Legal Regulation of Subsurface Use - in Russia: Actual Problems

APA 6th edition
In-text: (Allanina, Khairullina, Zyleva, Ruf, Permyakov, Mikhailova & Aleksanrovish , 2016)
Your Bibliography: Allanina, L.M., Khairullina, N.G., Zyleva, .V., Ruf, Y.N., Permyakov, .V., Mikhailova, M.N. & Aleksanrovish , G.V. (2016). Legal Regulation of Subsurface Use - in Russia: Actual Problems. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 11(18), 12471-12485.

Harvard
In-text: (Allanina, Khairullina, Zyleva, Ruf, Permyakov, Mikhailova and Aleksanrovish , 2016)
Your Bibliography: Allanina, L., Khairullina, N., Zyleva, ., Ruf, Y., Permyakov, ., Mikhailova, M. and Aleksanrovish , G. (2016). Legal Regulation of Subsurface Use - in Russia: Actual Problems. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 11(18), pp. 12471-12485.

Chicago 16th edition
In-text: (Allanina, Khairullina, Zyleva, Ruf, Permyakov, Mikhailova and Aleksanrovish 2016)
Your Bibliography: Allanina, Lilija Mansurovna, Nursafa Gafurovna Khairullina, Natalia Vladimirovna Zyleva, Yuliya Nikolaevna Ruf, Anton Viktorovich Permyakov, Mariia Nikolaevna Mikhailova and Garabazi Viktor Aleksanrovish (2016). "Legal Regulation of Subsurface Use - in Russia: Actual Problems". International Journal of Environmental and Science Education 11 (18):12471-12485.

Abstract

The article is devoted to analysis of actual problems of subsurface use rights in Russia with relation to doctrine and practice We can also observe an upward trend in the quantity of litigation processes in regard to the subsoil use rights. Thus, the issues of understanding this phenomenon acquire particular importance. The purpose of the work is to carry out a legal scientific comparative analysis of the subsoil use rights in Russia basing on scientific works and court practice material. Methods: empirical methods of comparison, interpretation; general methods of analysis, formal logic; specific scientific methods: legal dogmatic method, legal comparison and method of legal norm interpretation. Results: the analysis of legislation, including the Law of the Russian Federation № 2395-1 "On Subsoil" (Law on sub-soil) and practice in the application of it, its scientific interpretation shows that the subsurface use right is in the nature of a right in rem. It has its own unique characteristics and exceptional nature. Its special features are being reflected at power of sequence resembling "droit de suite", exclusivity and perpetuity. The author reveals the secondary power, which is intrinsic to the subsurface use rights, and criticizes the provisions of the Law on Subsoil to deal with subsoil block turnover. Besides, the author analyses the problem of using consumable property during mining (quasi-usufruct), the problem of specifying the bearers of public interests and also considers antitrust paradox. Additionally, the author puts forward a thesis that mining licenses are given, in terms of civil law, for the gratuitous use of property. Conclu-sions: It is necessary to suspend the mineral right from the number of subsoil use rights in order to individualize it as a distinct mineral title. It has also been concluded that the title of subsurface use is being based on special concession act. It is recommended that the appropriated provisions of the Law on subsoil need to be amended.

Keywords: subsoil use right, state, secondary power, right in rem, subsurface, subsoil block, surface mining operations, mining concession, fructus, mining license

References

Allanina L.M., 2011 Grazhdansko-pravovoe regulirovanie otnosheniy nedropolzovanija [Civil regulation of subsoil use relationships]. Tyumen: TSOGU, p. 140 p.

Allanina L.M. and Khairullina N.G.et al., 2016. Corporate Decisions: Innovations of the Russian Law and Practice. Journal of Advanced Research in Law and Economics, Volume VII, Spring, 2(16): 191–202,

Baker J.H., 2002. An Introduction to English Legal History. London: Butterworths, p. 622.

Bork R.H., 1993. The Antitrust paradox: a policy at war with itself. New York: Free Press, p. 479.

Cherepahin B.B., 1962. Pravopreemstvo po sovetskomu grazhdanskomu pravu [Succession by Soviet Civil Law]. Moscow: Gosyuridlit, p. 162.

Dernburg H., 1884. Pandekten. (Erster Band). Berlin: Verlag von H. W. Mueller, p. 376.

Dobrachev D.V., 2016. Singuljarnoe pravopreemstvo v objazatelstve kak osnovanie izmenenija grazhdanskogo pra-vootnoshenija [The singular succession in the obligation as a ground for change in civil relationships]. Law and economics, 2: 50–72.

Duvernois N.L., 2004. Chtenija po grazhdanskomu pravu [Readings in Civil Law]. Moscow: Mirror-M, p. 320.

Dudikov M.V., 2016. Poniatie i vidy mer pravovogo obespechenija publichnyh interesov pri nedropolzovanii [The con-cept and the types of law enforcement measures of public interests in subsoil use]. Lex russica, 5: 105–116.

Epstein R., 2014. Bork's bowman: "Not Gone But Forgotten". Antitrust law journal, 79(3): 903 - 916.

Haymann F., 1905. Die Schenkung unter einer Auflage nach rӧmischem und deutschem bϋrgerlichen Recht. Frankfurt: F. Vahlen, p.184.

Hovenkamp H., 2014. Robert Bork and Vertical Integration: Leverage, Foreclosure, and Efficiency. Antitrust law journal, 79(3): 953-982.

Grimm D.D., 2003. Lektsii po dogme rimskogo prava [Lectures On Roman Civil Law]. Moscow: Mirror, p. 496.

Ihering R. von., 1896. Geist des romischen Rechts. (Bd. III). Leipzig: Druck und Verlag von Breitkopf und Hartel, p. 507.

Novitskiy N.B., 2004. Rimskoe chastnoe pravo [Roman private law: textbook] Moscow: Jurisprudence, p. 314.

Ostanina E.A., 2016. Ischerpyvajushiy perechen veshnyh prav v rossiyskom zakonodatelstve: tsel ili sredstvo? [Nu-merus clausus of the rights in rem by the Russian legislation: goal or means?] Jurist. The lawyer, 13: 24–28.

Opredelenije Vyshchego Arbitrazhnogo Suda Rossiiskoi Federatsii ot 17 fevralja 2005 N 1301/05; Postanovlenie Federalnogo Arbitrazhnogo Suda Vostochno-Sibirskogo okruga ot 28 avgusta 2002 po delu N А33-3456/02-С2-F02-2422/02-С2 [Ruling of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation N 1301/05 dated February 17, 2005; the Resolution of Federal Arbitration Court of East-Siberian District N А33-3456/02-С2-F02-2422/02-С2 dated August 28, 2002].

Pettit P.H., 2012. Equity and the Law of Trusts. London: Sweet & Maxwell, p. 840.

Schoch F., 1994. Privatisierung von Verwaltungsaufgaben. DVBI 109, p. 1115.

Seckel E., 1903. Die Gestaltungsrechte des duererlichen Rechts. Festgabe der Juristischen Geselschaft Berlin fuer Richard Koch. Berlin, pp. 210–240. (In Germ.).

Simolin A.A., 2005. Vozmezdnost, bezvozmezdnost, smeshannye dogovory i inye teoreticheskie problemy grazh-danskogo prava [Gratuitousness, Compensatory Nature, Mixed Contracts and Other Problems Of Civil Law]. Moscow: Statut Publ, p. 638.

Sklovskiy K.I., 2014. Primenenie zakonodatelstva o sobstvennosti. Trudnye voprosy: kommentariy Postanovlenija Plenuma VS RF #10, Plenuma VAS RF #22 ot 29 aprelia 2010 g., Postanovlenija Plenuma VAS RF ot 11 ijulja 2011 g. #54, informatsionnogo pisma Prezidiuma VAS RF ot 15 janvarja 2013 g. #153 [The applica-tion of the legislation on property. Difficult questions: the comment of Plenum of Supreme Court of the Russian Federation #10, Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation #22 dated April 29, 2010, Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation #54 dated July 11, 2011, Informational letter of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation #153 dated January 15, 2013]. Moscow: Statut, p. 205.

Sinitsyn S.A., 2015. Iskovaja zashita veshnyh prav v rossiiskom i zarubezhnom grazhdanskom prave: aktualnye problemy [Defense of The Rights in Rem by Russian and Foreign Civil Law: Actual Problems]. Moscow: Infritropic, p. 340.

Windscheid B., 1887. Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts.(Bd.1 6 Aufl.). Frankfurt a. M.: Rutten & Loening, p. 605.

World Petroleum Arrangements, 1991. New York: The Barrows Company Inc., p. 240.

Weilinger A., 2016. Privatrecht. Eine Einführung, (5. Auflage). Facultas, p. 507.