To the issue of reprivatization

The article considers the issue of changing property rights onto the example of reprivatization from the point of view of the state’s functions under the state property managing. The article refers to both state (municipal) and private property. The possibility of cyclical ownership is considered, and the right of state ownership in certain economic situations is followed by the right of private ownership of the same property. The legitimacy of the property right is assessed. The definition of “reprivatization”, “de-privatization” and “denationalization” is provided. Within this article the methods of re-privatization are used as follows: restitution and compensation and the model of G.-G. Rose. The results of denationalization (the change of ownership structure, the change of state functions, the reduction of state monopolies, etc.) are considered. The results of the survey demonstrated that the largest part of enterprises in our country (about eighty-six percent) are owned privately and this value is not changed in percentage terms significantly from year to year. The examples of Perm city regarding real re-privatisation deals and possible deals in the coming years are stipulated. The author considers the possibility of “velvet reprivatization” when identifying an ineffective owner represented. The results demonstrate that it is possible to establish state corporations in our country upon the condition of limiting their availability in the industries, namely, this is quite sufficient to ensure security thereof. The possibility of reprivatization is represented, as it may lead to both positive and negative economic effects. The possibility of entering into direct contracts of public (municipal) — private partnership, subject to changes in ownership of certain enterprises, is considered.