"Real Estate and Investments. Legal Regulation", the journal

Issue 4 (5) 2000

Delimitation of the State Property on Land

Pavlov P.N., counselor of the Main state-legal department of the President of the Russian Federation

Modification of the state structure of our country and the economic reforms, conducted during the last years, have demanded to reconsider seriously the approaches, which have appeared during several decades, in a solution of problems linked to the property on land. Until recently the state property was considered as only possible pattern of ownership on land. According to this postulate the theory of the land entitlement and local law was shaped. It was considered conventional, that the state property on land is uniform and indivisible. Now, when the private property on land has appeared, and the state landownership should be divided on federal property, property of the subjects of Russian Federation and municipal property the appropriate local law and its theoretical base became untenable. Historically Russia almost always was a Unitarian state. The declaration of the USSR the federated state in many respects wore a formal character. Besides the state ownership was considered both in the Russian empire and in USSR not so much from the economic or legal, but political point of view. Thus, Russia suffers the lack of necessary experience of solution of the problems linked to the state landownership in the federated state in conditions of market economy. To understand, why in Russian Federation a process of differentiation of a state property on land is such a problem, it is expedient to study its historical past.

State property on land in the Russian Empire

The Russian Empire was the unitary state with the monarchic form of government. The problems of a state property on land in the local law of the Russian Empire were defined basing on these singularities of its state structure. Thus the ideology, dominant in those times, did not allow a lawgiver to define precisely the problems of a state property on land.

Public lands, non-used and wild fields, other lands, not owned by anybody were considered public property. "Treasury" was considered the subject of property right on public lands. The rent and purchase of public lands was permitted only to noblemen. State property on land was mainly considered as a basis of conservation of autocracy and its social base.

Alongside with the state-owned properties specific, cabinet, monastery, majorate and other lands existed, which it was formally impossible to consider as state or private i.e. being in a private property. Such categories of lands were selected, basing on the necessity of ensuring by land the king, members of his family or particular persons, dignitaries and so on. Ideology of the monarchic state resulted in the fact that lands, which according to modern legal views were to be considered either state, or private property, were not considered such. Actually, the appropriate lands had simultaneously the features inherent to different patterns of ownership. The specificity of the Russian Empire resulted in the fact that the legal views on the property of the bourgeois states were applied to land so far as it did not affect the interests of the monarch and his environment. Definite lands were as though excluded from under an operation of the general provisions on the property.

The question on lands, considered as the state-owned property, also was solved inconsistently. The diametrically opposite views on a state ownership on land of different representatives of pre-Revolutionary jurisprudence proves it. Someone considered state property on land as an institution of private law only, others affirm that depending on whether the land is in public use or no, the state property on it is accordingly an institution of public or private law. The echoes of this scientific controversy are seen even now with that only difference, that some scientists consider the property on land as institution of the civil legislation only, and others - of the land legislation.

It is especially necessary to mark that in the Russian Empire there was no land legislation as such, the land questions were solved mainly within the limits of civil and administrative law. It is necessary to tell that the concept of "land" in the Russian Empire was applied in other sense, than now.

Everything we discussed above shows that from the legal point of view the problem of state property on land in the Russian Empire was far from being solved. The subject of law on the public land property was "treasury", cabinet lands - " palace department ", specific lands - "destinies" etc. The definition itself of these subjects of the property law calls a set of problems. The appropriate vague points allow affirming that the situation, which has been usual in a land sphere in the Russian Empire, should be characterized as negative. It is possible to speak about certain aspects of a state property in the Russian Empire only theoretically, and most likely, it is impossible at all to define these aspects.

Thus, at a solution of problems about differentiation of a state property on land it is impossible to take advantage of experience of the Russian Empire, and not only because it was not a federative, but a Unitarian state. The Russian Empire was the state, in which the elements of an unrestricted monarchy and differentiation of the society stayed, which influenced directly the definition of the problems of landownership. The presence of such vestiges would never allow the market economy to develop normally in a land sphere. First of all it would not be possible to define properly the problems of a state property on land.

Nevertheless, it is necessary to take into account, that in the Russian Empire there was no state regional property. If we use modern concepts, there was only uniform state property, and also municipal and private property. In the Code of Laws among the subjects of the property law the nobility societies, cities and urban societies, society of agricultural workers, zemstvas and zemstva establishments are mentioned.

If to consider a question about a state ownership in a historical background, certain eligibility in its solution at all stages of the development of our country is seen. The state as a whole has always appeared the subject of law on a state property on land.

It is represented that at a solution of the question on differentiation of state property on land the factor of transition of a state property on land from one state to another should be taken into consideration during political conversions. Today to ignore state property on land by a definite subject, to which it has passed during historical development of the country only on the basis that it is required to realize the differentiation of the state landownership, is impermissible. It is impossible to consider, that land, which is considered a state property has no particular owner. Russian Federation and the subjects of Russian Federation can not be simultaneously owners of the same land. It is represented, that during our history the state property on land remained uniform, therefore its differentiation should be realized on the basis of confession that the subject of this property, both earlier and now, is the state as a whole. Other matter that in conditions of the federated state such situation can not be considered correct and it should be changed.

State property on land in USSR

As a result of the bourgeois revolution Russia was proclaimed a Republic. The Temporary government of this Republic has declared in March, 1917 specific and cabinet lands a state property, and has left remaining lands in hands of the previous owners. The Temporal government planned to conduct a land reform, which was invoked to solve the land property problems, including state, but this land reform was not to be realized.

After bolsheviks came to power in October, 1917 the property on land was generally abolished. However it has taken place not after the adoption of the so-called Decree on land of October 26, 1917, where nothing was told about abolition of institution of the property or declaration of all land a state property. The members of communist party, Soviet State and science, giving legal characteristics to the Decree on land, dissembled. On the contrary the leader of bolsheviks V. I. Lenin has highly appreciated only political value of the Decree on land, having specially pointed, that technically and legally it is very incomplete. But the Decree on socialization of lands definitively affirmed by the All-Russian Central Executive Committee on February 9, 1918, has already legally designated the attitude of bolsheviks to the property on land. Article 1 of this Decree stipulates, that any property on land within the limits of the Russian Soviet Federative Republic is abrogated for ever, that is all patterns of ownership, including the state landownership.

The constitution of RSFSR of 1918 nor began to use a concept of "state ownership" concerning land having substituted it by a ill-conditioned, but responding ideological tastes of the party in power by a concept " public property ". It is necessary to say that a concept "property" was applied in the local law concerning land for a long period of time and almost has ceased to be used only with the adoption of the Constitution of Russian Federation of 1993.

The Soviet jurisprudence attempted to prove that already in first years of the Soviet power there was an exclusive state property on land. However the documents of those years prove the opposite. By the way, in relation to land the Soviet land legislation was frequently applying the words "for ever", "eternally", "permanently" and other concepts, with a vague legal sense. The relapses of such an approach are supervised in the modern local law as well, for example, the right of constant (termless) use of land is established. The absurdity of canceling the property moreover on eternal times is obvious. When the communists have met a real life, they had to refuse some ideological stamps and to prepare the legally more perfect local law. They could not accept, that land actually finding in state ownership, was legally declared without owner. The Soviet jurisprudence has not found anything better then simply to not recall a canceling of any property on land forever.

For the first time an exclusive state property on land was mentioned in article 2 of the Land Code of RSFSR affirmed by RCEC on October 30, 1922. All lands within the limits of RSFSR, in whose support they would consist, were declared the property of the Workers-and-peasants State. Later on, up to the end of USSR, the division of a state property on land on different aspects was not supposed in the local law of RSFSR. Thus, before the creation of USSR the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic was certainly the owner of land. RSFSR, no doubt, became the successor of the Russian Empire and the Republic, which has replaced it with the Temporal Government. However the communists could never accept this eligibility in our country. Monarchy and bourgeois republic could be considered only as the historically dark past. The problems concerning property were solved "from a clear sheet". Nevertheless, the lands which were earlier considered as a state-owned property of the Russian Empire, and also specific and cabinet lands declared state property of a bourgeois republic were actually transferred to RSFSR. As to a private property on land, it was abolished. The municipal property on land, apparently, was estimated as the property similar to a private property. In an aspect that any property was abolished forever, there was a problem how to understand a concept "nationalization of land " which appeared later. However in those years it was considered necessary to solve political aspects of a land problem, without keeping of legal demands.

With the creation of USSR it became the subject of the state property law. In article 1 of the general Principles of land use and land-use system affirmed by the decree of CEC USSR of December 15, 1928 nationalization of land is mentioned, canceling private property on land for ever and establishing of an exclusive state ownership of Union SSR. The Constitutions USSR and the all-union legislative acts, passed in different years, were based on the fact that the owner of land is the Union SSR, instead of allied republics, being part of it, though in the indicated acts the state landownership of Union SSR was not already mentioned directly. It called vivid discussions in jurisprudence whether the allied republics are as well the subjects of law on state property on land. Nevertheless, this problem in the local law already has been already solved, as it didn't supposed the division of a state property on land, on the all-union property and on the property of allied republics.

In USSR, as well as in RSFSR before its creation, a lawgiver did not trouble himself with the legal aspects of transition of the property right from one state to a new one in our country. At first any landownership was abolished, and then the exclusive state property was established. The nationalization of private property on land was declared by a basis land system, and nothing at all was said about transition of state and municipal lands of the Russian Empire in the property of the Soviet State. As the subject of the property law was RSFSR, and a bit later the installation of an exclusive state ownership of USSR was announced.

The analysis of the Soviet local law shows, that there was an all-union landownership in USSR. The declaration of it as such was made for realization of political aims and can not be considered legally correct. However it appears impossible to dispute legal acts, the appearance of which is the result of political events which took place in the first half of the century. It is impermissible not to talk about it, as there are authorities whose political views continue to be based on the legal views on landownership, which have appeared in USSR. These authorities suppose, that those years the land problem was solved not only politically, but also legally quite correct, that does not correspond to the reality. These circumstances are interesting and have a practical value. It is impossible to differentiate state property on land without consideration of those circumstances, that it is not an abstract state property, but has a particular subject -RSFSR at first, and then USSR. It is impossible to solve a problem on state property on land as it was made in the Soviet State that is with neglect of legal aspects. The democratic lawful state with the republican form of government by which Russia is professed in article 1 of the Constitution of Russian Federation, is obliged to take into account not only political and economic, but also legal aspects of the situation first of all which has been usual in our country with a state property on land.

State property on land in Russian Federation

During the last years of existence of the Soviet Union the local law attempted to treat state property in a new way. The law of USSR of March 6, 1990 "On property in USSR " has pointed out, that to state property refer the all-union property, property of allied republics, property of off-line republics, autonomous regions, autonomous areas and property of administrative and territorial subjects (municipal property). However a legally vague concept "property" instead of concept "state property" is used again concerning land in article 20 of this Law. Allied republics and off-line subjects were given a right to possess, to use and to dispose of their territorial lands. In possession and use of Union SSR the land lots were submitted only for definite needs.

From the Law USSR "On property" it is not clear, who is the subject of law of state property on land. At distributing authorities of the owner between Union SSR, allied republics and off-line subjects, the Law has diligently bypassed a problem on the subject of law of a state property on land. Thus it is necessary to pay attention, that possibilities to realize any rights of the owner were not granted at all to krays and areas. As article 20 of Law USSR " On property " has not established a subject of law of state property on land it is impossible to speak about differentiation of a state property on land on the all-union property, the property of RSFSR and property of off-line subjects in a composition of RSFSR. The same approach to a solution of problems of the property on land is seen here what is characteristic for the previous phases of the Soviet state development. At first a political problem as a whole is solved, and the solution of its legal aspect is put aside for an indefinite time. Authorities of the owner of land are divided among definite subjects in this case, and the problem of the subject of the property law has remained unsolved.

Actually, in the late all-union local law the bases of legal regulation of similar problems, traditional for the Soviet state were used in relation to state property on land. In the common theory of the Soviet land entitlement it was expressed as follows: " the confession by the subject of law of an exclusive state property on land of Union SSR as a whole, certainly, does not mean, that the allied republics do not have the right of state property on land ". Thus, the Law USSR " On property " has saved the all-union property on land, but has extended the authorities of allied republics and alongside with them has accorded to off-line formations a right to realize the rights of state property on land. The rough political events in Russia in the beginning of 90th have not allowed solving the problem of state property on land according to the local law USSR. The manifest on the state sovereignty of RSFSR of June 12, 1990, as well as the laws of RSFSR of July 14, 1990 "On property on the territory of RSFSR " and of October 24, 1990 " On operation of the acts of bodies of Union SSR on the territory of RSFSR " have forbidden the application of the appropriate laws of USSR on the territory of RSFSR.

Therefore, the Law USSR "On property " can not have legal effects for a solution of the question about the subjects of state property on land.

The law of RSFSR of October 31, 1990 "On ensuring of economic fundamentals of the sovereignty of RSFSR" has pointed that the land is national wealth of the peoples of RSFSR and property of RSFSR. This Law was not considered to have lost force and continues to act. Thus, the law already defines a particular subject of law of a state property on land in our country - it is Russian Federation as a whole, instead of subjects of Russian Federation, included in its composition.

After the termination of USSR the state property on land has completely passed to allied republics. Such conclusion follows from the demands of the Viennese Convention on legal succession of the states concerning state ownership, state archives and national debts and Agreement of some countries of UIS of October 9, 1992 "On mutual confession of rights and regulating of the property relations ". In this connection, Russian Federation should be considered as the subject of law of state property on land on the territory even in the event that there is a doubt in lawfulness of the above named laws of RSFSR, which contradicted the Constitutions USSR and laws of USSR.

Article 11 of the Constitution of RF - Russia has established, that the state property on land appears as federal, republics in a composition of Russian Federation, autonomous region, autonomous areas, krays, areas, cities of Moscow and Saint-Petersburg. For the first time in our country not only state as a whole could appear the subject of law of state property on land. However, simply to proclaim aspects of state property on land has appeared inadequate, it was necessary to define also the order of transition of the right of state property on particular lands from the previous subject to the new subjects. Unfortunately, till now a lawgiver could not solve the given problem.

It is represented that the old Constitution of Russia has only designated a necessity of transmission of lands in the property of Russian Federation and subjects of Russian Federation. Neither this Constitution of Russian Federation, nor laws, manifest, nor any other acts of Russian Federation did provide transition of land in the property of Russian Federation and subjects of Russian Federation. So, the state landownership should be considered as the property of Russian Federation so long as this problem is not solved in the legislation of Russian Federation in another way. Really, the land can not be found in state ownership without a particular subject. Moreover, there is a legislative act, which establishes, that Russian Federation is the owner of public lands.

State property on land nowadays

The problem on differentiation of state property on land now remains almost unsolved. The subjects of Russian Federation according to federal legislation can not acquire land in property, as the federal acts govern the given problem not completely, but only by the means of declaration of separate aspects of lands by the federal property. In these conditions many subjects of Russian Federation have begun to govern themselves the problems of differentiation of state property on land. Thus they unilaterally declare lands their property, in spite of the fact that they are at present found in state ownership of Russian Federation. A usual situation is aggravated also by the fact that the municipal structures loose a possibility to acquire land in property, as all lands except for transmitted in private property is considered state property, which Russian Federation and the subjects of Russian Federation distribute only among themselves.

At the same time new Constitution of Russian Federation, Civil code of Russian Federation and other federal acts have already created legal fundamentals for the solution of an appropriate problem. The differentiation of state property on land should be realized only according to the federal act and thus the rights of municipal structures should be secured on receiving lands in the property. The process of differentiation of state property on land is necessary for governing so that the demands of the Constitution of Russian Federation, civil and land entitlement were not offended. At the same time, the drafts of the appropriate federal acts show that the problems of differentiation of state property can be solved differently.

At reviewing a problem of differentiation of state property on land are supervised the attempts of arbitrary explanation of the separate provisions of the Constitution RF outside of connection with other constitutional demands.

Interesting is a desire to spread an operation of the civil right over the relations, which can not constitute its subject. In turn, the out-of-date standards of the Soviet land law can be used for a solution of the property problems in a country with market economy. Such bizarre interaction of the heterogeneous improper approaches for a solution of the same problem calls bewilderment. In our country, as it was said earlier, especially during the Soviet period of its development, the priority of political aims at a solution of land problems was provided at the expense of legal requirements. Now political aims in a problem of differentiation of state property on land become prior to legal demands. It is necessary to repeat that the ignoring of a legal part of this problem is simply unacceptable for a democratic lawful state.

In the Constitution of Russian Federation nowhere is said about federal property and property of the subjects of Russian Federation on land. However everyone accepts, that the standards of the Constitution of Russian Federation on differentiation of a state property refer to land as well. If to take another position, it will be impossible to consider Russia as a federated state. An item "d" ("г") article 72 of the Constitution RF has referred the differentiation of state property to a share support of Russian Federation and subjects of Russian Federation. Outgoing from this constitutional provision, the subjects of Russian Federation consider that it is possible before the adoption of a federal act to transmit in their property a majority of lands being on their territory. However thus is ignored that part 2 of article 4 of the Constitution RF establishes supremacy of federal acts on all territory of Russian Federation. The law of RSFSR of October 31, 1990 " On ensuring of an economic basis of the sovereignty of RSFSR " has pointed out, that land is national wealth of the peoples of RSFSR and property of RSFSR. The laws and other normative legal acts of the subjects of Russian Federation transferring the landownership of Russian Federation in the property of the subjects of Russian Federation can not and should not be applied. The indicated Law of RSFSR, according to article 2 of the conclusive and transitory provisions of the Constitution RF, is acting, as it does not contradict the Constitution RF and is not considered as having lost force. For some reason a standard of article 72 of the Constitution of Russian Federation is interpreted as a possibility of the subjects of Russian Federation to withdraw unilaterally from Russian Federation its property on land. Other standards of the Constitution of Russian Federation do not exist at all for some regional lawgivers. The constitution of Russian Federation shows a necessity of differentiation of state property. However, it is not underlined what plants are meant, and to what subject they should be transferred.

It is not occasional. Part 2 of article 9 of the Constitution of Russian Federation and a series of the federal acts require accepting municipal property on land. Now the land in Russian Federation is only in private and state property. Differentiation of state property on land only on federal property and property of the subjects of Russian Federation will result in infringement of the rights of local home rule. The given circumstance is quite often ignored. Referring article 214 of the Civil Code of Russian Federation, a series of the experts affirm that it is possible to differentiate state property only on federal property and property of the subjects of Russian Federation. Such one-side position is strange. Article 214 of the Civil Code RF speaks not about differentiation of state property, but about reference of the state-owned property to definite aspects of state ownership. Authors of the Civil Code of Russian Federation have cautiously come to a solution of appropriate problems, as the process of differentiation of state ownership could have been wider, than partition of property between Russian Federation and subjects of Russian Federation. It is necessary to pay attention, that the local law supposes transmission of the state-owned property to municipal formations. Now at differentiation of state property we are guided by the Decree of the Supreme Body of Russian Federation "On differentiation of state property in Russian Federation on federal property, state property of republics in composition of Russian Federation, krays, areas autonomous regions, autonomous areas, cities of Moscow and St.-Petersburg and municipal property". As the problems on differentiation of state property on land and other natural resources are very specific, this Decree was not supposed to govern them.

At the same time it is curious, that this Decree has also included in differentiation of state property a reference of definite plants to municipal property. It is possible to regard an attempt of some forces to prove that at differentiation of state property on land municipal structures should not transmit land as a desire to restrain their rights. Probably there is no necessity to transmit land in property to municipal structures. Let politics, philosophers, ideologists and so on to discuss it. However, in a democratic lawful state this problem is solved by the means of establishing the appropriate standards in the Constitution of Russian Federation and local law, but not by ignoring them at accomplishment of legislative activity.

In State Duma FC RF a draft federal law "On state and municipal lands" and a Land code of Russian Federation, reset by the President of Russian Federation are discussed. These draft laws ignore at regulating the problems of differentiation of state property a circumstance, that Russian Federation is formally a subject of law of state property on land. It is vague, why public authorities of the subjects of Russian Federation should make the decisions on reference of lands to the property of the subjects of Russian Federation. The constitution of Russian Federation requires to differentiate state property, therefore Russian Federation as the assignee of the right of state property of the Soviet state is obliged to transmit land in the property subjects of Russian Federation and municipal structures, except for those lands, which are expedient for consolidating in the federal property. If the Decree of the Supreme Body of Russian Federation on differentiation of state property defines, that the transmission of plants to the property of the subjects of Russian Federation and municipal property is realized on decisions of the government of Russian Federation and other federal executive bodies, the draft laws on differentiation of state property on land offer to realize the transmission of land to the regional and municipal property at the decision of public authorities of the subjects of Russian Federation and local authorities. It is a riddle how it is possible to transmit the property of Russian Federation to another subject at a decision of a latter. As an argument justifying this position, a discouraging thesis is made that state property on land does not yet belong to anyone. But that can not be.

We can make a historical parallel, when the bolsheviks have canceled property on land, and a bit later saw that they were wrong and began to affirm, that they have nationalized it in the property of the state. In a democratic lawful state a state property can not exist without a particular subject. An answer to it is an old fable about political aspect, vagueness and other flimsy reasons. Probably someone would like very much, to conserve an illusion of lack of a particular owner on differentiated state property.

To differentiate state property on land it is necessary to understand, what will be considered as purely federal property, property of the subjects of Russian Federation and municipal property. Using concepts of the Constitution of Russian Federation, land should appear an object of differentiation of state property. However how should we understand a concept "land" is a big problem, as the local law does not contain necessary indications, and the jurisprudence did not examine this problem in view of the new facts. The federal acts at regulating the land laws apply concepts "land" and "land lots". May be these concepts are far from being equal and constitutional concept "land" is patrimonial for them. The economic reforms have demanded to revive in the local law the variety of shapes of the landownership and institution of immovable asset. It has blown up a system of the old land legislation. A theory of the land legislation, which has been developed for decades has appeared not adapted to modern conditions. If earlier there was a uniform land fund, now it is not present. Until recently a land lot was a plant of the land relations, and now it became a plant of the civil rights. These circumstances have resulted in the fact that the concepts "land" and "land lots" began to find a new definition.

The large attention to the state landownership is stipulated by the fact that the Constitution of Russian Federation and local law began to suppose the civil circulation of land. An owner began to be considered as a key figure at a solution of problems connected to transmission of the land lots to definite individuals. The state is an equal participant of the land agreements. Russian Federation, subjects of Russian Federation and municipal structures as well as citizens and legal entities can appear owners of the land lots from the legal point of view.

The civil local law supposes civil circulation of the land lot, if its boundaries are defined in due order and the rights on it are recorded according to the federal Act "On state registration of the rights on the real property and transactions with it". Differently, the land lot should be physically and legally individualized. As to lands, they will not be personalized as the land lots. The data on lands are not fixed in the Uniform registry of the rights on the real property and transactions with it, but are brought in the state land cadastre. For example, as it is possible to register lands of wood fund declared federal property, by the Wood code of Russian Federation.

The lands are isolated in other order and for other purposes, than land lots. However lands, no less than land lots, should lie in smb's property, even if they cannot be personalized in the order, foreseen by civil local law. Otherwise there will be a problem: who has the right to dispose of lands - Russian Federation, subject of Russian Federation or municipal structure.

The state property on land should be differentiated on two directions. It is expedient to define the owners of lands and land lots. However the process of differentiation of state property on these directions can not proceed without stipulations. The matter is that within the limits of lands of definite aspects, which can be declared federal property, property of the subjects of Russian Federation and municipal property the land lots, owned by other owners are already found or can be found. In this connection, it is especially necessary to stipulate that the lands are transmitted in the property except for the appropriate land lots.

In the draft laws on differentiation of state property on land it is offered to divide only the land lots, though the federal acts have already chosen the way of the declaration of separate aspects of lands the federal property. Earlier it was already said that the lands of the wood fund are declared federal property by the Wood code of Russian Federation. The land of wood fund constitutes 1046,3 million hectares or 61,2 % of the territory of country. The majority of these lands are not divided into the land lots.

If to put such a problem, it is hardly solved, and there is no practical need for it. Other example, item 10 of article 1 of the federal Act "On defense" has declared lands granted to Military Forces of Russian Federation, other troops and military structures and bodies as the federal property. It is vague with what purpose it is necessary to divide them on the land lots and to register as plant of the civil rights.

The relations in the field of differentiation of state property are based on imperious subordination of one side to another. Here there is no legal equality of parties and other signs, characteristic for the relations governed by the civil local law. Any references to the necessity to be guided at a solution of appropriate problems by standards of the civil right are lawful only to the degree it can affect interests of the participants of the civil circulation.

The analysis of the usual situation with state property on land speaks about a legal lockup. The given pattern of ownership exists nominally. According to the current legislation local authorities realize the right of state landownership. Out-of-date standards of the land legislation continue to be applied, which declare the state as a whole as the subject of law of state property on land, and realization of the appropriate rights is submitted to municipal authorities.

Russian Federation remains the owner of all public lands formally and does not consider it necessary before the differentiation of state landownership to change the usual management system of state property on land. At such circumstances we can not speak about any economic stability.

Prospects of legal solution of the differentiation of state property on land

With the election of the new President of Russian Federation and SD FC RF there were reasons for a solution of the problem of differentiation of the state landownership.

If earlier by virtue of political and ideological motives the deputies of the lower chamber of Parliament could not refuse unconformable to modern demands views on problems of the land legislation, now the majority of the members of parliament hold a more flexible position. The Government of Russian Federation has changed also. It is characteristic, that the problems of the landownership are transmitted by it to the support of the Ministry of the property relations of Russian Federation.

The president of Russian Federation in his Message to Parliament sets a problem to create legal fundamental of a private property on land and to fix other elements of market economy.

It is possible to forecast that in the nearest future federal acts on differentiation of state property on land will be passed. However, the lack of theory of the land legislation, responding to modern demands and the negative traditions which have been usual in the field of the land problems solution can have a negative effect on a content of the appropriate federal acts. Under any circumstances the federal act on differentiation of state property on land will be a stabilizing factor, which will eliminate legislative vagueness and gaps in locales and will allow administering state property more efficiently.