Lease of agricultural land: issues of parity

Introduction. In the sphere of turnover of agricultural land plots, there is an acute conflict of interests between large agro-industrial organizations acting as lessees of land plots and owners of plots acting in the lease agreement as lessors with multiple persons on this side of the agreement.

Purpose. To analyze the dynamics of legislative decisions and law enforcement practice in the field of agricultural land lease with an emphasis on finding a balance of interests of the parties in a situation of multiple persons on the lessor's side; to discuss the lessee's possibilities in acquiring the leased property.

Materials and methods. The study used such general scientific methods as analysis, deduction, analogy, and dialectical method. The theoretical basis of the work is the works of Russian scientists devoted to the study of methodological categories of civil law. Among them are Alekseev S.S., Em V.S., Zekkel E., Sukhanov E.A., Sklovsky K.I., Chuprunov V.S. and others.

Results. The study was conducted on the issues of parity of the parties to the lease agreement for agricultural land plots with multiple persons on the lessor's side. The disposal capabilities of an individual co-lessor were considered. Legislative decisions protecting the lessee's interest in continuing to own the leased property were analyzed. The consequences of agreeing on the lessee's preferential right to acquire the leased property in the lease agreement were assessed. The issue of protecting such an advantage was considered in several aspects: criteria for the proper method of protection and possible analogy; the essence of the preferential right; the idea of justice.

Conclusions. The practice of executing land lease agreements reflects the economic need to protect an agricultural producer who legally owns a land plot on the basis of a lease. A co-owner of an agricultural land plot who has "fallen" into such a legal relationship without the right to allocate the land plot in kind experiences significant restrictions compared to any other co-owner. Therefore, in order to ensure parity, it is important to recognize the possibility for such a co-owner to block by his own will the renewal of the lease agreement for a certain or new term, or, at least, the unconditional right to allocate a share in kind upon expiration of the agreed lease term.

1. Lomidze O.G. Obligatory rights to things. Journal of Russian Law. 2005;(10):49–62.(In Russ.)

2. Vinichenko Yu.V., Nikitina Yu.D. On the meaning of silence in Russian civil law. Taxes. 2010;(12):20–24.(In Russ.)

3. Dzhumagulov D.D. Silence: legal nature and meaning in the acquisition of digital products. Law. 2021;(2):162–170.(In Russ.)

4. Chuprunov I.S. On the issue of the design of the preemptive right to purchase a share (stocks). Bulletin of civil law. 2020;(4):94–219.(In Russ.)

5. Lomidze O.G., Lomidze E.Yu. Principles of Application of Methods of Protection of Violated Rights. Law. 2013;(8):128–137.(In Russ.)

6. Em V.S., Sukhanov E.A. On the Types of Subjective Civil Rights and the Limits of Their Exercise. Bulletin of Civil Law. 2019;(4):7–21.(In Russ.)

7. Lomakin D.V. Commercial Corporations as Subjects of Corporate Legal Relations: A Tutorial. Moscow: Statut; 2020. 146 p. (In Russ.)

8. Sklovsky K.I. Ownership in Civil Law. 4th ed., revised. and additional. Moscow: Statut; 2008. 922 p. (Appendices. Some Issues of the Preemptive Right of Purchase). (In Russ.)

9. Alekseev S.S. General Theory of Law. Course in 2 volumes. Moscow; 1982. Vol. 2.(In Russ.)

10. Zeckel E. Secondary Rights in Civil Law. Bulletin of Civil Law. 2007;(2):205–252. (In Russ.)

11. Tretyakov S.V. Formation of the Concept of Secondary Rights in the German Civil Law Doctrine (for the publication of the Russian translation of E. Zeckel's work "Secondary Rights in Civil Law"). Bulletin of Civil Law. 2007;(2):253–270. (In Russ.)

12. Chuprunov I.S. On the Issue of the Design of the Preemptive Right to Purchase a Share (Stocks). Bulletin of Civil Law. 2020;(4):94–219.(In Russ.)