Abstrakt
A core idea behind Rudolf von Jhering?s doctrine of possession is that possession is an external manifestation of the right of ownership. Therefore, as a matter of fact, possessory remedies are aimed at facilitating protection of the latter and not of the possession as such.
The fact that in the final analysis possessory remedies could be applied for protection of a possessor in bad faith, even of a thief or an invader, was for Jhering an inevitable evil resulting from facilitating the proof of the right of ownership in this way. However, to his mind, negative aspects of such approach are to a very high degree compensated in practice by its advantages. At the same time, another distinguishing feature of the Jhering?s conceptualisation of possession was its ?spiritualization?, which differed much from the widespread tendency of its schematic vulgar generalisation as an actual (physical) control over the object of possession. The institute of possessory remedies is lacking under the currently binding provisions of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, which recognises only a petitory remedy for protection of the possessio ad usucapionem, comparable with the actio in rem Publiciana of the Roman law (clause 2, Article 234 CC RF). Still, the possessory remedies are inculcated in the relevant provisions of the Concept of Development of Civil Legislation of the Russian Federation designed to become the basis for updating the CC RF, as well as in its outcome: the Draft of Modifications to the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, which has been on the floor of the Russian Parliament starting from 2012 and has already been partly implemented. Despite of the fact that the drafters referred, inter alia, to the ideas of Jhering to be a source of their inspiration, they are evidently going to promote the idea peculiar to a specific possessory suit of Medieval Western law, the actio spolii, in the form of the what is referred to condictio ex canone redintegranda. Such conceptualisation of the
possessory remedies seems to be rather far from Jhering?s doctrine.
Bibliografia
The Concept of Development of the Legislation on the Real Rights, Vestnik Vysshego Arbitrazhnogo Suda Rossiyskoy Federatsii 2009, No. 4.
Jhering R. von: The Reasons for Protection of Possession (in:) Selected Works (Russian translation), Vol. II, Saint Petersburg 2006.
Nikonov S.P.: Evolution of the Protection of Possession in the Medieval Europe, (in Russian), Kharkov 1905.
Pokrovsky I.A.: Main Issues of Possession in the New German Civil Code, Vestnik Prava 1899, Book 1, pp. 92?120.
Puchta G.F.: Course of Roman Civil Law, (Russian Translation), Vol. I, Moscow 1874.
Rudokvas A.: Azione publiciana nel diritto civile russo vigente, Studia Universitatis Babeş-Bolyai, Iurisprudentia 2007, No. 2, pp. 211?214.
Ruffini F.: L?actio spolii. Studio storico-giuridico, Roma 1972.
Savigny F.C. von: Das Recht des Besitzes, 5 Aufl., Gießen 1827.
Wolter U.: Ius Canonicum in Iure Civili: Studien zur Rechtsquellenlehre in der neueren Privatrechtsgeschichte, Köln?Vienna 1975.