The Features of the Content and Subject Composition of Settlement Agreements in Cases of Invalidity of Transactions

Settlement agreements in civil and arbitration proceedings are one of the most convenient and effective ways to resolve disputes arising between participants in civil legal relations. At the same time, within the framework of some civil disputes, the content of settlement agreements has significant specificity, and sometimes – due to the peculiarities of the subject composition and the merits of the case – they cannot be applied at all for the purpose of reconciling the parties. An example of such disputes are cases related to the recognition of the transaction as invalid and the application of the consequences of the invalidity of the transaction, the legal regulation of which is unique. The economic reasons for the invalidity of transactions predetermine the peculiarities of the content of settlement agreements in the relevant category of cases, limiting it exclusively to the procedure for fulfilling restorative obligations and obligations to compensate for losses. This circumstance is due to the fact that, from the point of view of the dynamics of civil legal relations, an invalid transaction introduces uncertainty in the ownership of property and the distribution of rights and obligations of the participants in legal relations, which can be eliminated only by restoring the situation that existed before the conclusion and execution of the transaction with a defect. The current civil law regulation in this part (Article 4311 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation), which allows the conclusion of analogues of amicable agreements in cases of invalidity of transactions involving other, in addition to restitution, the consequences of the invalidity of transactions, in this regard, cannot be recognized as satisfactory. Contestation of the transaction by “another person specified in the law” (Article 166 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation), as well as in the interests of third parties by specially authorized entities (procedural plaintiffs), the possibility of participation in a completed and executed transaction of public law entities determine the raising of questions about the possibility of concluding amicable agreements by these entities. It is noted that these subjects, as follows from the analysis of domestic civil, civil procedural, administrative and family legislation, being interested in resolving the case on recognizing the transaction as invalid and on the application of the consequences of its invalidity, do not participate in its execution, and therefore cannot determine the procedure for the fulfillment of obligations arising from it.

1. Grigoryeva T. A., Khrapova E. V. Mirovoe soglashenie po sporam, zatragivayushchim publichno-pravovye interesy: sovremennye problemy [Settlement in Cases Concerning Public Law Interests: Urgent Problems]. Zakony Rossii: opyt, analiz, praktika – Laws of Russia: Experience, Analysis, Practice, 2011, no. 8, pp. 17–24.

2. Kotlyarova V. V. K voprosu o ponyatii i pravovoi prirode mirovogo soglasheniya [The Issue of Definition and Legal Nature of the Settlement Agreement]. Rossiiskaya yustitsiya – Russian Justitia, 2017, no. 6, pp. 17–20.

3. Kuznetsov S. A. Osnovnye problemy pravovogo instituta nesostoyatel’nosti (bankrotstva) [The Main Problems of the Legal Institution of Bankruptcy]. Moscow, Infotropik Media Publ., 2015. 304 p.

4. Mosechkin I. N., Makhnev A. V. Problematika i sposoby ispolneniya obyazatel’stva po pravilam dvustoronnei restitutsii [Problems and Ways of Fulfillment of Obligations Under the Rules of Bilateral Restitution]. Rossiiskaya yustitsiya – Russian Justitia, 2018, no. 3, pp. 25–28.

5. Osokina G. L. Grazhdanskii protsess. Obshchaya chast’ [Civil Process. A Common Part]. 2nd ed. Moscow, Norma Publ., 2010. 703 p.

6. Rozhkova M. A. Primenenie v kommercheskom oborote mirovoi sdelki [The Application of a Settlement Agreement in Commercial Affairs]. Moscow, Statut Publ., 2005. 572 p.

7. Timofeev E. A. “Law and Economics”: uchenie o prave i gosudarstve v SShA v XX veke. Dis. kand. yurid. nauk [“Law and Economics”: The Teaching About Law and State in the United States in the Twentieth Century. Cand. Legal Sci. Dis.]. Nizhny Novgorod, 2016. 181 p.

8. Fioshin A. V. O pravovoi prirode mirovogo soglasheniya [On the Legal Nature of a Settlement Agreement]. Vestnik grazhdanskogo protsessa – The herald of civil process, 2016, no. 6, pp. 40–53.

9. Bag S. Economic Analysis of Contract Law. Incomplete Contracts and Asymmetric Information. Palgrave Macmillan Publ., 2018. 215 p.

10. Hertog J. General Theories of Regulation. Encyclopedia of Law and Economics. New York, Springer-Verlag New York Publ., 2019, pp. 223–270.

11. Klein P. G. New Institutional Economics. Encyclopedia of Law and Economics. New York, Springer-Verlag New York Publ., 2019, pp. 456–489.

12. Kovac M. Comparative Contract Law and Economics. Edward Elgar Publ., 2011. 392 p.

13. Mackaay E. Law and Economics for Civil Law Systems. Edward Elgar Publ., 2013. 549 p.

14. Malenski T. A Critique of Law & Economics – an Austrian School Perspective. Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric, 2012, no. 31 (44), pp. 207–218.

15. Medema S. G., Mercuro N., Samuels W. J. Institutional Law and Economics. Encyclopedia of Law and Economics. New York, Springer-Verlag New York Publ., 2019, pp. 418–455.

16. Sima J. Praxeology as Law & Economics. Journal of Libertarian Studies, 2004, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 73–89.

17. Weigel W. Law and Economics in Austria. Encyclopedia of Law and Economics. New York, Springer-Verlag New York Publ., 2019, pp. 118–127.