The Impact of the Security Function of Ownership on the Rules of Specification
https://doi.org/10.17803/2311-5998.2026.137.1.058-067
Abstract
The practice of Russian courts, developed over 30 years of application of Part II of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, has led to the emergence of the phenomenon of security ownership. In buyout leases and sale and purchase agreements with a clause reserving title for the seller, the owner's title serves for the creditor only as security for the debtor's performance of the debt payment obligation. Considering this, when regulating security ownership, Russian courts are increasingly resorting to the application of pledge law rules by analogy, arguing that the legal status of the pledgor and the creditor using the title security is identical. Security ownership, existing within certain contractual structures, inevitably raises the question of its content and the admissibility of applying the provisions of Section II of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation to regulate it. This article attempts to analyze the impact of the security function of ownership on the application of general rules for determining the owner of movable property arising from specification.
About the Author
M. V. Shavaleev
Kutafin Moscow State Law University (MSAL); Alekseev Research Center for Private Law under the President of the Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Mikhail V. Shavaleev, Associate Professor, Consultant, Cand. Sci. (Law)
Department of Civil Law
125993; 9, ul. Sadovaya-Kudrinskaya; Moscow
References
1. Cases, Materials and Text on National, Supranational and International Property Law / S. (JHM) van Erp, B. Akkermans (eds). — Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2012. — 1170 р.
2. Davies W. Romalpa thirty years on — still an enigma? // Hertfordshire Law Journal. — 2006. — Vol. 4. — № 2. — Р. 2—23.
3. Grüneberg BGB Kommentar 2025 (vormals Palandt). 84. Auflage. — C. H. Beck, 2025. — 3400 S.
4. Kieninger Е.-М. Security Rights in Movable Property in European Private Law. — Cambridge University Press, 2004. — 777 р.
5. Kirchner M. Der Eigentumserwerb nach § 950 BGB // ZJS 4/2021. — P. 466—471.
6. Lee (Kit) J. W. The Viability of Retention of Title Clauses // Durham Law Review. — 2022. February — Vol. VII. — Part 1. — P. 3—15.
7. Principles, Definitions and Model Rules of European Private Law. Draft Common Frame of reference (DCFR). — Full Edition. — Prepared by the Study Group on a European Civil Code and the Research Group on EC Private Law (Acquis Group) / ed. by Christian von Bar and Eric Clive. — Vol. I—VI. — Munich, 2009. — 4795 р.
8. Prütting H. Sachenrecht. 38., neu bearbeitete Auflage. — C. H. Beck, 2024. — 440 S.
9. Rutgers J. W. International reservation of title clauses: A study of Dutch, French and German Private International Law in the Light of European Law. — TMC Asser Press, The Hague, 1999. — 233 р.
10. Van Vliet L. A factual assessment of book Book VIII of the Draft Common Frame of Reference (Acquisition and Loss of Ownership of Goods) // Maastricht European Private Law Institute, 2011. — Working paper. — № 2011/23.
11. Wichers J. E. Natrekking, vermenging en zaaksvorming (diss. Groningen). — Deventer: Kluwer, 2002. — 338 S.
Review
For citations:
Shavaleev M.V. The Impact of the Security Function of Ownership on the Rules of Specification. Courier of Kutafin Moscow State Law University (MSAL)). 2026;(1):58-67. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17803/2311-5998.2026.137.1.058-067
Views:
124
JATS XML
Email this article 
