The article deals with the interrelation between restitution and unjust enrichment in the Russian and Anglo-American legal systems. The analysis is based on theoretical scientific opinions, as well as on the legislation and judicial practice. The article notes that in the Russian law the “absence of grounds” principle is used for unjust enrichment (which means that if there is no legal basis for enrichment, the rules on unjust enrichment should be applied), and in order to apply the restitution rules one must prove the “unfair factor” in the form of an invalid transaction (the basis for the application of legal rules is specified). The first approach is typical for unjust enrichment in the continental law system, the second one — in the Anglo-American legal system. The Russian legislation thereby simultaneously uses two criteria — most situations are covered by the “absence of ground” principle, and restitution as a consequence of transaction invalidation is set aside, in this situation the “unjust factor” principle is applied. Mixing two different approaches seems unjustified. In addition, the author notes that legal consequences and the nature of restitution and unjust enrichment in the Russian law are basically the same — both institutions have the aim to restore the legal status that existed before the person who unjustly enriched himself breached the law. The author concludes that there is a need to avoid duplication of legal institutions of unjust enrichment and restitution in the Russian law, and to make restitution a universal protection measure for any event of unjust enrichment.
restitution, unjust enrichment, Anglo-American law.
1. Birks P. An Introduction to the Law of Restitution. Oxford, 2003.
2. Birks P. Equity in the Modern Law: An Exercise in Restitution. Oxford, 2003.
3. Birks P. Property and Unjust Enrichment: Categorical Truths. New Zealand Law Review. 1997.
4. Dagan H. The Law and Ethics of Restitution. Cambridge, 2004.
5. Hedley S. Unjust Enrichment as the Basis of Restitution — An Overworked Concept (1985). Legal Studies. Vol. 5.
6. Hedley S. Unjust Enrichment: a Middle Course?. Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal. 2002. Vol. 2.
7. Hunt C. D. L. Oxford University Comparative Law Forum Unjust Enrichment Understood as Absence of Basis: a Critical Evaluation with Lessons from Canada. URL: http://ouclf.iuscomp.org/artickes/hunt.shtml.
8. Jackman I. M. The Varieties of Restitution. Sydney, 1998.
9. Jaffey P. The Nature and Scope of Restitution. L., 2000.
10. Kreb T. In Defence of Unjust Factors. URL: http://ouclf.iuscomp.org/articles/krebs.shtml.
11. Visser D. P. Rethinking Unjustified Enrichment: A Perspective of the Competition and Enrichment Remedies. Acta Juridica. 1992.
12. Agarkov M. M. Obyazatel´stvo po sovetskomu grazhdanskomu pravu. M., 1940.
13. Gordon M. V. Lektsii po sovetskomu grazhdanskomu pravu: v 2 ch. Ch. 2. Khar´kov, 1960.
14. Grazhdanskoe pravo: uchebnik: v 2 t. / otv. red. E. A. Sukhanov. T. 2. Polutom 2. M., 2002.
15. Gurvich M. Institut neosnovatel´nogo obogashcheniya v ego osnovnykh chertakh po Grazhdanskomu kodeksu RSFSR. Sovetskoe pravo. 1925. № 2.
16. Gutnikov O. V. Nedeystvitel´nye sdelki v grazhdanskom prave. Teoriya i praktika osparivaniya. M., 2003.
17. Novak D. V. Neosnovatel´noe obogashchenie v grazhdanskom prave. M., 2010.
18. Rabinovich N. V. Nedeystvitel´nost´ sdelok i ee posledstviya. L., 1960.
19. Sarbash S. Vozvrat uplachennogo kak posledstvie neispolneniya dogovornogo obyazatel´stva. Khozyaystvo i pravo. 2002. № 8.
20. Sklovskiy K. I., Shirvis Yu. V. Posledstviya nedeystvitel´noy sdelki. Zakon. 2000. № 5.
21. Solomina N. G. K voprosu o sootnoshenii trebovaniy o vozvrate neosnovatel´nogo obogashcheniya s trebovaniem o vozvrate ispolnennogo po nedeystvitel´noy sdelke. Arbitrazhnyy i grazhdanskiy protsess. 2008. № 2.
22. Tolstoy Yu. K. Soderzhanie i grazhdansko-pravovaya zashchita prava sobstvennosti v SSSR. L., 1955.
23. Tuzov D. O. Nedopushchenie restitutsii i konfiskatsiya pri nedeystvitel´nosti sdelok (o vozniknovenii prava sobstvennosti gosudarstva po osnovaniyam, predusmotrennym stat´yami 169 i 179 GK RF). Veshchnye prava: sistema, soderzhanie, priobretenie: sb. nauch. tr. v chest´ prof. B. L. Khaskel´berga / pod red. D. O. Tuzova. M., 2008.
24. Tuzov D. O. Restitutsiya v grazhdanskom prave: dis.... kand. yurid. nauk. Tomsk, 1999.
25. Tuktarov Yu. E. Trebovanie o vozvrate poluchennogo po nedeystvitel´noy sdelke. Nedeystvitel´nost´ v grazhdanskom prave: problemy. tendentsii, praktika: sb. st. / otv. red. M. A. Rozhkova. M., 2006.
26. Kheyfets F. S. Nedeystvitel´nost´ sdelok po rossiyskomu grazhdanskomu pravu. M., 1999.
27. Shakhmatov V. P. Sostavy protivopravnykh sdelok i obuslovlennye imi posledstviya. Tomsk, 1967.
28. Shkundin Z. I. Restitutsiya v nedeystvitel´nykh sdelkakh. Arbitrazh. 1969. № 13.
