Limits of Analogy in the Mechanism of Judicial Reduction of Property Sanctions

  • Viktor A. MIKRYUKOV Kutafin Moscow State Law University (MSAL), Moscow, Russia

Abstract

The relevance of this study is due to modern lawyers and law enforcement officials’ increased attention to the problems of using the analogy method in practical jurisprudence, the acute need to search for scientifically substantiated parameters of using this method in the mechanism of property sanctions judicial reduction. The role of the analogy method in the mechanism of judicial adjustment of property sanctions amount is clarified and legal limits of its application are established. The methods used: analysis, synthesis, abstraction, specification, comparative legal, formal legal and technical legal. The study shows the formation of a positive attitude of lawyers to the institution of judicial control over the property sanctions amount justification for civil violations and other compensatory payments to participants in the economic transactions. The findings can contribute to the doctrinal foundations strengthening for applying the analogy of law and the analogy of justice. Recommendations for the current legislation improving and application are formulated. For prevention of extrajudicial situational blocking of the formally lawful but undesirable economic behavior using of specially created legislative tools is proposed, and in their absence - resorting to the principle of inadmissibility of abusing the law.

References

[1] Access to Civil Procedure Abroad / Ed. by Snijders Henk J. London: Sweet & Maxwell Ltd., 1996, 25.
[2] Alekseev, A. A. 2015. Reduction of penalty by the court as a way to protect the debtor's rights. Laws of Russia: experience, analysis, practice, 11: 34-37.
[3] Bogdanov, D. E. 2012. A fair principles of the contract and contractual liability. Lawyer. 11: 38-49.
[4] Bogdanov, E. V. 2017. Freedom and arbitrariness as elements of contractual regulation of social relations. Journal of Russian Law. 3: 41-53.
[5] Bondarenko, N. L. 2013. Reduction of penalty by the court: the concept and meaning. Journal of Russian Law. 11: 67-74.
[6] Didenko, A. 2017. Protection of the debtor's rights and interests when applying Article 333 of the Civil Code of Russia: theory and practice. Laws of Russia: experience, analysis, practice. 1: 52-56.
[7] Dryga, M.A. 2016. On the application of the provisions of civil law to tax relations’. Financial Law, 6: 32-36.
[8] Egorova, M. A., and Arslanov, K. M. 2017. Interest on the monetary obligation: a brief commentary on Article 317.1 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. Bulletin of Arbitration Practice, 1: 15-21.
[9] Fedotova, Y. G. 2015. Legal principles of restriction of human and citizen's rights and freedoms in the interests of ensuring the country's defense and state security. Contemporary law, 7: 19-28.
[10] Gavrilov, E. 2015. On penalties and interest for failure to fulfill a monetary obligation after the adoption of amendments to the general part of the obligation law. Economy and Law, 6: 3-13.
[11] Gavrilov, E. 2013. On the introduction into the Civil Code of the RF of general provisions establishing the principle of conscientiousness. Economy and Law, 8: 3-9.
[12] Golubtsov, V. G. 2016. The principle of good faith as an element of the legal mechanism to stimulate the debtor to properly fulfill obligations and guarantee the interests of creditors: analysis of judicial and arbitration practice. Bulletin of Perm University. Legal Science, 2: 175-184. DOI: 10.17072 / 1995-4190-2016-32-175-184.
[13] Jakab A. 2013. Judicial Reasoning in Constitutional Courts: A European Perspective. German Law Journal, 8: 1215 – 1278. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1956657
[14] Kahn, J. 2015. Very Like a Whale: Analogy and the Law. Law, Culture and the Humanities, SAGE. Available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2795115
[15] Karkhalev, D. N. 2008. Protective penalty legal relationship. Notary, 2: 18-21.
[16] Komashko M.N. 2006. To reduce or not to reduce? On the application of Article 333 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. Law, 23-31.
[17] Koszowski, M. 2017. Analogical Reasoning in Statutory Law. Journal of Forensic Research, 8: 1000372. DOI:10.4172/2157-7145.1000372.
[18] Kratenko, M. V. 2014. On the issue of reform of legislation on consumer protection. Judge, 1: 18-23.
[19] Kulakov, V. V. 2016. The provision of Article 333 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation as a means of achieving a reasonable balance of interests of parties of the obligation. The laws of Russia: experience, analysis, practice, 7: 17-22.
[20] Kuznetsova O.A. 2013. Scientific problem and the names of civil research. Bulletin of Perm University. Juridical sciences, 4: 316, 317.
[21] Langenbucher, K. 1998. Argument by Analogy in European Law. Cambridge Law Journal, 57(3): 483.
[22] Laptev V.A. 2015. Court decisions as part of judicial practice: application of law and the principle of justice. Arbitration and civil procedure, 10: 28-33.
[23] Lysova, J. V. 2015. Elimination of a fundamental judicial error as the right of the court to go beyond the limits of claims. Law and Economics, 6: 72-79.
[24] Maris, C. W. 1991. Milking the Meter. In: Legal Knowledge and Analogy. Edited by P.J. Nerhot. Kluwer academic publishers, Dordrecht, Netherlands. 73, 74.
[25] Marsh, P.D.V. 1996. Comparative Contract Law. England, France, Germany. 331.
[26] Matantsev, D.A. 2011. Abuse of law in civil obligations. Bulletin of notarial practice, 4: 4-5.
[27] Mattei, U. 1995. The Comparative Law and Economics of Penalty Clauses in Contracts. The American Journal of Comparative Law. 43. Available at: http://works.bepress.com/ugo_mattei/16
[28] Mikryukov, V. A. 2016. The essence and significance of analogy in legal regulation of economic activity. Legal Science, 5: 15-24.
[29] Miller L. 2004. Penalty Clauses in England and France: A Comparative Study. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 53(1): 79 – 106. DOI:10.1093/iclq/53.1.79
[30] Novikova, A. A. 2011. A non-pecuniary penalty: theoretical and practical problems of application. Laws of Russia: experience, analysis, practice, 2: 69-73.
[31] Petrov, I. V. 2016. Tendencies of the development of a corporate contract in the civil law of the Russian Federation. The legal world, 12: 50-53.
[32] Poldnikov, D.Yu. 2006. Deposit in private law (history and modernity). Notary, 3: 30-37.
[33] Povarov, Y. S. 2011. Consequences of a breach of a joint-stock agreement. Laws of Russia: experience, analysis, practice, 5: 51-58.
[34] Principles of European Contract Law. Part I and II. Prepared by the Commission on European Contract Law. Edited by O. Lando and H. Beale. Kluwer Law Int., The Hague, 2000. Р. 456, Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/ulr/5.3.624.
[35] Sadikov, O. N. 2011. Civil law categories in public law. Journal of Russian Law, 9: 19-28.
[36] Sinitsyn, S. A. 2005. The right of the court to reduce a penalty: a legal nature, conditions and the scope of practical application in modern conditions Lawyer, 4: 18-29.
[37] Slesarev, V. L., and Kravets, V. D. 2017. Principle of proportionality and application of Article 333 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. Lex Russica, 5 (126): 119, 120.
[38] Sofonov, I. Yu. 2014. Reduction of penalty by the court: ways of opposing judicial discretion. Law and Economics, 12: 59-66.
[39] Vitkus, S. 2013. Penalty clauses within different legal systems. Social Transformations in Contemporary Society, (1): 157. Available at: http://stics.mruni.eu/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/153-162.pdf
[40] Zimmermann, R. 1996. The Law of Obligations: Roman Foundations of the Civilian Tradition. 106, 107.
Published
2018-02-05
How to Cite
MIKRYUKOV, Viktor A.. Limits of Analogy in the Mechanism of Judicial Reduction of Property Sanctions. Journal of Advanced Research in Law and Economics, [S.l.], v. 8, n. 5, p. 1563-1575, feb. 2018. ISSN 2068-696X. Available at: <https://journals.aserspublishing.eu/jarle/article/view/1715>. Date accessed: 22 may 2024.