Deprivatization: current judicial practice

Abstract

The article considers the legal framework and trends of judicial practice in claims for the recovery of previously privatized assets. The purpose is to identify risk factors for the deprivatization of enterprise property, as well as circumstances affecting the prospects of possible litigation. The authors used such research methods as logical, theoretical-prognostic, formal-legal, system-structural and legal modeling methods. The methodological apparatus consists of the following dialectical techniques and methods of scientific cognition: analysis, abstraction, induction, deduction, hypothesis, analogy, synthesis, typology, classification, systematization and generalization. The authors analyzed relevant legal cases within the context of legal regulation and doctrinal approaches to the interpretation of civil legislation. It is concluded that violation of the privatization procedure means the absence of the will of the public owner to property alienation. As a result, the public owner has the opportunity to claim property even from a bona fide purchaser. Shares in the authorized capital of companies, and individual objects (buildings, structures, movable property) are subject to deprivatization. The basis for the claim of property in favor of the state is most often the privatization of property classified as federal property, with the approval of only regional authorities as well as the privatization of property in respect of which prohibitions and restrictions are established. It is stated that the courts reject references to the expiration of the limitation period, at the same time, judicial practice regarding the application of objective limitation periods has only begun to form. Considering the specifics of the participation of public legal entities in civil turnover, the authors conclude that it is necessary to clarify the established practice of applying law by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation.