RUSSIAN LAW OF OBLIGATIONS REFORMED: THE CONSEQUENCES FOR THE INSTITUTE OF DAMAGES (LOSSES)

Introduction: of all the instruments of protection of subjective property rights, the fundamental role belongs to the institute of indemnification, whose regulatory framework needs to be clarified. The purpose of this paper is comparative description of the important legal aspects of the main type of property liability. In accordance with the purpose, the following objectives were set: to determine the extent to which legal provisions of general regulations on obligations laid down in the Civil Code of the Russian Federation should or can be applied to claims for damages; to formulate the proposals for improving the indemnification court practice. Methods: the methodological framework of the study consists of specific scholarly (special legal, comparative legal) and general scholarly (problem-theory, teleological, and system) methods of analysis. The main trends in the development of the institute of liability and the debatable aspects reflected in the Russian and foreign documents were studied with the use of the problem-theory and system analysis methods. Results: being a summary overview of the available knowledge and comparative regulatory material, this paper allowed us to articulate the ideas aimed at improving the fundamental principles of legal regulation of relations in the sphere of protection of subjective rights, in particular indemnification. Discussion: indemnification is a developing major institute of civil law, invariably attracting the attention of scholars around the world. Lately it has taken on special significance and some of its aspects have become a focus of a separate field of scholarly discussion. Many Russian scholars have written about indemnification in a comparative aspect: О. N. Sadikov, V. V. Baibak and others [2, 15]; this paper focuses on the reform of Russian law of obligations and the new provisions of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation of March 8, 2015 and reveals the consequences of the reform for the institute of damages, discussing this topic in detail as a separate standalone issue. Conclusion: we hope that this paper will contribute to further discussion in the civil law doctrine of the ideas and conclusions presented.