Реституція як засіб захисту цивільних прав та інтересів

Анотація

У статті розглянуто окремі проблемні питання правової природи реституції як цивільно-правової категорії. Акцентовано увагу на тому, що не дивлячись на багаторічну дискусію щодо з’ясування суті реституції, науковці й до сьогодні не досягли згоди з приводу того, чим є реституція: відповідальністю за скоєння цивільного правопорушення, санкцією чи є специфічним засобом захисту цивільних прав та інтересів. Доведено, що реституція не є відповідальністю та санкцією за скоєння цивільного правопорушення, а отже її необхідно відносити до засобів захисту цивільних прав та інтересів.

The author of the article considering one of the pressing issues that exists today in the science of civil law – the clarification of the legal nature of restitution as a civil law category. It has been established that, despite the long history of this concept, scientists still have not a common view of its legal nature. Some scientists view restitution as a responsibility for committing a civil offense, others view it as a sanction, while others view it as a means of protecting civil rights and interests.

In the work proved that it is wrong to consider restitutionary relations as civil liability, and invalid transactions as a violation. This conclusion follows from the fact that the impugned transaction can be appealed only by a certain circle of persons, and before that it is recognized as valid and must be executed.

Established that the current jurisprudence in Ukraine also does not depart from the interpretation of the concept of restitution from its doctrinal and legal definition. It can be said that, in the majority of cases, the jurisprudence, in the presence of law and relevant doctrine, does not deviate from them, that is, it has no constitutional significance.

Drawn attention that restitution is a set of legal norms which, within the concept of compensation (property cover) in civil law, have the function of restoring the previous legal and factual status of the parties to the transaction as a substantive consequence of its invalidity.

Based on the study, the author concluded that since restitution is not a form of liability, recognizing restitution as a universal remedy does not diminish its essence as a way of compensating for the damage caused. Given that restitution is not a measure of responsibility, there are grounds to refer it as a means of protecting civil rights and interests.