publishing House SU HSE. Moscow, Russia.
BELOV, Vadim Anatolievich. 2011. Collection of teaching materials on civil law:
a textbook for universities. Statut. Moscow, Russia.
www.luz.edu.ve
www.serbi.luz.edu.ve
www.produccioncienticaluz.org
Esta revista fue editada en formato digital y publicada
en diciembre de 2021, por el Fondo Editorial Serbiluz,
Universidad del Zulia. Maracaibo-Venezuela
Vol.39 Nº 71
