The article considers the essence of the category of guilt as one of the grounds for prohibiting (suspending) activities under Russian civil law. The article analyzes the shortcomings ofthe legal definition of guilt stipulated in article 401 of the civil code of the Russian Federation due to the mixing of objectivist and subjectivist concepts. Based on the analysis of the judicial practice of the application of Article 1065 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, a conclusion was made about the unsatisfactory state of law enforcement in establishing guilt in a person’s behavior. Monuments of Roman law are studied for the purpose of revealing the category of guilt. A brief overview of approaches to the concept of guilt in the civil legislation of a number of foreign countries and in the Model rules of European Private Law is given. The positions of the Supreme Court of Austria and the countries of the Anglo-Saxon legal family are given on this issue. The article briefly covers the integral theory developed By E. A. Kramer for the objective assessment of individuals ‘ discretion in conducting any activity that may entail adverse consequences for third parties. In connection with the special functions and purpose of the Institute of responsibility in private law and institute for the prevention of harm, the conclusion is defended that it is unacceptable to directly borrow the category of guilt from criminal law to civil law. The article substantiates the need to apply the objectivist concept of guilt in civil law as a deviation from the standard of behavior of an ordinary reasonable participant in the turnover, taking into account individual characteristics of a person. Taking into account the provisions of the current civil legislation on liability, a conclusion was made about the possibility of applying a simplified scheme of forms and types of guilt, including when deciding on the establishment of an injunction. The question of the ratio of guilt, considered from the point of view of the objectivist approach, and wrongfulness is touched upon.

prevention of harm, guilt, guilt in civil law, prohibition of activity, suspension of activity, injunction, civil liability

Senotrusova Evgenia Mikhailovna – Associate Professor of the Department of Civil Law Disciplines, Irkutsk Law Institute (office) University of the Prosecutor’s office of the Russian Federation (1, Shevtsova st., Irkutsk, 664035, Russian Federation); Post-Graduate Student, Department of Business Law, Civil and Arbitration Procedure of the Perm National Research University (15, Bukireva st., Perm, 614068, Russian Federation), e-mail: evg-suranova@yandex.ru

Senotrusova E.M. Vina kak odno iz osnovanij zapreta (priostanovleniya) deyatel'nosti po rossijskomu grazhdanskomu pravu [Guilt as One of the Grounds for the Prohibition (Suspension) Activities on the Russian Civil Law] Sibirskij yuridicheskij vestnik [Siberian Law Herald]. 2021, no 2(93), pp. 55–62. DOI 10.26516/2071-8136.2021.2.55. (in Russian).

349.2

ABQKVW

1. Belov V.A. Grazhdanskoe pravo. Aktual’nye problemy teorii i praktiki [Civil right. Actual problems of theory and practice]. Vol. 2. Moscow, Yurait, 2016. 525 p. (in Russian)

2. Guseva E.A. Preduprezhdenieprichineniya vreda vsledstvie deyatel’no- sti, predstavlyayushchei povyshennuyu opasnost’ dlya okruzhayushchikh, po grazhdanskomupravu [Prevention of harm caused by activities that pose an increased danger to others, under civil law]. Cand. sci. diss. Moscow, 2014. 189 p. (in Russian)

3. Digesty Yustiniana [Digests Of Justinian]. Perevod s latinskogo. Otv. red. L.L. Kofanov. Vol. II, Moscow, 2003, 622 p. (in Russian)

4. Ioffe O.S. Otvetstvennost’ po sovetskomu grazhdanskomu pravu [Responsibility on the Soviet civil law]. Leningrad, 1955, 310 p. (in Russian)

5. Ioffe O.S. Otvetstvennost’ po sovetskomu grazhdanskomu pravu [Responsibility on the Soviet civil law]. Cand. sci. diss. abstr. Leningrad, 1954. 38 p. (in Russian)

6. Karkhalev D.N. Sootnoshenie mer zashchity i otvetstvennosti v grazh- danskomprave [Correlation of protection and liability measures in civil law]. Cand. sci. diss. Ekaterinburg, 2003. 180 p. (in Russian)

7. Kramer E.A. Nachalo obshchego vsem vmeneniya v deliktnom i dogovornom prave [Beginning of General imputation in tort and contract law]. Vestnik grazhdanskogo prava, 2020, vol. 1, pp. 236-262. (in Russian) https://doi.org/10.24031/1992-2043-2020-20-1-236-262.

8. Krasavchikov O.A. Vozmeshchenie vreda, prichinennogo istochnikom povyshennoi opasnosti [Compensation for damage caused by a source of increased danger]. Moscow, 1966. 200 p. (in Russian)

9. Kuznetsova O.A. Problemy ucheniya o grazhdansko-pravovoi otvetstvennosti [The problem of the doctrine of civil liability]. Lex rus- sica, 2017, vol 5, pp. 11-23. (in Russian) https://doi.org/10.17803/1729- 5920.2017.126.5.011-023.

10. Luk'yantsev A.A. Otvetstvennost’ pri osushchestvlenii predprinima- telskoi deyatel’nosti v grazhdanskom zakonodatelstve Rossii: teoriya i sudeb- naya praktika [Responsibility for business activity in the civil legislation of Russia: theory and judicial practice]. Cand. sci. diss. Rostov-na-Donu, 2006. 384 p. (in Russian)

11. Malein N.S., Shiminova M.Ya. Effektivnost' preduprezhdeniya pra- vonarushenii, voznikayushchikh iz prichineniya vreda [Effectiveness of prevention of offenses arising from the causes of harm]. Problemy iskoreneniya pravonarushenii v SSSR: tezisy dokladov na nauchnoi konferentsii. Moscow, 1971, pp. 54-60. (in Russian)

12. Martirosyan A.G. Sootnoshenie viny i riska v grazhdanskom prave [The relation of guilt and risk in civil law]. Vestnik Vysshego Arbitrazhnogo Suda Rossiiskoi Federatsii, 2010, vol. 7, pp. 250-260. (in Russian)

13. Oigenzikht V.A. Problema riska v grazhdanskom prave [The problem of risk in civil law]. Dushanbe, 1972, 225 p. (in Russian)

14. Pamyatniki rimskogo prava: Zakony XII tablits. Institutsii Gaya. Digesty Yustiniana [Monuments of Roman law: the laws of the 12 tables. Gaia Institutions. Digests Of Justinian]. Moscow, Zertsalo, 1997. 608 p. (in Russian)

15. Rimskoe chastnoepravo: uchebnik [Roman private law: textbook]. Pod red. I.B. Novitskogo, I.S. Pereterskogo. Moscow, 2016, 608 p. (in Russian)

16. Startseva Yu.V. Printsip viny i otvetstvennost' za vred, prichinennyi istochnikom povyshennoi opasnosti [The principle of guilt and responsibility for harm caused by a source of increased danger]. Opyty tsivilisticheskogo issledovaniya: sbornik statei / otv. red. A.M. Shirvindt, N.B. Shcherbakov. Moscow, 2019. Dostup iz sprav.-pravovoi sistemy «Konsul'tantPlyus». (in Russian)

17. Stoyakin G.Ya. Mery zashchity v sovetskom grazhdanskom prave [Protection measures in Soviet civil law]. Cand. sci. diss. Sverdlovsk, 1972, 197 p. (in Russian)

18. Khokhlov V.A. Grazhdansko-pravovaya otvetstvennost' za narush- enie dogovora [Civil liability for breach of contract]. Cand. sci. diss. Samara, 1998, 349 p. (in Russian)

19. Heck Philipp. Grundrifi des Schuldrechts. Tubingen, 1929, s. 492. (in German)

20. Koziol H. Basic Questions of Tort Law from a Germanic Perspective. 2015, p. 914. (in English)