Voronko O. Application of astrent under the legislation of certain countries of the European Union and Russia

DOI: 10.33098/2078-6670.2019.8.20.127-134

Purpose. The purpose of the article is to study the content and comparative analysis of the mechanisms for the use of asthma in France, the Benelux countries, Germany, Italy, Portugal, Russia, as well as its regulation by EU legislation. Method. The methodology involves a comprehensive analysis and generalization of available scientific and theoretical material and the formulation of relevant conclusions and recommendations. The study used the principles of objectivity and integrity, as well as general scientific, special legal and philosophical methods of scientific knowledge: induction, deduction, analysis, synthesis. Comparative, functional and legal. Results: The study found that an asthma was a means of influencing a debtor to fulfill his obligations voluntarily. This remedy is based on the idea that the prospect of paying a higher sum than that arising from the obligation should force the debtor to execute the decision without delay. Over time, the use of astringent has proven to be particularly effective in enforcing binding decisions and in taking action to secure a claim or evidence. An asterant is an indirect way of enforcing a judgment and acts as an influence or pressure on the obliged party to enforce the court decision. In this case, the payment of the asthma does not release the debtor from the obligation, which is confirmed by the executive document. Scientific novelty. Analyzing the international experience, it is argued that it is advisable to use the astringent procedure in the Ukrainian civil law. Practical significance. The results of the study can be used in law-enforcement and law-enforcement activities in the investigation of crimes related to financial misconduct.

Key words: asthma, court decision, performance of obligations, debtor, debt, debt recovery.

References

1. Ketts, Kh., Tsvaigert, K. (1998). Vvedenie v sravnitel’noe pravovedenie v sfere chastnogo prava: Dogovor. Neosnovatel’noe obogashchenie. Delikt [Introduction to Comparative Law in Private Law: The Treaty. Unjust enrichment. Tort].(VoL. 2.). M.: Mezhdunar. otnosheniya. (in Russian).

2. Godeme, E. (1948). Obshchaya teoriya obyazatel’stv [General Theory of Obligations]. M.: Yurid. izd-vo MYu SSSR. (in Russian).

3. Code des procédures civiles d’exécution. Retrived from:  https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCode.do?cidTexte=LEGITEXT000025024948.

4. Isnard J. et Normand J. (dir.). (2002). Nouveaux droits dans un nouvel espace europeen de justice: Le droit processuel et le droit de l’execution. EJT.

5. Mauro C. Di et C. Coslin. (2012). Le nouveau régime de l’astreinte en droit italien : différences et similitudes avec le régime français. Procédures.

6. Grosheva, V. (2017). Obzor razvitiya pravovogo regulirovaniya v evropeiskom i nemetskom prave v sfere rynka kapitalov [Overview of the development of legal regulation in European and German law in the field of capital market]. Sbornik statei o prave Germanii, 2, 294-313. Retrived from: https://www.drjv.org/index.php/archiv/events/sbornik-statej-o-prave-germanii-vypusk-2.html.

7. Davydov, D. (2017). Pravovye osnovy okhrany kul’turnogo naslediya v Germanii [Legal basis for the protection of cultural heritage in Germany]. Sbornik statei o prave Germanii, 2, 34-46. Retrived from: https://www.drjv.org/index.php/archiv/events/sbornik-statej-o-prave-germanii-vypusk-2.html.

8. Erokhova, M.A. (2014). Kommentarii k Postanovleniyu Plenuma VAS RF ot 04.04.2014 № 22 «O nekotorykh voprosakh prisuzhdeniya vzyskatelyu denezhnykh sredstv za neispolnenie sudebnogo akta» [Commentary on the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation of 04.04.2014 No. 22 «On Certain Issues of Awarding the Recoverer Money for Non-Execution of a Judicial Act»]. Vestnik VAS RF, 6, 32-53. (in Russian)

9. Grazhdanskii kodeks RF [Civil Code of the Russian Federation]. Retrived from: https://www.zakonrf.info/gk/308.3/. (in Russian)

10. Printsipy mezhdunarodnykh kommercheskikh dogovorov (Printsipy UNIDRUA) (1994) [Principles of International Commercial Contracts (UNIDROIT Principles) (1994)]. SPS Konsul’tantPlyus [SPS ConsultantPlus]. Retrived from: http://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_14121/. (in Russian)

11. Belov, V.A. (2015). Kodeks evropeiskogo dogovornogo prava – European Contract Code: obshchii i sravnitel’no-pravovoi kommentarii [European Contract Code: general and comparative legal commentary]. (Vol. 1). M.: Yurait.  (in Russian)

12. Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters. Retrived from: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2012/1215/oj.

13. Reglament № 44/2001 Soveta ES o yurisdiktsii, priznanii i ispolnenii sudebnykh reshenii po grazhdanskim i kommercheskim delam [EU Council Regulation No. 44/2001 on jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters]. (Brussels, 2000, December 22). Retrived from: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/994_a84. (in Russian)