Issue 2 (16) 2012

Gladkovskaya EXERCISING OF FAMILY RIGHTS: ISSUES OF LAW ENFORCEMENT

EXERCISING OF FAMILY RIGHTS: ISSUES OF LAW ENFORCEMENT

E.I. Gladkovskaya

Kuban State University
149, Stavropol'skaja st., Krasnodar, 350040
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Isolated existence of Civil and Family Codes presumes differentiation of the spheres of their respective applications. Courts experience difficulties in application of specialized laws to relations of married couples vested with civil and family legal rights and, at the same time, their legal status is determined differently in Civil and Family Codes. Existence of personal non-property and property relations between family members serves as a criterion for application of Family Code; thus, the husband is attributed to family members in accordance with legislation. As noted by Constitutional Court, diverse conditions for individual categories of subjects of the law should be fairly stipulated by features of their legal status. A specific character of the status of the husband, inter alia, becomes apparent in settlement of dispositive transactions specified in the paragraph 5, article 35 of Family Code, concluded by spouses with respect to their matrimonial property and invalidation of such transactions. Property of the married couple provides family needs, and for this reason matrimonial property is a type of legal and familial joint property. That is the reason, why the rules of paragraph 3, article 35 of Family Code show preference for the interests of the spouse having the property in possession, who not concluded the bargain as compared with the interests of the other party of such bargain, and, if common property of the married couple was alienated to bona fide purchaser for value, as distinguished from rules on possession, use and disposition of joint property for subjects of civil legal relations. Herewith, civil legislation concedes (item 4, article 253 of Civil Code) eventuality of other ascertainments not only in Civil Code, but also in other laws for individual types of common property, to which common matrimonial property of the married couples should be assigned. Thus, rules of the paragraph 3, article 35 of Family Code reckon on violation of rights of one of spouses, as of a legal subject of family relations as regulated by norms of family legislation. Accordingly, we have no grounds for appendant application of civil legislation.

 Keywords: joint ownership of spouses; family legislation; civil legislation; delimitation of the fields of application; branch legislation; status of a spouse; bona fide purchaser for value; subsidiary application

Bibliograficheskij spisok

1. Zhujkov V.M. Grazhdanskij kodeks Rossii v praktike sudov obwej jurisdikcii // Vestn. grazhd. prava. 2007. №3. Dostup iz sprav.-pravovoj sistemy «Konsul'tant Pljus».

2. Kodeks o brake i sem'e RSFSR. Stat'i 11, 12, 24, 46, 121, 132 // Semejnyj kodeks Ros. Federacii. Kodeks o brake i sem'e RSFSR: ofic. teksty po sostojaniju na 01.10.1997 g. M., 1997. S. 106, 110, 119, 153, 159.

3. Miheeva L.Ju. Desjatiletnij jubilej SK RF: itogi i perspektivy razvitija semejnogo zakonodatel'stva // Semejnoe i zhiliwnoe pravo. 2007. №1. Dostup iz sprav.-pravovoj sistemy «Konsul'tant Pljus».

4. Ob otkaze v prinjatii k rassmotreniju zhalob grazhdan Kozlovoj Mariny Nikolaevny i Kozlova Sergeja Sergeevicha na narushenie ih konstitucionnyh prav punktom 1 stat'i 46 Semejnogo kodeksa Rossijskoj Federacii: opredelenie Konstituc. suda RF ot 13.05.2010 g. №839-O-O. Dokument opublikovan ne byl. Dostup iz sprav.-pravovoj sistemy «Konsul'tant Pljus».

5. Ob otkaze v prinjatii k rassmotreniju zhaloby grazhdanki Mednikovoj Oksany Feoktistovny na narushenie ee konstitucionnyh prav punktom 3 stat'i 35, punktom 1 stat'i 41 Semejnogo kodeksa Rossijskoj Federacii i stat'ej 168 Grazhdanskogo kodeksa Rossijskoj Federacii: opredelenie Konstituc. suda RF ot 23.06.2009 №644-O-O. Dokument opublikovan ne byl. Dostup iz sprav.-pravovoj sistemy «Konsul'tantPljus».

6. Ob otkaze v prinjatii k rassmotreniju zhaloby grazhdan Konoplevoj Iriny Anatol'evny i Shirokovoj Ljudmily Vladimirovny na narushenie ih konstitucionnyh prav punktom 3 stat'i 35 Semejnogo kodeksa Rossijskoj Federacii: opredelenie Konstitucionnogo suda RF ot 24.01.2008 g. №29-O-O. Dokument opublikovan ne byl. Dostup iz sprav.-pravovoj sistemy «Konsul'tantPljus».

7. Ob otkaze v prinjatii k rassmotreniju zhaloby grazhdan Pleshanova Germana Germanovicha i Pleshanovoj Maji Semenovny na narushenie ih konstitucionnyh prav stat'ej 253 Grazhdanskogo kodeksa Rossijskoj Federacii i stat'ej 35 Semejnogo kodeksa Rossijskoj Federacii: opredelenie Konstituc. suda RF ot 21.10.2008 №623-O-O. Dokument opublikovan ne byl. Dostup iz sprav.-pravovoj sistemy «Konsul'tant Pljus».

8. Opredelenie Verhovnogo Suda RF ot 18.08.2010 g. №45-V10-15. Dokument opublikovan ne byl. Dostup iz sprav.-pravovoj sistemy «Konsul'tantPljus».

9. Opredelenie Verhovnogo Suda RF ot 20.04.2004 g. №5-V04-5. Dokument opublikovan ne byl. Dostup iz sprav.-pravovoj sistemy «Konsul'tantPljus».

10. Opredelenie Vysshego Arbitrazhnogo suda RF ot 15.06.2009 g. №VAS-7070/09 po delu №A14-14347-20070348/1. Dokument opublikovan ne byl. Dostup iz sprav.-pravovoj sistemy «Konsul'tantPljus».

11. Opredelenie Vysshego Arbitrazhnogo suda RF ot 04.08.2008 g. №9739/08 po delu №A53-7093/2007-S1. Dokument opublikovan ne byl. Dostup iz sprav.-pravovoj sistemy «Konsul'tantPljus».