Eng Cn Translate this page:
Please select your language to translate the article


You can just close the window to don't translate
Library
Your profile

Back to contents

Legal Studies
Reference:

Modern Problems of Void Transactions in the Civil Law of the Russian Federation

Kuznetsova Almira Raisovna

Lawyer, St. Petersburg Bar Association "Triumph"

191186, Russia, Saint Petersburg, Malaya Morskaya str., 11 premises. 188-1, of. 331

advokat.kuznetsowa@gmail.com
Other publications by this author
 

 

DOI:

10.25136/2409-7136.2024.2.39743

EDN:

JHJLNI

Received:

06-02-2023


Published:

05-02-2024


Abstract: The article examines the legal, organizational foundations and a number of topical problems of insignificant transactions in Russian legislation with an indication of the origins of these norms in ancient Roman jurisprudence. The subject of the study is the problems caused by the recognition of transactions as insignificant in modern Russia. The object of the study is the legal provisions of civil law that carry out the legal regulation of void transactions. The purpose of the work is to form proposals that contribute to their leveling by identifying and analyzing the actual problems of the insignificance of transactions. The methods used are dialectical-materialistic, historical, a system of empirical research methods (analogy, modeling) and special methods (formal-logical, system-analytical), etc. The author examines in detail the signs of void transactions, the problems of recognizing the nullity of the transaction; the subject of which is property, with respect to the disposal of which there is an imperative prohibition, restriction. Particular attention is paid to the problems of the insignificance of the part of the transaction. The main conclusions of this study are the following: it is justified to bring into compliance with Article 12 of the Civil Code and the legal position of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation (Resolution of the Plenum of June 23, 2015 No. 25) with respect to the method of protecting civil rights ("application of the consequences of the invalidity of an insignificant transaction"); to formulate Article 169 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation in a new edition reflecting the concept of "public interest". A special contribution of the author to the study of the topic is the proposal to specify Article 180 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation in terms of indicating exceptions to the general rule of invalidation of part of the transaction. The results of the article can be used in improving civil legislation, in law enforcement, in further scientific research. Conclusions: despite the improvement of the norms of civil law, the massive nature of the recognition of transactions as void indicates significant problems, as insignificant transactions in general, as well as parts of these transactions (in practical and scientific-theoretical contexts), requiring optimal solutions.


Keywords:

civil law, public interest, transaction, part of a transaction, invalid transaction, part of an invalid transaction, classification of invalid transactions, void transaction, nullity of a part of a transaction, prohibition

This article is automatically translated. You can find original text of the article here.

Relevance. At the present stage, the problems of void transactions are one of the most relevant in Russian civil law, both in a scientific and theoretical context and in terms of practical application.

Special attention to the institution of void transactions and to current problems in this legal field is confirmed at all stages of the genesis of the institution of civil law transactions, starting from the historical period of ancient Roman jurisprudence. Despite the fact that during the designated period there were no definitions of the legal categories "transaction", "invalid transaction", and the normative classification of invalid transactions into void and disputed, the main part of the legal structures, in essence corresponding to an insignificant transaction in the modern sense, was realized as committed against the norms of current law ("in circumvention of the law"). Initially, in the law of Ancient Rome, transactions that did not receive external expression were recognized as non-existent (vicious) [1]. and later - transactions with serious flaws in the content that do not correlate with the rule of law [2, p.71] and indicate both the lack of correlation of the content of the transaction with legal regulations, the true will of the parties, and the expected legal consequences [3, p.291].

Thus, the ancient Roman politician of the period of the late Roman Republic, K. Pedius (before 110 after 90 BC) argued: not any transaction can be recognized as such (with the threat of non-recognition of the existence of the transaction as a whole), but only one in which all claims are respected, including with regard to the expression of the true will of all its subjects, formed when at the same time, without any external, extraneous influence (D.2.14.1.3). Upon stating the fact of invalidity, the entire system of negative consequences was canceled, i.e. the legal mechanism of restitution was used. At the same time, the following legal facts also belonged to the grounds for the allocation of these transactions in the designated historical period of the development of the legal thought of Ancient Rome: the statement of the transaction, which, firstly, does not directly fall under the ban of the legislator, however, determines the achievement of a legal outcome, which is "opposed by the current law"; and, secondly, It was committed with the actual intention of the parties to a civil law transaction to achieve such a basic goal, which is in contradiction with the current law [4, p.444].

In the future, the progressive ideas of ancient Roman jurisprudence on insignificant (in essence) transactions, having been developed in connection with the special consequences and other problems of these transactions throughout the civilized world, influenced legal regulation and its improvement in relation to this type of invalid transactions in Russian law.

Despite the attention of the legislator to the problems of this type of invalid transactions, to the improvement of civil law norms in the designated legal sphere, it seems possible to recognize that the most common requirements to the court for the recognition of transactions as invalid include requirements specifically regarding nullity, while the results of consideration of such cases indicate a lack of uniformity. It seems that a significant part of the problems of insignificant transactions is caused not only by the imperfection of civil law standards, contradictions in the scientific community, but also by problems caused by the lack of correlation between the positions of the legislator and the highest judicial instances of Russia, which allows us to state the insufficiency of resolving contradictions in the field under study [5, p.62].

Discussion. In Russia, the Civil Code of the Russian Federation identifies void transactions simultaneously with the disputed ones (Article 166), while the named differentiation of invalid transactions, their essence, proposed by V. S. Em [6, p.147], in connection with problems of law enforcement, were subject to adjustments in accordance with Federal Law No. 100 adopted in 2013-Federal Law [7]. Prior to these legislative adjustments, despite the legal position of the higher courts [8], law enforcement problems arose due to the lack of an actual possibility of filing claims to the court for recognition of the invalidity of the transaction, which was negligible, which was subjected to fair criticism in the scientific community.

In addition, by virtue of these amendments, the problem of ways to protect the relevant civil rights was solved by supplementing Article 12 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation ("application of the consequences of invalidity of an insignificant transaction").

Meanwhile, according to the opinion of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, reflected in 2015 in paragraph 78 of Resolution No. 25 [9], this method of protecting rights in the field of civil law should be applied in a situation where there is no other way to ensure the protection of relevant civil rights at the legislative level. Without detracting from the importance of the legal positions of this highest court and taking into account their increasing role for law-making in the Russian Federation, which has been repeatedly emphasized [10-13], it should be noted: The Russian legal system traditionally refers to the continental legal system (family), in which judicial precedent is not recognized as a source of Russian law. In this regard, it should be recognized: the clear position of the legislator, reflected in Article 12 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation regarding such a method of protecting civil rights as "the application of the consequences of the invalidity of an insignificant transaction", contradicts the legal position of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on the conditions of its practical application. It seems that, in order to eliminate additional problems in the field of nullity of the transaction, this conflict should be eliminated.

The problem of recognizing the nullity of a transaction, the subject of which is property, with respect to the disposal of which an imperative prohibition or restriction applies (Article 174.1 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation), is also of scientific interest. Thus, in accordance with paragraph 2 of this civil law norm, a transaction made in violation of the relevant prohibition (restriction), which is established by the court or at the regulatory level in favor of both the creditor and another authorized person, does not interfere with the exercise of the civil rights of these entities, except in situations in which the acquirer of these material goods I did not have information about such a ban (restriction) and could not have such information, in principle.

The solution to this problem was not initially reflected in the Concept of the development of civil law norms [14], the analysis of the provisions of which allows us to note that there is an initial position that a transaction made in violation of any prohibition (restriction) on the disposal of property established by the court, as in other legal order, is void. It is seen that the exclusion from the first edition of the Concept of the stated provision is not fair: the current norms provide for provisions regarding unjustified priority on the part of the creditor (other authorized person), which in the process of concluding the transaction did not reflect concerns about ensuring the fulfillment of obligations, which in the future may contribute to the acquisition of the status of the pledgee by sending a petition to the court on the need to ensure the requirements for to the counterparty. Such a possibility is regulated by the novella on collateral ( 3 of Chapter 23 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation), as well as on the transfer of the creditor's powers to another person, on the transfer of debt (Chapter 24 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation).

As a result, in order to level the problems of insignificant transactions by improving the Concept, the formation of existing norms and relevant judicial practice has occurred, contributing to the understanding of the following: the measures taken to ensure civil obligations (including the seizure of the debtor's property), in the presence of certain conditions, do not cause the necessary legal result, for example, with respect to the realization of the right to commit purchase and sale transactions by the debtor, when the buyer is a bona fide acquirer of property that is subject to seizure. In addition, the system of grounds indicating the termination of the legal relationship of the pledge (Part 2, paragraph 1, Article 352 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation) indicates the acquisition of pledged property on a reimbursable basis by a person who does not have information about the true nature of material goods.

The insignificance of a part of the civil law transaction is also of interest. Since the domestic legislator carries out the legal regulation of the invalidity of a part of a civil transaction under Article 180 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation in an extremely brief manner, problems arise with regard to the statement of a part of the transaction either as void or as disputed.

It should be noted that the invalidity of a transaction, as a result of the recognition of certain of its defects (in terms of content, form, subject composition, rules of reflection of the will), can have a direct impact on both the whole transaction and exclusively on its part (i.e. reflected both universally and specifically) [15, p. 41]. At the same time, as follows from the literal interpretation of Article 180 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, in such cases, the insignificance of the transaction in the part characterized by the corresponding "flaws" does not extend to other terms of the transaction (valid), i.e. the transaction in the rest is recognized as valid. However, as evidenced by law enforcement practice, the courts come to an unequivocal opinion: this fact does not create obstacles for the court to resolve the nullity of the transaction, in general [16].

Summarizing the position of the legislator, representatives of the scientific community, and the practice of law enforcement, we note: the legal facts, according to which, as an exception to the general rule of invalidation (void) part of the transaction (Article 180 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation), the transaction should be declared void, in general, it is advisable to include the facts caused by: 1) the lack of the necessary level of civil legal personality for the subject of the transaction; 2) recognition as an insignificant part of the transaction, which is an essential condition; 3) statement as an insignificant part of the transaction, contrary to the fundamental principles in the field of law and order, as well as morality. The above rules are also applicable to transactions that 4) violate public interests, as well as 5) circumvent the law, 6) under the influence of deception, as well as threats, violent actions, adverse factual circumstances.

Characterizing some of these transactions, it seems necessary to emphasize: certain problems arise in law enforcement with respect to the invalidity (nullity) of a part of a transaction committed under the external influence of deception and violent acts, threats, and circumstances unfavorable to a person (Article 179 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). As determined by the legislator, this transaction is recognized as invalid (void) on the above grounds, taking into account the legal consequences of invalidity provided for in Article 167 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation expressed the following legal position: such transactions are invalid, since they were committed with a defect of will [17].

In this regard, when identifying the condition of unfavorable circumstances for the party to the transaction that fall under the qualification under Article 179 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the transaction should be recognized as void, in general, when considering such civil cases, it is necessary to take into account: due to the fact that the volitional nature of civil transactions is determined by both subjective and objective correlating factors When analyzing a transaction, it is advisable to attribute the will of an individual to subjective facts, and his will to objective ones. When making a transaction at the risk of its invalidity (nullity), the expression of will and will must correspond, correctly reflecting the internal intention. Meanwhile, until the absence of such a correspondence is revealed, it is necessary to take into account the presumption of such a correlation [18], which, like any presumption, is a common obligation for subjects of civil law [19, p.64].

At the present stage, issues mediated by the invalidation of the part of the transaction provided for in Article 168 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation (committed with a purpose that contradicts the current law and order, generally recognized moral values) remain problematic in judicial practice. Russian courts, ambiguously approaching the formation of decisions in such civil proceedings, as a general rule, recognize the need to pass a resolution on the nullity of such a transaction as a whole. At the same time, in order to establish the transaction as void, it is advisable for the courts to find out whether there is an illegal influence on public interest.

However, as practice shows, when considering such disputes in court, problems arise due to the absence of the concept of "public interest" at the legislative level, and, as a result, the complexity of qualifying such transactions. In the Recommendations of the council established under the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Ural District, it is noted: "... as public interests, courts need to understand the public interest in the legal plane related to stability, certainty, guarantee of protection of the interests of economically weaker entities in their relations with strong counterparties, the inadmissibility of violating prohibitions and circumvention of the law" [20].

It seems that the court's position regarding the nullity of transactions that violate the interests of a public nature should be aimed at clarifying both the nature and legal nature (essence) and the legal consequences of such transactions. Thus, when satisfying claims for recognition of such a transaction as void, the purpose of such recognition should be: 1) termination of a continuing offense that encroaches on certain public interests, 3) elimination of the legal consequences of the nullity of the transaction, which contradict the relevant regulations.

Taking into account the above, in connection with the gaps in the current legislation regarding the absence of the concept of "public interest" in relation to Article 169 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, in order to level the problems of the insignificance of transactions, the following wording of this norm is proposed: "1. A transaction made for a purpose deliberately contrary to the foundations of law and order or morality, violating the public interests of society (stability, guarantee of protection of rights and legitimate interests, inadmissibility of violation of prohibitions, restrictions, actions circumventing the law) is negligible and entails the consequences provided for in Article 167 of this Code. The court, in the cases specified in the law, has the right to collect into the income of the Russian Federation received under such a transaction by persons who acted intentionally, to apply other legal consequences provided for by law."

The analysis also indicates the need to specify in Article 180 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation the legal category "part of the transaction" and the legal consequences of recognizing a part of the transaction as void, by forming the following wording: "The invalidity of a part of the transaction does not entail the invalidity of its other parts, if it can be assumed that the transaction would have been completed without including the invalid part of it, in addition to cases of recognition as void terms of the transaction: the absence of the party to the transaction of the necessary level of legal capacity and legal capacity to complete the transaction; being an essential condition; indicating a goal contrary to the foundations of law and order or morality. These transactions are generally considered void. These rules are subject to application to transactions that violate public interests; committed in circumvention of the law; under the influence of deception, violence, threat or adverse circumstances.".

Conclusion. Despite the improvement of the current civil law regulations, the massive nature of the recognition of transactions as void indicates significant problems, as void transactions in general, as well as parts of these transactions (in practical and scientific-theoretical contexts). The above, as well as the lack of uniformity in the decisions taken in similar cases, are stated by the results of the consideration of such cases in Russian courts. It seems that a significant part of the identified and other urgent problems are caused by both imperfection of the norms of current legislation, contradictions in science, and difficulties caused by the lack of compliance in some cases with the positions of the legislator and the highest judicial instances of Russia.

Results. In order to improve legislation and law enforcement practice in relation to void transactions (parts of void transactions), eliminate certain existing problems, it is justified:

1) to bring into line Article 12 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and the position of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation (Plenum No. 25 of 2015) in relation to such a method of protecting civil rights as "the application of the consequences of the invalidity of an insignificant transaction";

2) formulate Article 169 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation in a new version, which reflects the concept of "public interest";

3) specify Article 180 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation in terms of indicating the exclusion from the general rule of invalidation of the part of the transaction ("does not entail the invalidity of its other parts, if it can be assumed that the transaction would have been completed without including the invalid part of it");

4) specify in Article 180 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation a list of legal facts exceptions to the general rule of invalidation of a part of a transaction, according to which (exceptions) the transaction is recognized as void, as a whole.

References
1. Egurnov, A. I. (2020). Insignificant and disputed transactions. Young scientist, 35(325), 113-115. Retrieved from https://moluch.ru/archive/325/73357
2. Gaboev, B.H. (2010). Problems of classification of invalidity of a transaction and differentiation of invalid transactions into void and disputed. Business in law, 3, 71-73.
3. Khvostov, V. M. (2019). System of Roman Law. Moscow: Yurayt Publishing House.
4. Chistyakov, O. I., & Martysovich, I. D. (2012). History of state and law. Moscow: MSU. Retrieved from https://topuch.com/moskovskij
5. Anokhin, S.A. (2021). Insignificant transactions and their features. Bulletin of Economic Security, 4, 60-62.
6. Em, V. S. (2014). Consequences of invalidity of transactions. Bulletin of Civil Law, 6, 147-148.
7. Federal Law No. 100-FZ of May 7, 2013 "On Amendments to Subsections 4 and 5 of Section I of Part One and Article 1153 of Part Three of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation". Rossiyskaya Gazeta. 2013. May 13.
8. Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 6, Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 8 dated 01.07.1996 (Ed. dated 25.12.2018) "On some issues related to the application of Part One of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation". Retrieved from https://sudact.ru/law/postanovlenie-plenuma
9. Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of June 23, 2015 No. 25 "On the application by courts of certain provisions of Section I of Part One of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation". Rossiyskaya Gazeta. 2015. June 30.
10. Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 12 dated June 30, 2020 "On the application of the Arbitration Procedural Code of the Russian Federation when considering cases in the Arbitration Court of Appeal". Rossiyskaya Gazeta. 2020. July 17.
11. Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 13 dated June 30, 2020 "On the Application of the Arbitration Procedural Code of the Russian Federation when considering cases in the Cassation Arbitration Court". Rossiyskaya Gazeta. 2020. July 17.
12. Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 16 of June 22, 2021, Moscow "On the application by courts of the norms of civil procedural legislation regulating proceedings in the court of Appeal". Rossiyskaya Gazeta. 2021. July 2.
13. Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 17 dated June 22, 2021 "On the application by courts of the norms of civil procedural legislation regulating proceedings in the court of cassation instance". Rossiyskaya Gazeta. 2021. July 2.
14. The concept of the development of civil legislation of the Russian Federation (Concept), prepared on the basis of the Decree of the President of the Russian Federation dated July 18, 2008 No. 1108 "On improving the Civil Code of the Russian Federation". Rossiyskaya Gazeta. 2008. July 23.
15. Smooth, V.V. (2021). On the invalidity of part of the transaction. Siberian Legal Bulletin, 1(92), 38-44.
16. Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the Volga-Vyatka District of April 29, 2018 in case No. A29-7722/2018. Retrieved from http://base.consultant.ru/cons/cgi/online.cgi?req=doc
17. The third Review of judicial practice of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation for 2017, approved by the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on August 22, 2017. (2018). Bulletin of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, 11, 27.
18. Decision of the Krasnoturyinsky City Court of the Sverdlovsk region of July 7, 2016. Retrieved from http://base.consultant.ru/cons/cgi/online.cgi?req=doc
19. Popov, V.S. (2016). On the presumption of the validity of transactions. Bulletin of the Tambov University, 4(8), 61-69.
20. Recommendations of the Scientific Advisory Council at the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Ural District No. 1/2014. Retrieved from http://base.consultant.ru/cons/cgi/online.cgi?req=doc

Peer Review

Peer reviewers' evaluations remain confidential and are not disclosed to the public. Only external reviews, authorized for publication by the article's author(s), are made public. Typically, these final reviews are conducted after the manuscript's revision. Adhering to our double-blind review policy, the reviewer's identity is kept confidential.
The list of publisher reviewers can be found here.

A REVIEW of an article on the topic "Modern problems of void transactions in the civil law of the Russian Federation". The subject of the study. The article proposed for review is devoted to topical issues of regulating the relationship regarding the recognition of transactions as void under the legislation of the Russian Federation. The author examines some of the problems that arise in practice related to understanding the category of "insignificant" transaction. The subject of the study was the norms of legislation, the opinions of scientists, and judicial practice. Research methodology. The purpose of the study is not stated directly in the article. At the same time, it can be clearly understood from the title and content of the work. The purpose can be designated as the consideration and resolution of certain problematic aspects of the issue of void transactions in the civil law of the Russian Federation. Based on the set goals and objectives, the author has chosen the methodological basis of the study. In particular, the author uses a set of general scientific methods of cognition: analysis, synthesis, analogy, deduction, induction, and others. In particular, the methods of analysis and synthesis made it possible to summarize and share the conclusions of various scientific approaches to the proposed topic, as well as draw specific conclusions from the materials of judicial practice. The most important role was played by special legal methods. In particular, the author actively applied the formal legal method, which made it possible to analyze and interpret the norms of current legislation (first of all, the norms of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). For example, the following conclusion of the author: "The problem of recognizing the nullity of a transaction, the subject of which is property, with respect to the disposal of which an imperative prohibition or restriction applies (Article 174.1 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation), is also of scientific interest. Thus, in accordance with paragraph 2 of this civil law norm, a transaction made in violation of the relevant prohibition (restriction), which is established by the court or at the regulatory level in favor of both the creditor and another authorized person, does not interfere with the exercise of the civil rights of these entities, except in situations in which the acquirer of these material goods I did not have information about such a ban (restriction) and could not have such information, in principle." The possibilities of an empirical research method related to the study of judicial practice materials should be positively assessed (the author draws conclusions based on a number of legal positions of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation). At the same time, it is worth noting that the author of the reviewed article often takes a critical approach to the positions of the court and tries to find ways to improve them. For example, the following conclusion can be noted: "the clear position of the legislator, reflected in Article 12 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation regarding such a method of protecting civil rights as "the application of the consequences of the invalidity of an insignificant transaction", contradicts the legal position of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on the conditions of its practical application. It seems that, in order to eliminate additional problems in the field of nullity of the transaction, this conflict should be eliminated." Thus, the methodology chosen by the author is fully adequate to the purpose of the study, allows you to study all aspects of the topic in its entirety. Relevance. The relevance of the stated issues is beyond doubt. There are both theoretical and practical aspects of the significance of the proposed topic. From the point of view of theory, the topic of insignificant transactions, despite the fact that it has often been the focus of various scientific discussions, is complex and ambiguous. The authors disagree about the concept and signs of void transactions, their implementation in legislation, the need to consider certain invalidity compositions as void / disputed transactions, etc. The author is right to highlight this aspect of relevance. On the practical side, it should be recognized that problems often arise in the implementation of the rules on void transactions in practice. The examples from judicial practice given by the author in the article clearly demonstrate this issue. Thus, scientific research in the proposed field should only be welcomed. Scientific novelty. The scientific novelty of the proposed article is beyond doubt. First, it is expressed in the author's specific conclusions. Among them, for example, is the following conclusion: "Despite the improvement of existing civil law standards, the massive nature of the recognition of transactions as null and void indicates significant problems as void transactions in general, as well as parts of these transactions (in practical and scientific-theoretical contexts). The above, as well as the lack of uniformity in the decisions taken in similar cases, are stated by the results of the consideration of such cases in Russian courts. It seems that a significant part of the identified and other urgent problems are caused by both imperfection of the norms of current legislation, contradictions in science, and difficulties caused by the lack of compliance in some cases with the positions of the legislator and the highest judicial instances of Russia." These and other theoretical conclusions can be used in further scientific research. Secondly, the author suggests ideas for improving the current legislation. In particular, it is proposed to "bring into line Article 12 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and the position of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation (Plenum No. 25 of 2015) regarding such a method of protecting civil rights as "the application of the consequences of the invalidity of an insignificant transaction"". The above conclusion may be relevant and useful for law-making activities. Thus, the materials of the article may be of particular interest to the scientific community in terms of contributing to the development of science. Style, structure, content. The subject of the article corresponds to the specialization of the journal "Legal Studies", as it is devoted to legal problems related to the practical application of the norms of civil legislation on invalid transactions. The content of the article fully corresponds to the title, since the author considered the stated problems and achieved the research goal. The quality of the presentation of the study and its results should be recognized as fully positive. The subject, objectives, methodology and main results of the study follow directly from the text of the article. The design of the work generally meets the requirements for this kind of work. No significant violations of these requirements were found. In a number of sentences, the article suggests a very complex style of presentation, which may raise questions in terms of compliance with the rules of the Russian language. For example, the following sentence could be reformulated: "In Russia, in the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, void transactions are highlighted simultaneously with the disputed ones (Article 166), while the named differentiation of invalid transactions, their essence, proposed by V. S. Em [6, p.147], in connection with problems of law enforcement, were adjusted in accordance with with Federal Law No. 100-FZ adopted in 2013 [7]". However, this remark is not fundamental, does not affect the overall positive impression of the work, and may be a consequence of the author's special style of presentation. Bibliography. The quality of the literature used should be highly appreciated. The author actively uses the literature presented by authors from Russia (Egurnov A.I., Gaboev B.H., Khvostov V.M., Em E.S., Chistyakov O.I., Martysovich I.D. and others). Many of the cited scholars are recognized scholars in the field of civil law. I would like to note the author's use of a large number of materials of judicial practice, which made it possible to give the study a law enforcement orientation. Thus, the works of the above authors correspond to the research topic, have a sign of sufficiency, and contribute to the disclosure of various aspects of the topic. Appeal to opponents. The author conducted a serious analysis of the current state of the problem under study. All quotes from scientists are accompanied by author's comments. That is, the author shows different points of view on the problem and tries to argue for a more correct one in his opinion. Conclusions, the interest of the readership.
The conclusions are fully logical, as they are obtained using a generally accepted methodology. The article may be of interest to the readership in terms of the systematic positions of the author in relation to the prospects for the development of Russian civil legislation and the practice of its application regarding insignificant transactions. Based on the above, summing up all the positive and negative sides of the article, "I recommend publishing"