Abstract
The article is devoted to solving the problem of the correlation between astrente and prohibition action by highlighting the common and different features of these legal institutions. It is argued that astrent can be indirectly used for the protection of the owner's rights, but for initial prevention astrent is not identical to a prohibition action. It is concluded that there is a need for a comprehensive defence of the right in rem by preventing infringement through a prohibition action and an application for the appointment of an astrente to guarantee the enforcement of the court's decision on the prohibition action. Such a combination of astrente and prohibition action was reflected in Article 35 of the Draft Civil Code of the Russian Empire, therefore, astrente cannot be considered a novelty for the Russian law, it is prescribed from the above norm.
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call