In the ensuing discussion, unfortunately, are not considered the matter in dispute (the specific work of A. Benoit and C. Sudeikina), and the arguments of the parties regarding their evaluations of the opposite.
Moreover, regardless of the legal aspects of the dispute - regardless of the law of the current legislation of Russia.
In my opinion the same, the conclusion of timing is invalid (which should be set by the court) as a consequence of a negligible (in the sense st.168 Civil Code) of the transaction - an extradition treaty mentioned conclusion.
The fact that the essential condition of a model contract timing of undisputed in the court opinion timing (in fact - to be undisputed in the court decisions of officials) do not conform to the law. First of all, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure RF, giving citizens the right of Russia to a judge in the case of violation of their rights and freedoms. It should be noted that (by virtue of Part 1 of Article 166 CC RF) nullity of the transaction does not require the recognition of such court.
By virtue of Part 2 of Article 166 of the Civil Code, Constantine Azadovsky as the person concerned has the right to petition the courts for recognition in the manner prescribed st.st.166-167 of the Civil Code, the invalidity of the consequences of a void transaction.
I propose way to protect the violated rights and freedoms of Constantine Azadovsky, in my opinion, is the best, since it would avoid the discussion in the judicial process as the content of the conclusion of timing, and correspondence with the Ministry of Culture, but also the content of examinations (both unrelated to judicial dispute about the consequences of the invalidity of a void transaction). The fact that the contract (affecting the rights and legitimate interests of the owner works) is entered into the dealer, in this case is not an impediment to adjudication of the claim Constantine Azadovsky on the merits.
No chewing until the end of his position (which takes a lot of time and place), I note that in this particular case, Constantine Azadovsky (as well as any other in this situation), there are other legal ways to defend their violated rights and freedoms, as well as honor , dignity and business reputation (both your own and his late father).
I believe that holding such a trial is simply over-ripe, because the existing system of irresponsibility examinations (opinions, advice) to systematically violate the legitimate rights of all parties to the contract of sale of cultural property. In the administrative-command system is logical that undue recognition as originals changed to the opposite effect. For undue recognition can now pay for position, but the denial of the original - nothing will happen, if no challenge in court.
The official reaction to the letter of Constantine to the Ministry of Culture Azadovsky completely discredit the myths as the presence of control by the parent organizations, as well as the possibility of resolution of disputes that arise in the administrative order.
In these circumstances, immunity prevents officials from the culture, including in Russia and the rebuilding of the civilized art market.
Instead of art-farts-subculture.
Returning to the discussion, I would like to see that devotion can in no way justify the existence of a like a deep believer in the bosom of stone - the written approval of the stock that has not been established examinations, attached to the conclusion of timing.
In addition, the rule of law (which we taldychat from morning to night), the result of the examination should not and can not depend on the identity of its owner, not the quality of the work itself.
With regards to independent examination, the conclusion of timing allows Constantine Azadovsky easily take out the controversial work abroad (as not representing the timing of the conclusion of the artistic and cultural value).
Instead of a protracted and pointless war with windmills officials.
Maybe this is the peasant truth?
P.S. From the discussion is not clear - but whether Constantine Azadovsky apprised of this discussion on our forum, and whether he was invited to take part in it?
|