Comparison of institutions of obligation due to harm and unjustified enrichment in modern Russian civil law

Relevance. The study is devoted to comparing the institution of obligation due to harm (Chapter 59 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation) and unjustified enrichment (Chapter 60 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation) in modern Russian civil law from theoretical and practical positions using the only criterion of differentiation – the consequences of committed actions (inaction. The article focuses on the problem of choosing a particular claim and notes the ambiguity of judicial practice on this issue.

The purpose of the article is to compare the institutions of obligation due to harm and unjustified enrichment (Chapters 59 and 60 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation), to determine possible improvements in legislation).

Objectives: to determine the essence of tort and unjustified enrichment; to analyze various points of view on the relationship between tort and unjustified enrichment and the institution of obligations due to harm and unjustified enrichment; to identify and consider the problem of competition of claims; to propose a possible differentiation of institutions of obligation due to harm and unjustified enrichment.

Methodology. In the preparation of the work, dialectical, formal-legal, comparative-legal methods of scientific cognition were used along with methods of description, analysis, and scientific abstraction.

Results. As a result of the conducted research, it was recognized that the institutions defined in Chapters 59, 60 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation have difficulties in their differentiation, which creates the problem of competition of claims. The main criterion for their differentiation should be considered the consequences associated with the actions of a delinquent or unreasonably enriched person.

Conclusions. It is concluded that the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in a special Resolution clarifies the provisions of the norms of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation on the distinctive features of unjustified enrichment and obligations arising from harm).

1. Vagner A.A. The problem of the relationship of obligations from unjustified enrichment and other types of obligations. Sotsial'noe upravlenie = Social management. 2024;6(S1):62‒67. (In Russ.)

2. Pusurmanov G.V. On the composition of a civil tort. Zhurnal pravovykh i ekonomicheskikh issledovanii = Journal of Legal and Economic Research. 2024;(1):69‒78. (In Russ.)

3. Novak D.V. Unjustified enrichment in civil law. Moscow: Statut; 2010. 414 p. (In Russ.)

4. Voitenko O.N. Features of the legal content of obligations from unjustified enrichment. VIII Baltiiskii yuridicheskii forum “Zakon i pravoporyadok v tret'em tysyacheletii”: materialy Mezhdunarodnoi nauchno-prakticheskoi konferentsii = VIII Baltic Legal Forum "Law and Order in the third Millennium": materials of the International Scientific and Practical Conference. Kaliningrad: Kaliningr. filial S.-Peterb. un-ta MVD Rossii; 2020. P. 23‒25. (In Russ.)

5. Kushkhov R.A. The problem of the correlation of the conditional and tort requirements for the protection of civil rights. Pravo i politika = Law and Politics. 2006;(7):15‒20. (In Russ.)

6. Shestakova L.S. The main conditions and stages of the emergence of conditional obligations in Russian civil legislation. Yuridicheskii vestnik Dagestanskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta = Legal Bulletin of Dagestan State University. 2020;(2):100‒105. (In Russ.)

7. Fleishits E.A. Obligations arising from harm and unjustified enrichment. Moscow: Gos. izd-vo yurid. lit.; 1951. 239 p. (In Russ.)

8. Telyukina M.V. Conditional obligations (theory and practice of unjustified enrichment). Zakonodatel'stvo = Legislation. 2002;(3):8‒16. (In Russ.)

9. Em V.S. Obligations due to unjustified enrichment. Zakonodatel'stvo = Legislation. 1999;(7):22‒23. (In Russ.)

10. Vorozhevich A. Trademark infringement: tort or unjustified enrichment. Intellektual'- naya sobstvennost'. Promyshlennaya sobstvennost' = Intellectual property. Industrial property. 2018;(10):9‒16. (In Russ.)

11. Ryasentsev V.A. Obligations arising from the unjustified acquisition or unjustified saving of property. In: Ryasentsev V.A. (ed.) Soviet civil law. Moscow: Izd-vo VYZI; 1973. P. 159. (In Russ.)

12. Skvortsova T.A., Akaemova Yu.P. Obligations from unjustified enrichment in the system of civil obligations. Aktual'nye nauchnye issledovaniya v sovremennom mire = Actual scientific research in the modern world. 2020;(2-3):110‒113. (In Russ.)

13. Sarov S.S. The concept and legal essence of unjustified enrichment. In: Aktual'nye problemy grazhdanskogo i predprinimatel'skogo prava: istoriya i sovremennost': sbornik nauchnoprakticheskikh statei III Mezhdunarodnoi nauchno-prakticheskoi konferentsii (simpoziuma) molodykh uchenykh = Actual problems of civil and business law: history and modernity : collection of scientific and practical articles of the III International Scientific and Practical Conference (symposium) of young scientists. Krasnodar: Nauch.-issled. in-t aktual'nykh problem sovremennogo prava; 2018. P. 246‒250. (In Russ.)

14. Tolstoi Y.K. The problem of the correlation of requirements for the protection of civil rights. Izvestiya vysshikh uchebnykh zavedenii. Pravovedenie = Izvestia of higher educational institutions. Legal studies. 1999;(2):138–148. (In Russ.)

15. Koziol H. Basic questions of tort law from a germanic perspective. Wien: Jan Szamek Verlag; 2012. P. 39‒40. (In Russ.)

16. Karkhalev D.N. Conditional protective legal relationship: problems of theory and legislative support. Rossiiskii sud'ya = Russian judge. 2009;(12):21‒24. (In Russ.)

17. Dem'yanenko E.V., Shpak A.V. Certain issues of obligations due to unjustified enrichment. Yurist"-Pravoved" = Lawyer-Jurist. 2020;(2):28‒31. (In Russ.)

18. Muraev N.V. The subsidiarity of a claim for unjustified enrichment. Vestnik grazhdanskogo prava = Bulletin of Civil Law. 2024;24(1):90‒129. (In Russ.)