Protection of the Rights of Obligations

The article is devoted to the study of protecting the rights of obligations. The study aims to resolve the question of whether the possibility of protection is provided for in Article 302 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation to the rights of obligations. In addition, the author examines the question of whether it is advisable to introduce the protection of a bona fide acquirer of the right of obligations in the framework of an assignment similar to the protection in the form of a vindication. The analysis of judicial practice illustrates that at present the acquirer of the right of obligation under an assignment agreement does not have access to the entire scope of protection provided by law to the acquirer of the thing itself. To answer these questions, the author turns to the theory of binding rights as objects of civil rights. The author concludes that the obstacle to claiming the rights of obligations is the absence of the concepts of ownership of the right and a bona fide acquirer of the right for the turnover of the rights of obligations, both at the level of the law and in the doctrine. The author addresses whether it is possible to own the law of obligations. In connection with his consideration of this issue, the author touches upon the theory of the visibility of law. Based on the analysis of the relevant theory and practice of law enforcement, the author concludes that the category of domination is unsuitable for binding rights, as well as that possession, in its classical sense, is not applicable for binding rights. The author emphasizes that, in the absence of direct legislative regulation, it is not possible to resolve the issue of applying a vindication claim to the rights of obligations. The paper presents arguments in favor of the conclusion that it is now necessary to introduce the protection of the law of obligations (including the right of claim) in a manner similar to the protection provided for in Article 302 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. The author anticipates the development of an appropriate mechanism, considering the peculiarities of the rights of obligations as an object of civil rights, and the inapplicability of the theory of the appearance of law for such a mechanism, as a perspective for resolving this issue.