The Actio Prohibitoria: Past, Present, and Future
Abstract
The purpose of a actio prohibitoria is to eliminate the possibility of a second similar violation of a right in rem, when there are reasonable grounds to believe that the defendant has committed a violation of the same nature. The purpose of the study was to determine the evolution of views on the actio prohibitoria from Roman law to modern private law, and on this basis to propose a legal model of the modern actio prohibitoria. In spite of its long history, the actio prohibitoria remains one of the most unexplored real actions, because it is overshadowed by the actio negatoria, whose scope is very broadly construed. The research was carried out by means of historical method, comparative law methods, and the basic theory of legal understanding was the jurisprudence of concepts, which allows to determine the characteristic features, scope and conditions of satisfaction of the actio prohibitoria. As a result of this study, the following conclusions can be made. Firstly, the evolution of actio prohibitoria has passed through four main stages: parallel existence with actio negatoria; convergence of these real actions; absorption of actio prohibitoria by actio negatoria; renewal of discussion about the relationship between these two real actions, as part of the growing interest in preventive measures of protection. Secondly, it is necessary to expand the list of real actions and to discuss the possibility of separating the actio prohibitoria in modern law. Third, confusion between the prohibitionist interdict and the actio prohibitoria in Roman law is quite common, which creates difficulties for research. Fourth, a actio prohibitoria has the following features: it is an action for an award of inaction; it is preventive in nature; it has a special legal ground of application; and it has a sanction for violation of the injunction in the form of a fine payable in favor of the plaintiff. Fifthly, the actio negatoria and the actio prohibitoria may be aimed at eliminating a future violation, but in different situations — the actio negatoria eliminates a new possible violation, and the actio prohibitoria is focused on eliminating a repeated violation in the future, the prohibition of similar violations.
References
Abushenko D. B. (2013) On Material and Procedural features of the actions and decisions on the requests regarding the conclusion, alteration and cessation of contract. Vestnik grazhdanskogo protsessa = Journal of Civil process, no. 2, pp. 60-108. (in Russ.)
Amigud A., Dawson P. (2020) The law and the outlaw: is legal prohibition a viable solution to the contract cheating problem? Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 98-108. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2019.1612851
Baron Yu. (2005) The System of Roman Civil Law. Saint Petersburg: Yuridicheskiy Tsentr Press, 1102 p. (in Russ.)
Baron J. (1896) Pandekten. 9. Aufl. Leipzig: Duncker & Humblott, 823 S.
Benke J. (2021) Ancient, medieval and present issues in private law. Journal on European History of Law, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 130-137.
Benjamin J.D., Jud G.D., Winkler D.T. (2001) The Value of Smoking Prohibitions in Vacation Rental Properties. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 117-128. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007835511752
Diessel B.H. (2007) Trolling for trolls: The pitfalls of the emerging market competition requirement for permanent injunctions in patent cases post-eBay. Michigan Law Review, vol. 106, no. 2, pp. 305-345.
Fritzsche J. (2000) Unterlassungsanspruch und Unterlassungsklage. Berlin: Springer, 770 S. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-58316-2
Gergen M.P., Golden J.M., Smith H.E. (2012) The Supreme Court's accidental revolution? The test for permanent injunctions. Columbia Law Review, vol. 112, no. 2, pp. 203249.
Gross R., Brammli-Greenberg S. (2004) Evaluating the effect of regulatory prohibitions against risk selection by health status on supplemental insurance ownership in Israel. Social Science and Medicine, vol. 58, no. 9, pp. 1609-1622. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(03)00343-5
Hufen F. (2021) Verwaltungsprozessrecht. München: Beck, 660 S. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17104/9783406773549
Ioffe O. S., Musin V. A. (1975) The Fundamentals of Civil Law. Leningrad: University, 156 p. (in Russ.)
Germanov A.V. (2009) From Use to Possession and Right in rem. Moscow: Statut, 700 p. (in Russ.)
Grimm D. D. (2003) Lectures on the Dogma of Roman Law. Moscow: Zertsalo, 496 p. (in Russ.)
Jehoram H.C. (1999) Prohibition of parallel imports through intellectual property rights. International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 495-511.
Kopylov A.V. (2000) Title to Land in Roman, Russian Pre-revolutionary and Modern Russian Civil Law. Moscow: Statut, 255 p. (in Russ.)
Kot A.A. (2017) Preventive ways of protecting the right of ownership in Ukranian Civil Law. In: Zaschita grazhdanskikh prav: izbrannye aspekty. Moscow: Statut, pp. 264-275. (in Russ.)
La Feria R. (2020) On Prohibition of Abuse of Law as a General Principle of EU Law. EC Tax Review, vol. 29, issue 4, pp. 142-146. DOI: https://doi.org/10.54648/ECTA2020042
La Feria R. (2008) Prohibition of abuse of (community) law: The creation of a new general principle of EC law through tax. Common Market Law Review, vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 395-441. DOI: https://doi.org/10.54648/COLA2008027
Mendonça P. (2018) Third-party ownership prohibition in football and European Union fundamental freedoms: CAS decision on RFC Seraing case. International Sports Law Journal, vol. 18, no. 1-2, pp. 39-45. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40318-018-0118-y
Monakhov D. A. (2007) Vindicatio servitutis as the major way of the legal protection of easements in Russian Law. Pravo i politika = Law and Politics, no 5, pp. 70-75 (in Russ.)
Munday R. (1979) Prohibitions against assignment of choses in action. Cambridge Law Journal, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 50-53. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008197300093788
Muradyan E. M. (2001) Preventive civil actions. Gosudarstvo i pravo = State and Law, no. 4, pp. 23-27 (in Russ.)
Novitskiy I.B., Perterskiy I.S. (eds) (2008) Roman Private Law. Moscow: Zertsalo-M, 560 p. (in Russ.)
Pereladov A.V., Lichman A.A. (2020) Improper Honey of Neighboring Law. Vestnik Kemerovskogo universiteta, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 78-87 (in Russ.) DOI: https://doi.org/10.21603/2542-1840-2020-4-1-78-87
Pokrovskiy I.A. (1998) The History of Roman Law. Saint Petersburg: Letniy sad, 560 p. (in Russ.)
Potapenko S.V., Zarubin A.V. (2012) A Reference Book of Judge on Property Law Issues. Moscow: Prospekt, 248 p. (in Russ.)
Pukhan I., Polenak-Akimovskaya M. (2000) Roman Law. Moscow: Zertsalo, 448 p. (in Russ.)
Schott H. (1889) Das ius prohibendi und die formula prohibitoria. Zeitschrift der Savi-gny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte. Romanistische Abteilung, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 173-176. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7767/zrgra.1889.10.1.173
Seaman C.B. (2016) Permanent injunctions in patent litigation after eBay: An empirical study. Iowa Law Review, vol. 101, no. 5, pp. 1949-2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2632834
Sklovskiy K.I. (2008) Property in Civil Law. Moscow: Statut, 922 p. (in Russ.)
Stagl J. (2017) The ratio behind the prohibition for spouses to donate to each other. Monopolizing matrimonial property law in the dotal system. Legal History Review, vol. 85, no. 1-2, p. 141-165. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/15718190-08512p06
Steinbrück R. (2014) Unterlassungsklage nur bei illoyalem Verstoß gegen Konkurrenzklausel begründet. Klinische Monatsblätter für Augenheilkunde, vol. 231, no. 3, S. 201-202. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0034-1372394
Subbotin M.V. (2004) Special Ways of Protecting Property Rights. Zakonodatel'stvo = Legislation, no 3, pp. 16-23 (in Russ.)
Sultanov A.P. (2013) Protecting the Right of Conscience, Spreading Opinions through the prism of the European Court on Human Rights. Moscow: Statut, 544 p. (in Russ.)
Usachyova K.A. (2013) Actio Negatoria in History and Comparison. Vestnik grazhdanskogo prava = Journal of Civil Law, no 5, pp. 87-119 (in Russ.)
Wu Q. (2020) Free speech in denial of a permanent injunction in US copyright practice. Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice, vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 320-321. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpaa044
Yudin A.V. (2011) Legal Action on Adjudging as to Inaction in Personal Area and its Potential in Civil Procedure. Yurist = Lawyer, no. 23, pp. 7-12 (in Russ.)
Copyright (c) 2022 Law Journal of the Higher School of Economics
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
