ON SOME FEATURES OF LEASED PROPERTY IMPROVEMENT COST COMPENSATION 

Sintsov Gleb Vladimirovich, Doctor of juridical sciences, professor, head of sub-department of private and public law, Penza State University (40 Krasnaya street, Penza, Russia), g_sintsov@mail.ru

347

Background. One of the most arguable questions in leasing legal relations is leased property improvement cost compensation to a leaseholder. The regulation of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation provide differences between separable and inseparable improvements, between improvements sanctioned by a lessor and non-sanctioned ones, between improvements made at the expense of a leaseholder, third party, or at the expense of amortized deductions. The problem of the legal nature of the executed improvements of leased property and of rating them as one or another type of improvements often leads to arguments between lease contract parties.
Materials and methods. The article analyzes the decisions of the Federal Arbi-trage of the North-Caucasus district from 30.10.2001 № F 08-3550/2001, from 06.03.2006 № F 08-426/2006 referring the case № А32-2833/2003-17/79, from 15.11.2005 № F 08-5364/2005 referring the case № А32-42517/2004-2-696; of the North-Western district from 20.03.2002 № А56-28425/01, the Central district from 08.11.2012 referring the case № А23-422/2012; the Far Eastern district from 18.01.2005 № F 03-А51/04-1/4028; the Ural district from 18.06.2013 № F 09-4511/13 referring the case № А60-38604/2012. The author considered the decision of the 20th arbitrage of appeal from 16.07.2012 referrning the case № А23-422/2012, the decision of SA of RF from 04.03.2013 № ВАС-1985/13 referring the case № А23-422/2012, the circular of the Presidium of SA of RF from 29.12.2001 № 65 «Review of practice of settlement of disputes, concerning termination of obligations by a setoff of similar counterclaims», and the decision of SA of RF from 20.08.2013 № ВАС-10593/13 referring the case № А60-38604/2012.
Results. As one may see, the institution of leased property improvements cost compensation has a quite poor legal regulatory environment. In practice there occurs a large number of questions concerning leased property improvements cost compen-sation by lease contracts, having no answers in the active legislation.
Conclusions. As a result, the courts of all levels are obliged virtually to create regulatory acts. Thereby, it is necessary to introduce the corresponding amendments into the Civil Code of RF, to supplemet article 623 of CC of RF with items on se-parable and inseparable improvements.

leasing, rent, leased property improvement cost, compensation, Civil Code of RF.

1. Sobranie zakonodatel'stva RF [Collection of legislation of RF]. 1996, no. 5 (29 Jan.), art. 410.
2. Postanovlenie FAS Severo-Kavkazskogo okruga ot 30.10.2001 № F08-3550/2001 [Decision of FA in the North-Caucasus district from 30.10.2001 № F08-3550/2001]. “ConsultantPlus” reference system.
3. Postanovlenie FAS Severo-Zapadnogo okruga ot 20.03.2002 № A56-28425/01 [Deci-sion of FA in the North-Caucasus district from 20.03.2002 № A56-28425/01]. “Consul-tantPlus” reference system.
4. Postanovlenie Dvadtsatogo arbitrazhnogo apellyatsionnogo suda ot 16.07.2012 po delu № A23-422/2012 [Decision of the 20th Arbitrage of Appeal from 16.07.2012 referring the case № A23-422/2012]. “ConsultantPlus” reference system.
5. Postanovlenie FAS Tsentral'nogo okruga ot 08.11.2012 po delu № A23-422/2012 [Decision of FA in the Central district from 08.11.2012 referring the case № A23-422/2012]. “ConsultantPlus” reference system.
6. Opredelenie VAS RF ot 04.03.2013 № VAS-1985/13 po delu № A23-422/2012 [Deci-sion of SA of RF from 04.03.2013 № VAS-1985/13 referring the case № A23-422/2012]. “ConsultantPlus” reference system.
7. Postanovlenie FAS Dal'nevostochnogo okruga ot 18.01.2005 № F03-A51/04-1/4028 [Decision of FA in the Far Eastern district from 18.01.2005 № F03-A51/04-1/4028]. “ConsultantPlus” reference system.
8. Vestnik Vysshego arbitrazhnogo suda Rossiyskoy Federatsii [Bulletin of the Supreme Arbitrage of the Russian Federation]. 2002, no. 3.
9. Postanovlenie FAS Severo-Kavkazskogo okruga ot 06.03.2006 № F08-426/2006 po de-lu № A32-2833/2003-17/79 [Decision of FA in the North-Caucasus district from 06.03.2006 № F08-426/2006 referring the case № A32-2833/2003-17/79]. “Consul-tantPlus” reference system.
10. Postanovlenie FAS Severo-Kavkazskogo okruga ot 15.11.2005 № F08-5364/2005 po delu № A32-42517/2004-2-696 [Decision of FA in the North-Caucasus district from 15.11.2005 № F08-5364/2005 referring the case № A32-42517/2004-2-696]. “Consul-tantPlus” reference system.
11. Postanovlenie FAS Ural'skogo okruga ot 18.06.2013 № F09-4511/13 po delu № A60-38604/2012 [Decision of FA in the Ural district from 18.06.2013 № F09-4511/13 refer-ring the case № A60-38604/2012]. “ConsultantPlus” reference system.
12. Opredelenie VAS RF ot 20.08.2013 № VAS-10593/13 po delu № A60-38604/2012 [Decision of SA of RF from 20.08.2013 № VAS-10593/13 referring the case № A60-38604/2012]. “ConsultantPlus” reference system.