N. A. VLASENKO
chief research fellow of the Institute of Legislation and Comparative Law under the Government of the Russian Federation, professor at the Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia, doctor of legal sciences, professor
34, Bolshaya Cheremushkinskaya st., Moscow, Russia, 117218
This article is devoted to the analysis of the reasons for the appearance of proposals for new cognitive methodologies in jurisprudence, the denial of Hegel's dialectics, Marx's materialistic approach, etc. The author believes that the reason for this is the dominance of liberal thinking in the humanities, including jurisprudence. The historical type of thinking, which is liberal, turns any ideology into a system of views on the role and significance of social, economic and other relations. One of the characteristic features of liberal ideology is the denial of existing values, ideas, accumulated knowledge. The liberal approach is an essential feature of the modern theory of law, the worldview of its development. Liberal thinking also denies the established values. In this connection it became popular to deny the dialectics of Hegel, the materialism of Marx's social development, the classical types of legal understanding, the system of sources of law, their traditional division, etc. Meanwhile there is an emphasis in the article on the following rule: what was achieved by domestic jurisprudence and convincingly proved is still actual. The author interprets Marx's ideas about the state, the individual and the state from his early works, which modern legal science does not comprehend or simply ignores. The principles of Hegel's dialectics are illustrated, while it is proved that this knowledge does not only correspond to that moment, but also very important and necessary for modern society.
In the light of what was said the new methodologies in the theory of law proposed by young authors are rather sharply criticized. This is the so-called paradigmatic approach. The author believes that the replacement of scientific paradigms is a natural phenomenon for legal and other sciences. The so-called “drastic” change in scientific paradigms proposed in the 70th years of the last century by American scientists is not possible in the humanities. Following these ideas is wrong and unpromising. Criticism is subjected to synergistic, phenomenological and other ideas of new methodological foundations in the theory of law and the state. Synergetics is nothing more than a long-known technique in the system approach that can not claim an independent methodology. Proposals for a “global” role in the scientific knowledge of phenomenological methodology are also unsuccessful. Essentially, these are axiological principles and methods of cognition.
The article states that liberal thinking and liberal ideology are the main phenomena in social and scientific life. Is it good or bad? Undoubtedly, it is good, for this is a condition necessary for scientific creativity. But the freedom of creativity is not a sword that can destroy everything, including such immutable authorities as Hegel, Marx, etc. The author also believes that the Soviet jurisprudence left the deep resources of knowledge, including the methodology. This does not mean that there is no need to seek new methodological approaches. The movement and development of the methodological toolkit must go forward. But this does not mean that the proposed “new methodologies” are capable of “restoring our worldview”, as well as the fact that the dialectical approach can only “supplement” advanced methodologies, etc. Such value as liberalism in all its manifestations presupposes the personal responsibility of the scientist, the principle of careful attitude to the existing knowledge, prudence and reasoning of the new provisions. Moreover, in cases of fundamental knowledge, such as Hegel's dialectic, the materialism of Karl Marx and others, liberalism requires manifestation and adaptation in the domestic theory of law.
Keywords: liberalism, liberal thinking, theory of cognition, Hegel's dialectics, Marx's materialism, methodological principles, synergetics, paradigms of thinking, phenomenological method.
Afanasev V. G. Sistemnost i obshchestvo [Systematicity and society]. Moscow, 1980. 368 p.
Alekseev S. S. Filosofiya prava [Philosophy of law]. Moscow, 1998. 336 p.
Alekseev S. S. Struktura sovetskogo prava [The structure of Soviet law]. Moscow, 1975. 264 p.
Belyaev V. P., Belyaeva G. S., Dyadyun K. V. et al. Sovremennaya teoriya pravovykh rezhimov: teoreticheskiy i otraslevoy podkhody [Modern theory of legal regimes: theoretical and sectoral approaches]. Ed. by V. Yu. Panchenko, A. A. Petrov. Krasnoyarsk, 2017. 300 p.
Cherdantsev A. F. Integrativnoe nedoponimanie prava [Integrative Misunderstanding Law]. Zhurnal rossijskogo prava = Journal of Russian Law, 2016, no. 10, pp. 5—15.
Cherdantsev A. F. Logiko-yazykovye fenomeny v yurisprudentsii [Logico-linguistic phenomena in law]. Moscow, 2012. 320 p.
Chestnov L. I. Postklassicheskaya metodologiya v yurisprudentsii [Postclassical methodology in law]. Sovremennye metody issledovaniya v pravovedenii [Modern methods of research in jurisprudence]. Ed. by N. I. Matuzov, A. V. Malko. Saratov, 2007. 560 p.
Grunina V. A. Sinergeticheskie osnovy pravovogo regulirovaniya [Synergetic basis of legal regulation]. Cand. diss. thesis. Vladimir, 2006.
Ilenkov E. V. Filosofiya i kultura [Philosophy and culture]. Moscow, 1991. 464 p.
Kondakov N. I. Logicheskiy slovar-spravochnik [Logical dictionary-reference]. Moscow, 1976. 717 p.
Korovina O. S. Fenomenologicheskiy metod v strukture metodologii otechestvennogo pravovedeniya [Phenomenological method in the structure of the methodology of domestic law]. Cand. diss. thesis. Chelyabinsk, 2007.
Kozer L. A. Mastera sotsiologicheskoy mysli. Idei v istoricheskom i sotsialnom kontekste [Masters of Sociological Thought. Ideas in Historical and Social Context]. Moscow, 2006. 528 p.
Kun T. Struktura nauchnykh revolyutsiy [The Structure of Scientific Revolutions]. Moscow, 1975. 262 p.
Lenin V. I. Polnoe sobranie sochineniy [The Complete Works]. 1980, vol. 39, 624 p.
Malakhov V. P. Metodologicheskie i mirovozzrencheskie problemy sovremennoy yuridicheskoy teorii [Methodological and world outlook problems of the modern legal theory]. Moscow, 2011. 430 p.
Marchenko M. N. Sovetskoe i postsovetskoe gosudarstvo i pravo. Sravnitelno-pravovoe issledovanie [Soviet and post-soviet state and law (comparative legal study)]. Moscow, 2017. 368 p.
Marks K. Peredovitsa v No. 179 “Kolnische Zeitung” [The leading article in No. 179 “Kolnische Zeitung”]. In Marks K., Engels F. Sobranie sochineniy. Vol. 1. Moscow, 2014.
Ovchinnikov A. I. Pravovoe myshlenie v germenevticheskoy paradigme [Legal thinking is the hermeneutic paradigm]. Rostov-on-Don, 2002. 285 p.
Petrushenko L. A. Printsip obratnoy svyazi [The Principle of feedback]. Moscow, 1967. 277 p.
Rozin V. M. Genezis prava [Genesis is right]. Moscow, 2001. 206 p.
Sotsiologicheskaya entsiklopediya [Sociological encyclopedia]. Ed. by G. Yu. Semigin. Moscow, 2003. Vol. 2. 863 p.
Syrykh V. M. Germenevticheskiy krug kak metodologicheskiy tupik [Hermeneutic Circle as a Methodological Deadlock]. Sovremennye metody issledovaniya v pravovedenii [Modern methods of research in jurisprudence]. Ed. by N. I. Matuzov, A. V. Malko. Saratov, 2007. 560 p.
Vlasenko N. A. Kollizionnye normy v sovetskom prave [The conflict of laws rules in Soviet law]. Irkutsk, 1984. 100 p.
Voynikanis Ye. A. Paradigmalnyy podkhod k issledovaniyu intellektualnykh prav [Paradigmatic approach to the study of intellectual rights]. Dr. diss. thesis. Moscow, 2017.
Zyryanov A. V. Sinergeticheskiy podkhod v issledovanii gosudarstva [Synergetic approach synergetic approach in the research study on the state]. Chelyabinsk, 2015. 149 p.
A. A. GOLOVINA
senior research fellow of the Institute of Legislation and Comparative Law under the Government of the Russian Federation, candidate of legal sciences
34, Bolshaya Cheremushkinskaya st., Moscow, Russia, 117218
Currently Russia lacks a comprehensive concept of law-making policy, as a result of which negative tendencies are growing in law-making, such as unsystematic, contradictory, erasing the substantive border between legislative and sub-legal regulation, complication of the language and style of the law, inflation of legal matter, duplication of legal norms, the “darkness” of law, which complicates its everyday interpretation, etc. Preservation of these and other tendencies may lead to the fact that law as an instrument of the state in solving socially significant tasks will not be sufficiently effective and will be increasingly replaced by extra-legal social regulators, and the presumption of knowledge of the law will turn into a different theoretical category — legal fiction.
In order to identify current problems in the field of law-making policy of the Russian Federation and suggest possible directions for their solution this article explores the concept of law-making policy, as well as its goals, which are proposed to consider the creation of an effective law-making mechanism and, ultimately, the creation of a quality legal system.
Using the systematic legal, formal legal, dialectical and other research methods, the author reveals some conceptual problems in the following areas of law-making policy of the Russian Federation: 1) the policy of redistributing law-making competence between levels of law-making; 2) the policy of determining the range of subjects involved in law-making; 3) a policy in the area of setting standards for the quality of law-making; 4) policy in determining the boundaries of legal regulation.
In order to solve these problems, the article substantiates the desirability of developing and adopting a Concept for the law-making policy of the Russian Federation. It is proposed to define this Concept as a system of views on the basic principles, priorities, goals and objectives of the law-making policy in the Russian Federation. Its possible approximate content is outlined: a) the main provisions, including the concept of the concept of law-making policy, the legal basis of law-making policy, its goals and objectives; b) the main problems in the field of quality and effectiveness of law-making activities that currently exist in the Russian legal system; c) priority directions of the system solution of problems in the field of lawmaking.
Keywords: law-making, law-making policy, goals of law-making policy, subjects of law-making policy, the concept of law-making policy of the Russian Federation.
Bogoslavskiy Ye. A. Pravovaya politika i formy ee realizatsii [The legal policy and the forms of its implementation]. Teoriya i praktika obshchestvennogo razvitiya, 2014, no. 21, pp. 141—144.
Chernogor N. N., Zaloilo M. V. Aktualnye problemy pravotvorchestva [Actual problems of law-making]. Moscow, 2018. 144 p.
Golovina A. A. Defekty zakonodatelnoy tekhniki kak prepyatstvie obydennomu tolkovaniyu prava [Defects of legislative technique as obstacle to ordinary interpretation of the law]. Zhurnal rossijskogo prava = Journal of Russian Law, 2017, no. 4, pp. 16—26.
Kazmin I. F., Polenina S. V. “Zakon o zakonakh”: problemy izdaniya i soderzhaniya [“Law on Laws”: problems of publication and content]. Sovetskoe gosudarstvo i pravo, 1989, no. 12, pp. 3—9.
Khabrieva T. Y. Gosudarstvo pered vyzovami tsifrovoy realnosti [Law Facing the Challenges of Digital Reality]. Zhurnal rossijskogo prava = Journal of Russian Law, 2018, no. 9, pp. 5—16.
Kontseptsii razvitiya rossiyskogo zakonodatelstva [Concepts of the development of Russian legislation]. Ed. by T. Y. Khabrieva, Yu. A. Tikhomirov. Moscow, 2013. 128 p.
Kontseptsii razvitiya rossiyskogo zakonodatelstva [Concepts of the development of Russian legislation]. L. A. Okunkov, Yu. A. Tikhomirov, Yu. P. Orlovskiy. Moscow, 1994. 246 p.
Kontseptsii razvitiya rossiyskogo zakonodatelstva [Concepts of the development of Russian legislation]. Ed. by T. Y. Khabrieva, Yu. A. Tikhomirov, Yu. P. Orlovskiy. Moscow, 2004. 848 p.
Kontseptsii razvitiya rossiyskogo zakonodatelstva [Concepts of the development of Russian legislation]. Ed. by. T. Y. Khabrieva, Yu. A. Tikhomirov. Moscow, 2010. 731 p.
Kontseptsii razvitiya rossiyskogo zakonodatelstva [Concepts of the development of Russian legislation]. 3rd ed. Moscow, 1998. 256 p.
Kontseptsiya zakonoproekta “O normativnykh pravovykh aktakh v Rossiyskoy Federatsii” [Concept of the draft law “On regulatory legal acts in the Russian Federation”]. Zhurnal rossijskogo prava = Journal of Russian Law, 2012, no. 8, pp. 121—125.
Kutuzova N. S. O roli normativno-pravovykh aktov programmnogo kharaktera [On the role of program regulatory acts]. Rossiyskaya yustitsiya, 2016, no. 5, pp. 9—11.
Kuzmina V. Obratnogo puti ne budet [There will be no way back]. Ekspert, 2018, November 26 — December 2, no. 48, pp. 12—15.
Mazurenko A. P. Rossiyskaya pravotvorcheskaya politika: kontseptsiya i realnost [Russian law-making policy: concept and reality]. Moscow, 2010. 392 p.
Medvedev D. A. Rossiya — 2024: Strategiya sotsialno-ekonomicheskogo razvitiya [The strategy of social and economic development]. Voprosy ekonomiki, 2018, no. 10, pp. 5—28.
Naryshkin S. Ye., Khabrieva T. Y., Abramova A. I. et al. Nauchnye kontseptsii razvitiya rossiyskogo zakonodatelstva [Scientific concept of development of the russian legislation]. Ed. by T. Y. Khabrieva, Yu. A. Tikhomirov. 7th ed. Moscow, 2015. 544 p.
O proekte federalnogo zakona “O normativnykh pravovykh aktakh v Rossiyskoy Federatsii” [On the draft Federal Law “On regulatory legal acts in the Russian Federation”]. Zhurnal rossijskogo prava = Journal of Russian Law, 2013, no. 3, pp. 84—99.
Pashentsev D. A. Rossiyskaya zakonotvorcheskaya traditsiya: ontologiya protsessa [Russian Legislative Tradition: Ontology of the Process]. Zhurnal rossijskogo prava = Journal of Russian Law, 2018, no. 8, pp. 5—13.
Pravovaya reforma: kontseptsii razvitiya rossiyskogo zakonodatelstva [Legal reform: concepts of development of Russian legislation]. 2nd ed. Moscow, 1995. 220 p.
Proekt federalnogo zakona “O normativnykh pravovykh aktakh v Rossiyskoy Federatsii” (initsiativnyy zakonoproekt) [Draft federal law “On regulatory legal acts in the Russian Federation” (initiative bill)]. Moscow, 2013. 70 p.
Rossiyskoe zakonodatelstvo: 20 let razvitiya v rusle novoy Konstitutsii Rossiyskoy Federatsii [Russian legislation: 20 years of development in line with the new Constitution of the Russian Federation]. Ed. by A. A. Klishas, V. N. Pligin. Moscow, 2013. 140 p.
Rybakov O. Yu., Tikhonova S. V. Informatsionnye riski i effektivnost pravovoy politiki [Information risks and the efficiency of legal policy]. Zhurnal rossijskogo prava = Journal of Russian Law, 2016, no. 3, pp. 88—95.
Tikhomirov Yu. A. Yuridicheskoe prognozirovanie [Legal prognostication]. Moscow, 2018. 168 p.
Tikhomirov Yu. A., Rakhmanina T. N., Khabibulin A. G. Zakon o normativnykh pravovykh aktakh — aktualnaya povestka dnya [The Law on Regulatory Legal Acts — Current Agenda]. Zhurnal rossijskogo prava = Journal of Russian Law, 2006, no. 5, pp. 88—93.
Zemchenkov N. F. Pravotvorcheskaya politika RF na regionalnom urovne: filosofsko-pravovoy aspekt [Law-making policy of the Russian Federation at the regional level: philosophical and legal aspect]. Gosudarstvennaya vlast i mestnoe samoupravlenie, 2016, no. 8, pp. 37—41.
A. V. MAYFAT, P. A. GORDEEV
A. V. MAYFAT, professor at the Department of civil law of the Ural State Law University, doctor of legal sciences
21, Komsomolskaya st., Yekaterinburg, Russia, 620137
P. A. GORDEEV, lecturer at the Department of civil law of the Ural State Law University
21, Komsomolskaya st., Yekaterinburg, Russia, 620137
The interpretation of the norms of corporate law as dispositive, as in general, the use of the dispositive method in the regulation of corporate relations causes a lot of controversy in science. Taken into account the specifics of corporate relations a clearly answer that they can apply the civil method is unlikely to be correct. Withdrawal of a participant from the company is one of the ways to terminate the legal relationship of participation in the company (corporate legal relationship). This legal relationship in the science of civil law is understood in different contexts as a kind of contractual relationship, as a way to protect corporate rights, as a way to terminate the corporate "investment" legal relationship. Depending on the position taken, different conclusions may be drawn regarding the possibility of dispositive regulation of this relationship.
The purpose of this article is to analyze the possibility of granting the right to leave the company, the possibility of establishing conditions for leaving the company, the possibility of settlement by the parties of the order and the amount of payment of the actual value of the share. The aim of the study is to identify the limits of the possibility of corporate participants in the regulation of corporate relations on the basis of their own discretion.
The methodological basis of the study was: general scientific method of cognition-dialectical, as well as private scientific methods: comparative legal, technical-legal, formal-logical in their various combinations. The legal relationship on leaving the society is considered in its dynamics.
The results of the study were the conclusions about the possibility of regulation of relations on withdrawal from society using the means of dispositive regulation, which may be limited by mandatory rules and may not be in conflict with other principles of civil law, such as equality and integrity of participants in civil relations.
Keywords: dispositivity, corporate relations, limited liability company, freedom of contract, exit of the participant from the company, payment of the actual value of the share.
Alekseev S. S. Odnostoronnie sdelki v mekhanizme grazhdansko-pravovogo regulirovaniya. Antologiya uralskoy tsivilistiki, 1925—1989. Moscow, 2001.
Andreev Yu. N. Mekhanizm grazhdansko-pravovoy zashchity. Moscow, 2010. 464 p.
Bryukhov R. B. Dispozitivnost v grazhdanskom prave Rossii. Cand. diss. Yekaterinburg, 2006. 200 p.
Gorlov V. A. Pravovoe polozhenie obshchestv s ogranichennoy otvetstvennostyu. Cand. diss. Yekaterinburg, 1998.
Grazhdanskoe pravo. Ed. by B. M. Gongalo. Vol. 1. 2nd ed. Moscow, 2017.
Khaydemann T. Razvitie i sovremennoe sostoyanie nemetskogo zakonodatelstva ob obshchestvakh i tovarishchestvakh. Zakonodatelstvo i ekonomika, 2003, no. 7—8.
Krasavchikov O. A. Grazhdanskie organizatsionno-pravovye otnosheniya. Antologiya uralskoy tsivilistiki, 1925—1989. Moscow, 2001.
Krasavchikov O. A. Grazhdanskie organizatsionno-pravovye otnosheniya. Sovetskoe gosudarstvo i pravo, 1966, no. 10.
Krasavchikov O. A. Yuridicheskie fakty v sovetskom grazhdanskom prave. Moscow, 1958.
Kuznetsov A. A. Predely avtonomii voli v korporativnom prave. Kratkiy ocherk. Moscow, 2017.
Kuznetsov A. A. Vykhod uchastnika iz khozyaystvennogo obshchestva kak sposob zashchity prav i zakonnykh interesov. Vestnik grazhdanskogo prava, 2011, vol. 11, no. 5.
Lomakin D. V. Dogovory ob osushchestvlenii prav uchastnikov khozyaystvennykh obshchestv kak novella korporativnogo zakonodatelstva. Vestnik Vysshego arbitrazhnogo suda Rossiyskoy Federatsii, 2009, no. 8.
Mayfat A. V. Nekotorye voprosy prekrashcheniya korporativnykh otnosheniy: vykhod uchastnika iz obshchestva s ogranichennoy otvetstvennostyu. Chastnoe pravo. Preodolevaya ispytaniya: k 60-letiyu B. M. Gongalo. Moscow, 2016. Pp. 120—127.
Mayfat A. V. Osobennosti investirovaniya v predprinimatelskuyu deyatelnost. Voprosy teorii i pravoprimeneniya. Yekaterinburg, 2001.
Novak D. V. Dobrosovestnost v korporativnom prave. Vestnik grazhdanskogo prava, 2017, no. 2.
Pakhomova N. N. Tsivilisticheskaya teoriya korporativnykh otnosheniy. Yekaterinburg, 2005.
Stepanov D. I. Sdelka uchrediteley i prisoedinenie k ney posleduyushchikh uchastnikov. Vestnik Vysshego arbitrazhnogo suda Rossiyskoy Federatsii, 2010, no. 3.
Sukhanov Ye. A. Sravnitelnoe korporativnoe pravo. Moscow, 2014.
Tarasov I. T. Uchenie ob aktsionernykh kompaniyakh. Moscow, 2000.
Vitruk N. V. Osnovy teorii pravovogo polozheniya lichnosti v sotsialisticheskom obshchestve. Moscow, 1979. 229 p.
Vystuplenie na kruglom stole “dispozitivnost norm korporativnogo zakonodatelstva i predely svobody dogovora v korporativnom prave” ot 4 aprelya 2018 goda Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mO6Sn7ip6Qk&t=1184s.
Yakovlev V. F. Struktura grazhdanskikh pravootnosheniy. Antologiya uralskoy tsivilistiki, 1925—1989. Moscow, 2001.
E. L. MININA
leading research fellow of the Institute of Legislation and Comparative Law under the Government of the Russian Federation, candidate of legal sciences
34, Bolshaya Cheremushkinskaya st., Moscow, Russia, 117218
Updating legislation on agricultural cooperation is currently relevant. However, it is not effective without further improvement of the general civil and legal norms governing the legal status of cooperatives and the entire system of Russian cooperative legislation. This system is not logical enough: for example, law on general nature is adopted with respect to production cooperatives, but there is no similar regulatory act that applies to all consumer cooperatives. At the same time, law on agricultural cooperation covers all possible types of cooperatives and their unions; in some cases, it contradicts to the provisions of the law on production cooperatives, which causes serious problems in law enforcement.
The attribution of production to commercial and consumer cooperatives — to non-profit organizations, does not fully reflect the cooperatives' nature peculiarities and their creation goals, as noted by many researchers. Agricultural consumer cooperatives are formed by agricultural producers for the joint implementation of activities discussing the production of agricultural products. The legislative prohibition of the profit distribution among consumer cooperative members complicates successful development of such cooperatives in the agricultural sector.
Legal literature states the idea of the need to develop a unified federal law on cooperatives. In this regard, the article analyzes the experience of adopting such regulatory acts in our country — the Provisions on Cooperative Partnerships and their Unions of 1917 and the Law on Cooperation in the USSR 1988. It is concluded that the concept of improving cooperative legislation hasn't been developed yet, which would be based on a clear vision of the general picture of the current state and prospects for the development of various cooperation forms.
Keywords: agricultural legislation, cooperative legislation, production cooperative, consumer cooperative, agricultural cooperation, legal status, law on cooperation.
Bystrov G. Ye. Reformirovanie instituta kooperativa v proekte Federalnogo zakona “O vnesenii izmeneniy v Grazhdanskiy kodeks Rossiyskoy Federatsii”. Zakonodatelstvo I ekonomika, 2012, no. 9.
Bystrov G. Ye., Tychinin S. V. Reforma kooperativnogo zakonodatelstva i kontseptsiya proekta federalnogo zakona “O kooperatsii v Rossiyskoy Federatsii”. Yevraziyskiy yuridicheskiy zhurnal, 2016, no. 12.
Charkin S. A. Pravovoy status selskokhozyaystvennykh kooperativov. Sovremennoe pravo, 2008, no. 5.
Komitet Kongressa po razvitiyu selskogo khozyaystva: selkhozkooperatsiya dlya ekonomiki poseleniy. Munitsipalnaya Rossiya, 2018, no. 5.
Korshunov P. N. Chastnoe i publichnoe v pravovom mekhanizme regulirovaniya kooperatsii. Rossiyskaya yustitsiya, 2015, no. 11.
O selskokhozyaystvennoy kooperatsii: nauchno-prakticheskiy kommentariy k Federalnomu zakonu ot 8 dekabrya 1995 goda. No. 193-FZ (postateynyy). Ed. by Ye. L. Minina. Moscow, 2019.
Rekomendatsii parlamentskikh slushaniy na temu “Pravovye aspekty povysheniya dokhodnosti selskokhozyaystvennogo proizvodstva” 21 fevralya 2017 goda (p. 1.2),
Zakonodatelnoe obespechenie razvitiya agropromyshlennogo kompleksa Rossii. Materialy parlamentskikh slushaniy. Izdanie Gosudarstvennoy Dumy. 2018.
Sinitsyn S. A. Prognoz razvitiya imushchestvennykh otnosheniy: pravoponimanie, grazhdanskoe zakonodatelstvo. Zakony Rossii: opyt, analiz, praktika, 2017, no. 1.
Soyfer T. V. Nekommercheskie organizatsii: problemy grazhdanskoy pravosubektnosti. Zhurnal rossijskogo prava = Journal of Russian Law, 2018, no. 1.
Tychinin S. V. Grazhdansko-pravovoe regulirovanie potrebitelskoy kooperatsii v Rossii. Dr. diss. thesis. St. Petersburg, 2004.
Ustyukova V. V., Belyaeva Z. S. Problemy sovershenstvovaniya pravovogo polozheniya selskokhozyaystvennykh kooperativov. Agrarnoe i zemelnoe pravo, 2016, no. 9.
Yuridicheskie litsa v grazhdanskom prave. Vol. II. Yuridicheskie litsa v rossiyskom grazhdanskom prave (kommercheskie i nekommercheskie organizatsii). Ed. by V. N. Litovkin, O. V. Gutnikov. Moscow, 2011.
O. N. SHEMENEVA
associate professor at the Voronezh State University, doctor of legal sciences.
1, Universitetskaya sq., Voronezh, Russia, 394018
Nowadays the terms "procedural contract" and "procedural agreement" are widely used in research and in practice. At the same time concerning many concrete arrangements of the parties there is no uniform idea on their branch accessory: whether they are substantive or procedural. For example, an amicable agreement, arbitration agreement, agreement on jurisdiction, etc. belong to such agreements. These disputes inevitably lead to disagreements related to their practical application. Many of them are reflected in the literature and for many years do not find a uniform solution.
The purpose of this study is to formulate the concept of a procedural agreement that differs from the concept of a civil contract by identifying the main criteria for their delimitation.
The methodology of the study is a systematic approach to the object of study, formal logical, historical, comparative legal methods, etc.
According to the results of the study, the main criteria for distinguishing civil law contracts and procedural agreements are to consider the subject of the impact of the agreements; subject composition; the need to specify in the law on the possibility of their achievement; the time when legal consequences happened in result of agreement, etc.
It is concluded that procedural agreements are agreed procedural actions of the parties and other persons involved in the case, aimed at choosing one of the alternative rules of consideration and resolution of civil cases provided by law, acting as legal facts-conditions for the exercise of procedural rights and within the framework of completed factual composition obliging the court to commit retaliatory proceedings for the application of the consequences of agreements reached.
Keywords: procedural agreement, contract, settlement, agreement on jurisdiction, civil proceedings.
Abramova Ye. N., Averchenko N. N., Baygushev Yu. V. et al. Grazhdanskoe pravo [Civil law]. Vol. 1. Ed. by A. P. Sergeev. Moscow, 2011. 1006 p.
Braginskiy M. I., Vitryanskiy V. V. Dogovornoe pravo: Obshchie polozheniya. [Contract law: General provisions]. Moscow, 1998. 682 p.
Ivanova Ye. A. Soglasheniya v sfere grazhdanskoy yurisdiktsii: protsessualno-pravovoy aspekt [Agreements in the sphere of civil jurisdiction: procedural and legal aspect]. Cand. diss. Yekaterinburg, 2016. 207 p.
Ivanova Ye. A. Svoboda protsessualnykh soglasheniy [Freedom of procedural agreements]. Arbitrazhnyy i grazhdanskiy protsess, 2015, no. 4, pp. 11—14.
Kurochkin S. A. Soglasheniya v tsivilisticheskom protsesse [Agreements in the Civil Procedure]. Vestnik grazhdanskogo protsessa, 2012, no. 3, pp. 52—72.
Muratova N. G., Chelyshev M. Yu. O mezhotraslevoy teorii protsessualnykh soglasheniy: voprosy grazhdanskogo prava, tsivilisticheskogo i ugolovnogo protsessa [The theory of the procedural contract in the legal doctrine of Russia: aspects of the civil law, civil and criminal process]. Vestnik grazhdanskogo protsessa, 2012, no. 4, pp. 10—27.
Rozhkova M. A. Teoriya protsessualnogo dogovora i sdelki, napravlennye na zashchitu prav [The procedural contract theory and transactions directed to the rights protection]. Rossiyskiy ezhegodnik grazhdanskogo i arbitrazhnogo protsessa, 2007, no. 6, pp. 184—208.
Rozhkova M. A., Yeliseev N. G., Skvortsov O. Yu. Dogovornoe pravo: soglasheniya o podsudnosti, mezhdunarodnoy podsudnosti, primiritelnoy protsedure, arbitrazhnoe (treteyskoe) i mirovoe soglasheniya [Contract law: agreements on jurisdiction, international jurisdiction, conciliatory procedure, arbitration and settlement agreements]. Ed. by M. A. Rozhkova. Moscow, 2008. 525 p.
Rozhkova M. Materialnye i protsessualnye soglasheniya, poimenovannye v Arbitrazhnom protsessualnom kodekse RF [The material and procedural agreements named in the Arbitration procedural code of the Russian Federation]. Khozyaystvo i pravo, 2004, no. 1, pp. 75—87.
Valeev D. Kh. Dogovor v otraslyakh tsivilisticheskogo protsessa: priglashenie k diskussii [Contract in Branches of a Civilist Procedure: Invitation to Debate]. Izvestiya vysshikh uchebnykh zavedeniy. Pravovedenie, 2007, no. 6, pp. 64—75.
Vaskovskiy Ye. V. Kurs grazhdanskogo protsessa. Vol. 1. Subekty i obekty protsessa, protsessualnye otnosheniya i deystviya [Course of civil process. Vol. 1. Subjects and objects of process, procedural relations and actions]. Moscow, 1913. 704 p.
Yeliseev N. G. Protsessualnyy dogovor [Procedural contract]. Moscow, 2015. 368 p.
S. O. GAVRILOV, E. S. TREZUBOV
S. O. GAVRILOV, professor, director of the Law Institute of Kemerovo State University, doctor of historical sciences, candidate of legal science
6, Krasnaya st., Kemerovo, Russia, 650000
E. S. TREZUBOV, senior lecturer at the Department of labor and environmental law and civil procedure of the Law Institute of Kemerovo State University
6, Krasnaya st., Kemerovo, Russia, 650000
The expansion of the number of cases in the Russian civil proceedings leads to an increase in risks not only for the claimant and the debtor, but also for other persons involved in a disputed legal relationship. Since a court order is one of the types of court decisions, such properties of legal force as enforceability and general obligation apply to it. Also court order execution may violate the rights and legitimate interests of third parties (bankruptcy creditors, arbitration manager, etc.). Procedural legislation, prohibiting the issuance of a court order in a relationship where are third parties, does not establish special rules for the protection of their rights in case of violation.
This article discusses three permissible mechanisms under the procedural form of writ of production: filing objections to the execution of a court order, cassation and revision of new and newly discovered circumstances of an enforceable court order. Taking into account the quality of the court order's legal force and the imperfection of the preliminary examination mechanism of the cassation complaint, there is a justification of revising the court order for new and newly discovered circumstances according to the statement of persons who are not a recoverer or debtor but whose rights are viewed in a judicial act.
The author acknowledges that due to impossibility of “third parties” to fill objections for execution of a court order it is suggested that the rules to consider the “third party's” application for cancellation of a court order, which has not yet entered into legal force, should be fixed in procedural law applying to a court session and clarification of the reasons for the appeal, establishing the connection of the applicant with the considered requirement.
Keywords: court order, third party, objections to execute a court order, cancellation of a court order, revision for new and newly discovered circumstances, a person whose rights and obligations are a subject of judicial act.
Abushenko D. B. Polnomochiya arbitrazhnogo suda kassatsionnoy instantsii skvoz prizmu sudebnogo prikaza [The Powers of Cassation Instance Arbitration Court Through the Prism of Court Order]. Zakony Rossii: opyt, analiz, praktika, 2016, no. 9, pp. 54—57.
Aleksandrovich Ye. O., Pereplesnina I. O. Vvedenie instituta prikaznogo proizvodstva v arbitrazhnyy protsess: god spustya (na primere praktiki Arbitrazhnogo suda Respubliki Kareliya) [Introduction of the institution of writ proceedings in the arbitration process: a year later (in the case of the Republic of Karelia the Court of Arbitration Practice)]. Informatsionnoanaliticheskiy zhurnal “Arbitrazhnye spory”, 2017, no. 3, pp. 87—98.
Bezrukov A. M. Preyuditsialnaya svyaz sudebnykh aktov [The Prejudicial Link of Judicial Acts]. Moscow, 2007. 144 p.
Bortnikova N. A. Regulirovanie prikaznogo proizvodstva posredstvom ispolzovaniya pravovoy analogii [Regulation of summary procedure by use of legal analogy]. Administrator suda, 2015, no. 3, pp. 15—19.
Khalatov S. A. Sokrashchenie kompetentsii sudov po razresheniyu besspornykh del kak faktor snizheniya nagruzki [Limitation of the Court Jurisdiction over Resolution of Uncontested Cases as a Workload Decrease Factor]. Arbitrazhnyy i grazhdanskiy protsess, 2017, no. 12, pp. 40—42.
Mikheev P. V. Deystvie printsipa dispozitivnosti v prikaznom i uproshchennom proizvodstve v grazhdanskom i arbitrazhnom protsesse [Effect of the Disposition Principle in Writ and Simplified Proceedings in Civil and Arbitral Procedure]. Arbitrazhnyy i grazhdanskiy protsess, 2018, no. 1, pp. 30—35.
Popelyuk A. S. Faktor nesostoyatelnosti dolzhnika v prikaznom proizvodstve [Factor of insolvency of the debtor in writ proceedings]. Mirovoy sudya, 2015, no. 4, pp. 28—30.
Razdyakonov Ye. S. Sudebnyy prikaz v arbitrazhnom protsesse: realnost i perspektivy razvitiya [Judicial Order in Arbitration Procedure: Reality And Prospects of Development]. Vestnik grazhdanskogo protsessa, 2017, no. 6, pp. 43—59.
Shadlovskaya O. D. Prikaznoe proizvodstvo kak uproshchennaya forma grazhdanskogo sudoproizvodstva [Writ proceedings as a simplified form of civil procedure]. Cand. diss. thesis. Moscow, 2015. 31 p.
Shemeneva O. N. Kriterii otneseniya del k prikaznomu proizvodstvu: otsutstvie spora, ochevidnost zadolzhennosti ili soglasovannoe voleizyavlenie ego storon [Criteria of Referring Cases to Order Procedure: Absence of Dispute, Debt Evidence or Agreed Will of Its Parties]. Mirovoy sudya, 2016, no. 6, pp. 29—33.
Solokhin A. Ye. Primirenie storon i ego rezultaty v arbitrazhnom protsesse. Kommentariy k Postanovleniyu Plenuma VAS RF ot 18 iyulya 2014 g. No. 50: pervye itogi primeneniya [Reconciliation of the Parties and Its Results in Arbitrazh Process. Commentary on the Ruling of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitrazh Court of the Russian Federation of 18 July 2014 N 50: the First Results of Its Application]. Vestnik ekonomicheskogo pravosudiya Rossiyskoy Federatsii, 2016, no. 6, pp. 125—158.
Solovev A. A., Ogneva K. O. Prikaznoe proizvodstvo po delam o vzyskanii obyazatelnykh platezhey i sanktsiy: novelly Kodeksa administrativnogo sudoproizvodstva Rossiyskoy Federatsii [Summary Procedure on Collecting Mandatory Payments and Sanctions: New Laws of the Administrative Court Procedure Code of the Russian Federation]. Administrativnoe I munitsipalnoe pravo, 2018, no. 1, pp. 1—13.
Svodnye statisticheskie svedeniya o deyatelnosti federalnykh sudov obshchey yurisdiktsii i mirovykh sudey za 2017 god. Otchet o rabote sudov obshchey yurisdiktsii o rassmotrenii grazhdanskikh, administrativnykh del po pervoy instantsii. [Summary statistics on the activities of the federal courts and justices of the peace for 2017. Report on the work of courts of general jurisdiction on the consideration of civil, administrative cases in the first instance]. Available at: http://www.cdep.ru/userimages/sudebnaya_statistika/ 2017/F_3-svod-2017.xls (accessed 20.11.2018).
Svodnye statisticheskie svedeniya o deyatelnosti federalnykh sudov obshchey yurisdiktsii i mirovykh sudey za pervoe polugodie 2018 g. Otchet o rabote sudov obshchey yurisdiktsii o rassmotrenii grazhdanskikh, administrativnykh del po pervoy instantsii [Summary statistics on the activities of the federal courts and justices of the peace for first half of 2018. Report on the work of courts of general jurisdiction on the consideration of civil, administrative cases in the first instance]. Available at: http://www.cdep.ru/userimages/sudebnaya_statistika/ 2018/F3-svod_vse_sudy-1-2018.xls (accessed 20.11.2018).
Terekhova L. A. Nadzornoe proizvodstvo v grazhdanskom protsesse: problemy razvitiya I sovershenstvovaniya [Supervisory review in civil proceedings: problems of development and improvement]. Moscow, 2009. 174 p.
Terekhova L. A. Novye i vnov otkryvshiesya obstoyatelstva v grazhdanskom I administrativnom sudoproizvodstve [New and newly discovered circumstances in civil and administrative proceedings]. Moscow, 2017. 144 p.
Terekhova L. A. Obekty peresmotra po novym i vnov otkryvshimsya obstoyatelstvam I subekty, initsiiruyushchie peresmotr [Objects of revision in cases on new and newly discovered facts, and subjects, initiates the revision]. Vestnik grazhdanskogo protsessa, 2016, no. 3, pp. 85—97.
Tumanov D. A. Prikaznoe proizvodstvo v nastoyashchee vremya: protsess ili fiktsiya protsessa? [Writ proceedings at present: a process or a fiction of a process?]. Zhurnal rossijskogo prava = Journal of Russian Law, 2008, no. 7, pp. 66—76.
Yarkov V. V. Proekt protsessualnoy reformy: quo vadis? [Procedural Reform Project: Quo Vadis?]. Arbitrazhnyy i grazhdanskiy protsess, 2017, no. 12, pp. 10—14.
Zaykov D. Ye. Problemy vzyskaniya sudebnykh izderzhek v prikaznom proizvodstve [Issues of Legal Cost Recovery in Writ Proceedings]. Arbitrazhnyy i grazhdanskiy protsess, 2017, no. 11, pp. 29—33.
O. A. AKOPYAN
senior research fellow of the Department of financial, tax and budget legislation of the Institute of Legislation and Comparative Law under the Government of the Russian Federation, candidate of legal sciences
34, Bolshaya Cheremushkinskaya st., Moscow, Russia, 117218
The paper deals with the consequences of new digital technologies expansion for the financial sphere regulation. The author analyzes the conditions for the formation of a new culture in the financial sphere — the culture of private funds and its consequences in the context of globalist trends. The article analyzes the positions of Russian and foreign scholars on the prospects of regulating "digital money", cryptocurrency and alternative means of payment. The paper lists the areas of regulation, which will be primarily subject to changes as a result of using a blockchain technology. The cryptocurrency legitimation issues are touched upon. The author also reflects on the benefits of decentralizing regulation in these areas. It also refers to the opposition of those? Who support centralization and decentralization in the financial sector. In this paper, special attention is paid to blockchain technology, because of its special importance for the prospects of state to regulate financial environment and any other one, amenable to decentralization. The polar positions of scholars (lawyers, philosophers, economists) concerning the nature of this phenomenon (blockchain) are given.
The methodological basis of the research is the dialectical method of scientific knowledge, as well as general scientific and special methods: system-structural, comparative legal, logical, observation, description, statistical.
The results of the research summarize the literature analysed and describe prospects for developing and applying the blockchain technology for the financial legal sphere and state regulation in general.
Keywords: blockchain, financial law, centralization, counterculture, legal culture, technical progress, consumption, globalization.
Cheshev V. V. Tekhnicheskiy progress v kulturno-istoricheskom kontekste [Technical Progress in the Cultural and Historical Context]. Voprosy filosofii, 2017, no. 12, pp. 64—78.
Hayek F. The Use of Knowledge in Society. 1945. Available at: http://www.kysq.org/docs/Hayek_45.pdf.
He D., Leskow R., Haksar V. et al. Fintech and Financial Services: Initial Considerations. IMF Staff Discussion Note, 2017, no. 17/05. Available at: https://www.imfconnect.org/content/dam/imf/Spring-Annual%20Meetings/AM17/Documents%20and%20 Publications/sdn1705.pdf.
Ilin A. N. Konsyumerizm kak faktor antikulturnoy innovatsionnosti [Consumerism as a Factor of Anti-Cultural Innovation]. Voprosy filosofii, 2016, no. 4, pp.171—180.
Johnston's Law. Available at: http://www.johnstonslaw.org/.
Khabrieva T. Y., Chernogor N. N. Pravo v usloviyakh tsifrovoy realnosti [The Right in the Digital Reality]. Zhurnal rossijskogo prava = Journal of Russian Law, 2018, no. 1, pp. 85—102.
Kucherov I. I. Kriptovalyuta (idei pravovoy identifikatsii i legitimatsii alternativnykh platezhnykh sredstv [Cryptocurrency (ideas of legal identification and legitimation)]. Moscow, 2018. 204 p.
Kucherov I . I., Khavanova I . A. Nalogovye posledstviya ispolzovaniya a lternativnykh platezhnykh sredstv (teoretiko-pravovye aspekty) [Tax Consequences of the Use of Alternative means of Payment (Theoretical and Legal Aspects)]. Vestnik Permskogo universiteta. Yuridicheskie nauki, 2017, no. 1, pp. 66—72.
Marian O. Are Cryptocurrencies Super Tax Havens?. Michigan Law Review First Impressions, 2013, vol. 112.
Melnikov V. Yu. Znachenie pravovoy kultury dlya razvitiya cheloveka i grazhdanskogo obshchestva [The Value of Legal culture for Human Development and Civil Society]. Kultura: upravlenie, ekonomika, pravo, 2016, no. 3, pp. 18—26.
Mogayar U. Blokcheyn dlya biznesa [The Business Blockchain: Promise, Practice and Application of the next internet technology]. Moscow, 2018. 224 p.
Pravovoe prostranstvo: granitsy i dinamika [Legal space: Boundaries and Dynamics]. Ed. by Yu. A. Tikhomirov. Moscow, 2019. 240 p.
Shvab K. Chetvertaya promyshlennaya revolyutsiya [The Fourth Industrial Revolution]. Moscow, 2016. 138 p.
Simanovskiy A. Yu. K voprosu ob ekonomicheskoy prirode kriptovalyuty [On the Economic Nature of Cryptocurrency]. Voprosy ekonomiki, 2018, no. 9, pp. 132—142.
Simonyan R. Kh. Krizis liberalno-rynochnoy modeli globalizatsii [The Crisis of the Liberalmarket Model of Globalization]. Voprosy filosofii, 2018, no. 8, pp. 16—25.
Stolbov M. I. O nekotorykh posledstviyakh vnedreniya blokcheyna [About some Consequences of Blockchain Implementation]. Voprosy ekonomiki, 2018, no. 6, pp. 133—145.
Tapskott D. Tekhnologiya blokcheyn: to, chto dvizhet finansovoy revolyutsiey segodnya [Blockchain Revolution by Don Tapscott and Alex Tapscott]. Moscow, 2018. 448 p.
Tikhomirov Yu. A. Upravlenie na osnove prava [Management based on the Law]. Moscow, 2007. 484 p.
Vinya P., Keysi M. Epokha kriptovalyut. Kak bitkoin i blokcheyn menyayut mirovoy ekonomicheskiy poryadok [The Age of Cryptocurrency: How Bitcoin and the Blockchain are Challenging the Global Economic Order]. Moscow, 2018. 432 p.
A. M. LAPTEVA
associate professor at the Department of financial law of the Law faculty of the St. Petersburg campus of the National Research University “Higher School of Economics”, candidate of legal sciences
17, Promyshlennaya st., St. Petersburg, Russia, 198099
The author attempts to address comprehensively issues relating to the regulation of the use of digital assets in commercial circulation. It should be noted that in legal and economic doctrine, as well as in law enforcement practice, there is no uniform approach to the content of the concepts “digital economy”, “digital asset” and Big Data. Hence, these circumstances determine the topic of the study.
The purpose of the article is to study the insufficiently considered issues related to the legal nature and legal regime of digital assets, big data, as well as the conditions for their turnover.
The conclusion states that Big Data is a complex property, includes a set of objects with different legal nature, which have a common purpose. The unity of purpose consolidates this set into a single independent object of civil law, possessing signs of revolving ability and suggesting specific ways of protecting the owner's rights.
The dominant feature of Big Data as a variety of complex property is: 1) information, which consists of "raw data" and the results of processing "raw data" (which can also be in materialized form); 2) property rights (for example, exclusive rights to the results of intellectual activity of a program for electronic computers (computer programs) and databases). The peculiarity of such a complex property is that the value and usefulness its elements (value for specific individuals and entities as a whole) may be of interest both due to their essence and in aggregate.
Keywords: digital economy, digital asset, Big Data.
Amelin R. V. Pravovoy rezhim gosudarstvennykh informatsionnykh sistem [Legal regime of state information systems]. Ed. by S. Ye. Channov. Moscow, 2016. 338 p.
Andreev V. K. Subektivnoe grazhdanskoe pravo i inye proyavleniya voli i interesa v deyatelnosti yuridicheskikh lits [Subjective Civil Law and other Manifestations of Will and
Interest in the Activities of Legal Entities]. Zhurnal rossijskogo prava = Journal of Russian Law, 2018, no. 8, pp. 58—68.
Baranov G. Zakon, chto vyshlo. Kak Rossiya budet regulirovat kriptovalyuty [Which way will Russia will regulate cryptocurrencies]. Finansovaya gazeta, 2018, no. 11.
Bondarchuk D. Kriptovalyutu, mayning i smart-kontrakty legalizuyut. Kak eto otrazitsya na yuridicheskoy rabote? [Cryptocurrency, mining and smart contracts are legalized. How will it influence of the legal work]. EZh-yurist, 2018, no. 6, pp. 1—2.
Bulgakova Ye. V., Bulgakov V. G. Ispolzovanie “bolshikh dannykh” v sisteme gosudarstvennogo upravleniya: usloviya, vozmozhnosti, perspektivy [Big Data in public administration: conditions, opportunities, prospects]. Yuridicheskaya nauka i praktika: Vestnik Nizhegorodskoy akademii MVD Rossii, 2015, no. 3, pp.10—14.
Burkova A. Regulirovanie finansovykh tekhnologiy v Rossii [Regulation of financial technologies in Russia]. Pravo i ekonomika, 2018, no. 5, pp. 5—9.
Deyneko A. G. Pravo kiberprostranstva: pro et contra [Cyberspace law: pro et contra]. Pravo v sfere Interneta. Ed. by M. A. Rozhkova. Moscow, 2018. 528 p.
Dobrynin A. P., Chernykh K. Yu., Kupriyanovskiy V. P. et al. Tsifrovaya ekonomika — razlichnye puti k effektivnomu primeneniyu tekhnologiy (BIM, PLM, CAD, IOT, Smart City, big data i drugie) [The Digital Economy — the various ways to the effective use of technology (BIM, PLM, CAD, IOT, Smart City, BIG DATA, and others)]. International Journal of Open Information Technologies, 2016, vol. 4, no. 1, p. 4, pp. 11—14.
Gukasyan G. M. Ekonomika ot “A” do “Ya” [Economy from “A” to “Z”]: tematicheskiy spravochnik. Moscow, 2007. 480 p.
Ivanov A. Yu. Kontrol monopolizatsii v usloviyakh tsifrovoy ekonomiki: pervaya chast diskussii o pyatom antimonopolnom pakete [Merger review in the digital age: episode one in discussions on the fifth competition law reform package]. Zakon, 2018, no. 2, pp. 106—119.
Kartskhiya A. A. Tsifrovoe budushchee klassicheskoy tsivilistiki [Digital law as a future of classic sivil law.]. IS. Avtorskoe pravo i smezhnye prava, 2018, no. 5, pp. 35—46.
Kartskhiya A. A. Tsifrovoy imperativ: novye tekhnologii sozdayut novuyu realnost [Digital imperative: new technologies create new reality]. IS. Avtorskoe pravo i smezhnye prava, 2017, no. 8, pp. 17—26.
Khabrieva T. Y., Chernogor N. N. Pravo v usloviyakh tsifrovoy realnosti [The Law in the Conditions of Digital Reality]. Zhurnal rossijskogo prava = Journal of Russian Law, 2018, no. 1, pp. 85—102.
Lagutin I. B., Suslikov V. N. Pravovoe obespechenie blokcheyn-tekhnologiy (voprosy teorii i praktiki) [Legal Support of Blockchain Technologies (Issues of Theory and Practice)]. Finansovoe pravo, 2018, no. 1, pp. 25—29.
Laptev V. A. Tsifrovye aktivy kak obekty grazhdanskikh prav [Digital assets as objects of the civil rights]. Vestnik Nizhegorodskoy akademii MVD Rossii, 2018, no. 2, pp. 199—203.
Migacheva Ye. V. Nalogovyy kontrol v usloviyakh razvitiya tsifrovoy ekonomiki [Tax Control in the Conditions of Digital Economy Development]. Finansovoe pravo, 2018, no. 8, pp. 21—25.
Novoselova L. A. “Tokenizatsiya” obektov grazhdanskogo prava [Tokenization of the objects of civil rights]. Khozyaystvo i pravo, 2017, no. 12, pp. 29—44.
Obekty grazhdanskikh prav: postateynyy kommentariy k glavam 6, 7 i 8 Grazhdanskogo kodeksa Rossiyskoy Federatsii [Objects of civil rights: article comment to chapters 6, 7 and 8 of the Civil code of the Russian Federation]. Ed. by P. V. Krasheninnikov. Moscow, 2009. 224 p.
Pavlov V. P. Tsifrovaya forma finansovykh obyazatelstv: problemy pravovogo regulirovaniya. Bankovskoe pravo, 2018, no. 3, pp. 37—40.
Rayzberg B. A., Lozovskiy L. Sh., Starodubtseva Ye. B. Sovremennyy ekonomicheskiy slovar [Actual economic dictionary]. Moscow, 2017. 512 p.
Ruzakova O. A., Grin Ye. S. Primenenie tekhnologii blockchain k sistematizatsii rezultatov intellektualnoy deyatelnosti [Application of Blockchain Technologies in Systematizing the Results of Intellectual Activity]. Vestnik Permskogo universiteta. Yuridicheskie nauki, 2017, no. 4, pp. 508—520.
Sannikova L. V., Kharitonova Yu. S. Tsifrovye aktivy kak obekty predprinimatelskogo oborota [Digital assets as the objects of the entrepreneurial circulation]. Pravo i ekonomika, 2018, no. 4. pp. 27—34.
Sarkisyants A. Tsifrovoy banking: mirovoy opyt i rossiyskaya spetsifika [Digital banking: international experience and Russian specifics]. Bukhgalteriya i banki, 2018, no. 6—7, pp. 55—64.
Savelev A. I. Kriptovalyuty v sisteme obektov grazhdanskikh prav [Cryptocurrencies in the system of civil law objects]. Zakon, 2017, no. 8, pp. 136—153.
Savelev A. I. Napravleniya evolyutsii svobody dogovora pod vliyaniem sovremennykh informatsionnykh tekhnologiy [Directions of evolution of freedom of contract under the influence of modern information technologies]. Svoboda dogovora. Ed. by M. A. Rozhkova. Moscow, 2016. 671 p.
Savelev A. I. Napravleniya regulirovaniya bolshikh dannykh i zashchita neprikosnovennosti chastnoy zhizni v novykh ekonomicheskikh realiyakh [Big data regulations and privacy protection practices in new economic realities]. Zakon, 2018, no. 5, pp. 122—144.
Savelev A. I. Nekotorye pravovye aspekty ispolzovaniya smart-kontraktov i blokcheyntekhnologiy po rossiyskomu pravu [Some legal aspects of implementation of smart contracts and blockchain technologies under russian law]. Zakon, 2017, no. 5, pp. 94—117.
Savelev A. I. Nekotorye riski tokenizatsii i blokcheynizatsii grazhdansko-pravovykh otnosheniy [Some risks related to tokenization and blockchainisation of civil-law relations]. Zakon, 2018, no. 2, pp. 36—56.
Shvab K. Chetvertaya promyshlennaya revolyutsiya [The fourth industrial revolution]. Moscow, 2017. 128 p.
Sidorenko E., Savelev A., Pushkov A. et al. Nuzhno li regulirovat bitkoin? Zakon, 2017, no. 9, pp. 20—33.
Sukhareva M. A. Ot kontseptsii postindustrialnogo obshchestva k kontseptsii ekonomiki znaniy i tsifrovoy ekonomiki: kriticheskiy analiz terminologicheskogo polya [From the theories of post-industrial society to the concept of knowledge economy and digital economy: a critical analysis of the terminology field]. Gosudarstvennoe upravlenie. Elektronnyy vestnik, 2018, no. 68, pp. 445—463.
Vaypan V. A. Pravovoe regulirovanie tsifrovoy ekonomiki [Legal Regulation of Digital Economy]. Predprinimatelskoe pravo. Prilozhenie “Pravo i Biznes”, 2018, no. 1, pp. 12—17.
Voskresenskaya Ye. V. O neobkhodimosti pravovogo regulirovaniya virtualnykh valyut [On the Need for Legal Regulation of Virtual Currencies]. Vestnik Omskoy yuridicheskoy akademii, 2018, no. 2, pp. 148—151.
Yevtyanova D. V. Kriterii sozdaniya tsifrovykh platform upravleniya ekonomikoy [The criteria for the creation of digital economic management platforms]. Ekonomicheskie sistemy, 2017, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 54—57.
Zubarev A.Ye. Tsifrovaya ekonomika kak forma proyavleniya zakonomernostey razvitiya novoy ekonomiki [The Digital Economy as Expression of Regularities in the New Economy Development]. Vestnik Tikhookeanskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, 2017, no. 4, pp. 177—184.
S. A. BOGOLYUBOV
scientific supervisor of the Department of environmental and agrarian legislation of the Institute of Legislation and Comparative Law under the Government of the Russian Federation, doctor of legal sciences, professor, honored scientist of the Russian Federation
34, Bolshaya Cheremushkinskaya st., Moscow, Russia, 117218
Legal responsibility is provided for in a number of conceptual normative documents determining the environmental policy of the Russian Federation. The application of this responsibility is associated with the specifics of the system of national and international environmental legal relations, which include: their public-private and social nature; their intercrossing with civil, administrative and other ecological relations; their focus on forecasting and long-term planning; the abundance of fictions. Responsibility features due to objective reasons are: the confrontation between economy and ecology; the influence of natural conditions; the valuation of economic activity. And due to subjective reasons responsibility features are: attempts at eliminating the reasons for application; the necessity of foreseeing human impact on nature; the understanding of the correlation between environmental rights and duties of individuals and legal entities, state responsibility. At the end the author justified a few conclusions: clarifying disciplinary liability for land offences; restoration of municipal control in the legislation, entailing traditional types of responsibility.
Keywords: regulation of social relations and inevitability of responsibility, environmental and economic security, fundamentals of state policy in the field of environmental development.
Aktualnye problemy sovremennogo mezhdunarodnogo ekologicheskogo prava [Actual problems of modern international environmental law]. Moscow, 2016. 295 p.
Aleksandrov N. G. Zakonnost i pravootnosheniya v sovetskom obshchestve [Legality and legal relations in Soviet society]. Moscow, 1955. 176 p.
Bogolyubov S. A. Ekologizatsiya zakonodatelstva, gosudarstva i obshchestvennoy zhizni [Ecologization of legislation, state and public life]. Pravo i ekologiya [Law and ecology]: materialy VIII Mezhdunarodnoy shkoly-praktikuma molodykh uchenykh-yuristov. Ed. by Yu. A. Tikhomirov, S. A. Bogolyubov. Moscow, 2014. Pp. 33—39.
Bogolyubov S. A. Pravovoe vozdeystvie na konkurentsiyu ekonomiki i ekologii [Legal impact on competition of economy and ecology]. Pravo i ekonomicheskaya deyatelnost [Law and economic activity]. Moscow, 2015. Pp. 328—334.
Bogolyubov S. A. Rol pravovogo regulirovaniya ekonomicheskogo mekhanizma okhrany okruzhayushchey sredy [The role of legal regulation of the economic mechanism of environmental protection]. Gosudarstvo i biznes v sisteme pravovykh koordinat [State and business in the system of legal coordinates]. Moscow, 2014. Pp. 189—201.
Bogolyubov S. A., Suleymenov M. K. Mesto ekologicheskogo prava i ego strukturnykh elementov v sisteme prava [The place of environmental law and its structural elements in the law system]. Pravo i gosudarstvo, 2014, no. 2, pp. 60—65.
Bratus S. N. Yuridicheskaya otvetstvennost i soznanie dolga [Legal responsibility and a sense of duty]. Voprosy teorii gosudarstva i prava [Questions of the theory of state and law]. Saratov, 1983.
BRIKS: kontury mnogopolyarnogo mira [BRICS: the contours of a multipolar world]. Ed. by T. Y. Khabrieva. Moscow, 2015. 300 p.
Danilov-Danilyan V. I. O sootnoshenii pravovogo i ekonomicheskogo aspektov v okhrane prirody [On the ratio of legal and economic aspects in nature conservation]. Pravo i ekologiya [Law and ecology]: materialy VIII Mezhdunarodnoy shkoly-praktikuma molodykh uchenykhyuristov. Ed. by Yu. A. Tikhomirov, S. A. Bogolyubov. Moscow, 2014. Pp. 48—58.
Effektivnost yuridicheskoy otvetstvennosti v okhrane okruzhayushchey sredy [Effectiveness of legal liability in environmental protection]. Ed. by O. S. Kolbasov, N. I. Krasnov. Moscow, 1985. 225 p.
Ekologicheskoe pravo Rossii [Environmental law of Russia]. Ed. by A. K. Golichenkov. Moscow, 1997—2017.
Garmonizatsiya i razvitie ekologicheskogo zakonodatelstva Kazakhstana i Rossii [Harmonization and development of environmental legislation of Kazakhstan and Russia]. Astana; Moscow, 2013. 350 p.
Gusev R. K. Problemy ekologo-pravovoy otvetstvennosti [Problems of environmental legal responsibility]. Aktualnye problemy pravovoy okhrany okruzhayushchey sredy [Actual problems of legal environmental protection]. Moscow, 1989.
Kashepov V. P. Otvetstvennost za ispolzovanie i okhranu lesov [Responsibility for the use and protection of forests]. Agrarnoe i zemelnoe pravo, 2012, no. 3, pp. 84—88.
Khadzhiev A. Yuridicheskaya otvetstvennost kak sredstvo okhrany okruzhayushchey sredy [Legal responsibility as a means of environmental protection]. Cand. diss. thesis. Alma-Ata, 1988. 26 p.
Konstitutsionno-pravovaya otvetstvennost: problemy Rossii, opyt zarubezhnykh stran [The constitutional-legal responsibility: the problem of Russia, the experience of foreign countries]. Ed. by S. A. Avakyan. Moscow, 2001.
Kruglov V. V. Yuridicheskaya otvetstvennost predpriyatiy, ikh dolzhnostnykh lits i drugikh rabotnikov v oblasti okhrany okruzhayushchey sredy [Legal responsibility of enterprises, their officials and other employees in the field of environmental protection]. Leningrad, 1990.
Leyst O. E. Sanktsii i otvetstvennost po sovetskomu pravu (teoreticheskie problemy) [Sanctions and responsibility under soviet law (theoretical problems)]. Moscow, 1981. 239 p.
Mezhdunarodno-pravovoe i natsionalnoe regulirovanie ekologicheskoy sfery obshchestva [International and national legal regulation of social spheres of society]. Moscow, 2011. 320 p.
Nekommercheskie organizatsii: teoreticheskie i prakticheskie problemy [Non-profit organizations: theoretical and practical problems]. Ed. by V. M. Zhuykov. Moscow, 2009. 174 p.
Pravo i klimat planety [Law and climate of the planet]. Ed. by Yu. A. Tikhomirov, S. A. Bogolyubov, N. V. Kichigin. Moscow, 2018. 180 p.
Pravovoe regulirovanie vozmeshcheniya ekologicheskogo vreda [Legal regulation of compensation for environmental damage]. Ed. by N. V. Kichigin. Moscow, 2017. 368 p.
Romanov A. I. Ustoychivoe razvitie — ekologizatsiya ekonomiki [Sustainable development — greening the economy]. Ekonomika i upravlenie, 2000, no. 5.
Romanov V. I. Yuridicheskaya otvetstvennost za ekologicheskie pravonarusheniya [Legal responsibility for environmental offenses]. Zhurnal rossijskogo prava = Journal of Russian Law, 2000, no. 12, pp. 74—83.
Ryabov A. A. Yuridicheskaya otvetstvennost za narushenie ekologicheskikh prav cheloveka [Legal liability for violation of environmental human rights]. Vestnik TISBI, 2002, no. 1, pp. 74—76.
Samoshchenko I. S., Farukshin M. Kh. Otvetstvennost po sovetskomu zakonodatelstvu [Liability in soviet law]. Moscow, 1971. 240 p.
Serkov P. P. Pravootnoshenie (teoriya i praktika sovremennogo pravovogo regulirovaniya) [Legal relationship (theory and practice of modern legal regulation)]. Moscow, 2018.
Shamsutdinov E. R. Ekologizatsiya zakonodatelstva — vazhneyshaya chast ekologicheskoy funktsii sovremennogo gosudarstva [Ecologization of legislation-the most important part of the ecological function of the modern state]. Materialy mezhdunarodnoy nauchno-prakticheskoy konferentsii. Ufa, 2009.
Shemshuchenko Yu. S., Muntyan V. L., Rozovskiy B. G. Yuridicheskaya otvetstvennost v oblasti okhrany okruzhayushchey sredy [Legal responsibility in the field of environmental protection]. Kiev, 1978.
Tezisy dokladov mezhdunarodnoy nauchno-prakticheskoy konferentsii “Pravovoe regulirovanie ispolzovaniya prirodnykh resursov: kompleksnyy podkhod” [Abstracts of the international scientific and practical conference “Legal regulation of natural resources: an integrated approach”]. Moscow, 2014. 304 p.
Tolstoy Yu. K. K teorii pravootnosheniya [To the theory of legal relations]. Leningrad, 1959. 87 p.
Venediktov A. V. O subektakh sotsialisticheskikh pravootnosheniy [On the subjects of socialist legal relations]. Sovetskoe gosudarstvo i pravo, 1955, no. 6, pp. 17—28.
Vypkhanova G. V., Zhavoronkova N. G. Gosudarstvennaya ekologicheskaya politika i dokumenty strategicheskogo planirovaniya [State environmental policy and strategic planning documents]. Ekologicheskoe pravo, 2016, no. 3, pp. 24—29.
Yablokov A. V. Sreda obitaniya i prava cheloveka [Habitat and human rights]. Zhurnal rossijskogo prava = Journal of Russian Law, 1998, no. 4—5, pp. 47—57.
Yakovlev V. F., Talapina E. V. Rol publichnogo i chastnogo prava v regulirovanii ekonomiki [The role of public and private law in the regulation of the economy]. Zhurnal rossijskogo prava = Journal of Russian Law, 2012, no. 2, pp. 5—16.
Yuridicheskaya otvetstvennost: sovremennye vyzovy i resheniya. Materialy ezhegodnykh nauchnykh chteniy pamyati prof. S. N. Bratusya [Legal responsibility: modern challenges and solutions. Materials of annual scientific readings in memory of professor S. N. Bratus]. Moscow, 2013. 304 p.
Zharikov Yu. G. Yuridicheskaya otvetstvennost za ekologicheskie pravonarusheniya [Legal liability for environmental offenses]. Instituty ekologicheskogo prava [the Institutes of the environmental law]. Moscow, 2010. Pp. 240—258.
E. V. LUNEVA
associate professor at the Department of ecological, labor law and civil procedure law of Kazan (Volga Region) Federal University, candidate of legal sciences
18, Kremlevskaya st., Kazan, Russia, 420008
The land legislation establishes the obligation to hold the electronic auction for the provision of publicly owned land. However, mentioned legislative provision shall not be applied until the date of entry into force of the federal law establishing the procedure for conducting relevant auctions in electronic form. The prospect of using mandatory electronic bidding for the provision of “public” land plots is studied.
The purpose of the article is to reveal the main elements of the legal model of the order of “land” electronic trading.
The objectives of the study: to identify and substantiate the relationship of the development of land turnover through electronic auction with rational land use; to determine the approximate sections of the draft law on the procedure for electronic auctions for the sale and lease of publicly owned land.
Dialectical, formal-legal, comparative-legal methods are applied.
The study shows the relationship between the land turnover through electronic auction and rational land use. The expediency of partial application for the legal model of the procedure of “land” electronic auction of legal regulation in areas where electronic auction is mandatory (bankruptcy bidding; procurement for state and municipal needs; procurement of certain goods, works and services by certain types of legal entities) or alternative in the public sphere (electronic auction for the sale of public property; electronic auction for the provision of land plots to promote the development of housing construction). The tentative sections of the draft law on the procedure of “land” electronic auctions are defined. The necessity of “land” electronic auction on a single electronic platform, which won this right, is substantiated.
Keywords: land plot, purchase and sale agreement, lease agreement, electronic auction, rational land use, electronic platform, electronic platform operator, information system, software, hardware, technical failure, bankruptcy bidding, procurement.
Averyanova N. N. Konstitutsionno-pravovoe regulirovanie zemelnykh otnosheniy v Rossiyskoy Federatsii [Constitutional legal regulation of land relations in Russian Federation]. Ed. by G. N. Komkova. Moscow, 2017. 264 p.
Belyaeva O. A. Torgi: teoreticheskie osnovy i problemy pravovogo regulirovaniya [Tendering: theoretical basis and issues of legal regulation]. Dr. diss. Moscow, 2012. 423 p.
Bogolyubov S. A., Braginskiy M. I., Galinovskaya Ye. A. et al. Kommentariy k Zemelnomu kodeksu Rossiyskoy Federatsii (postateynyy) [The article-by-article Commentary of Russian Land Code (itemized)]. Ed. by S. A. Bogolyubov, Ye. L. Minina. 2nd ed. Moscow, 2002. 592 p.
Bogolyubov S. A., Butovetskiy A. I., Kovaleva Ye. L. et al. Kommentariy k Zemelnomu kodeksu Rossiyskoy Federatsii (postateynyy) [The article-by-article Commentary of Russian Land Code (itemized)]. Ed. by S. A. Bogolyubov. 2nd ed. Moscow, 2017. 784 p.
Boltanova Ye. S. Pravovoe regulirovanie vozniknoveniya prav grazhdan i yuridicheskikh lits na zemelnye uchastki, nakhodyashchiesya v gosudarstvennoy ili munitsipalnoy sobstvennosti [The legal regulation of accrual of rights of citizens and legal entities on state or municipal land plots]. Khozyaystvo i pravo, 2015, no. 4, pp. 45—57.
Imekova M. P. Znachenie torgov v protsedure predostavleniya gosudarstvennykh ili munitsipalnykh zemelnykh uchastkov [The Value of Trading in the Procedure for Granting State or Municipal Lands]. Zakony Rossii: opyt, analiz, praktika, 2016, no. 12, pp. 23—28.
Kharkov V. N. Sostoyanie zemelnykh resursov kak faktor razvitiya zemelnogo zakonodatelstva [Condition of Land Resources as a Factor of Land Legislation Development]. Sovremennoe pravo, 2017, no. 9, pp. 68—73.
Luneva E., Safin Z. Mandatory Electronic Trades as a Legal Means of Antimonopoly Regulation. National Academy of Managerial Staff of Culture and Arts Herald, 2017, no. 4, pp. 295—298.
Luneva E. V. Agentskiy dogovor kak pravovoe sredstvo uchastiya v elektronnykh torgakh po bankrotstvu [Agency Agreement as a Legal Means of Participation in Bankruptcy E-Trading]. Predprinimatelskoe pravo, 2017, no. 1, pp. 57—63.
Luneva E. V. Ratsionalnoe ispolzovanie prirodnykh resursov: ponyatie i pravovye kriterii [Rational Use of Natural Resources: The Concept and Legal Criteria]. Lex Russica, 2017, no. 8, pp. 61—72.
Luneva E. V., Safin Z. F. Obyazatelnye elektronnye torgi v Rossiyskoy Federatsii: problemy pravovogo regulirovaniya [Mandatory Electronic Auctions in the Russian Federation: Legal Regulation Issues]. Konkurentnoe pravo, 2017, no. 3, pp. 29—33.
Lunyeva Ye. V., Saphin Z. F. Participation in Electronic Tenders on Bankruptcy Through an Intermediary: Law-Implementation Problems. International Business Management, 2015, no. 6, pp. 1383—1387.
Mayboroda V. A. Notarialnoe udostoverenie soglasheniya o poryadke polzovaniya zemelnym uchastkom [Notarial Certification of Agreement on Land Plot Use Procedure]. Notarius, 2017, no. 7, pp. 40—44.
Pantin Ye. V. Pravovoe obespechenie tselevogo ratsionalnogo ispolzovaniya zemel selskokhozyaystvennogo naznacheniya [The legal enforcement of targeted and rational utilization of agricultural land]. Cand. diss. thesis. Moscow, 2013. 24 p.
Puptseva Ye. S. Razvitie polozheniy ob auktsione kak konkurentnom sposobe zaklyucheniya dogovorov v sfere kompleksnogo osvoeniya territorii [Development of the provision on auction as a competitive means of conclusion of contracts in the sphere of complex territory development]. Konkurentnoe pravo, 2015, no. 2, pp. 36—43.
Rumyantsev F. P. Pravovoe regulirovanie oborota zemel selskokhozyaystvennogo naznacheniya: voprosy teorii i praktiki [The legal regulation of transfer of agricultural land: issues in the practice and theory]. Cand. diss. thesis. Moscow, 2011. 56 p.
Umerenko Yu. A. Tendentsii razvitiya i nekotorye problemy zemelnogo zakonodatelstva Rossiyskoy Federatsii na sovremennom etape [The development trends and some problems of land legislation of the russian federation at the present stage]. Imushchestvennye otnosheniya v Rossiyskoy Federatsii, 2016, no. 7, pp. 90—105.
Ustyukova V. V. Predostavlenie zemelnykh uchastkov dlya vedeniya krestyanskogo (fermerskogo) khozyaystva: zakon i praktika [Granting parcels of land to peasant (farmer) economy: law and practice]. Agrarnoe i zemelnoe pravo, 2013, no. 6, pp. 29—35.
Ustyukova V. V. Predostavlenie zemelnykh uchastkov dlya vedeniya fermerskogo khozyaystva: novye podkhody [Granting the Land Plots for Maintaining a Farm: New Approaches]. Zhurnal rossijskogo prava = Journal of Russian Law, 2016, no. 1, pp. 42—46.
Vasilyeva M. I. Pravo grazhdan na dostup k prirodnym resursam (obshcheteoreticheskoe i mezhotraslevoe obosnovanie) [The citizen's right on access on natural resources (general theoretical and intersectoral justification)]. Zhurnal rossijskogo prava = Journal of Russian Law, 2012, no. 3, pp. 5—14.
Volkov G. A., Golichenkov A. K., Kozyr O. M. Postateynyy nauchno-prakticheskiy kommentariy Zemelnogo kodeksa Rossiyskoy Federatsii [Article-based scientific and practical commentary of the Land Code of the Russian Federation]. 2002 (access from SPS “Consultant Plus”).
R. N. ZHAVORONKOV
professor at the Department of labor law and social security law of the
Kutafin Moscow State Law University, doctor of legal sciences
9, Sadovaya-Kudrinskaya st., Moscow, Russia, 125993
In March, 2018 the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities has accepted Concluding Observations to the previous Report of the Russian Federation on the status of implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. These Concluding Observations recommend changing the Russian legislation concerning legal capacity of persons with mental disorders for its compliance with the Convention.
The aim of the study is to develop an objective interpretation of article 12 of the UN Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities on the legal capacity of persons with disabilities (including persons with mental disorders). So, the following tasks have been solved: the analysis of the document prepared by the Committee on the rights of persons with disabilities «General Comment No. 1 (2014). Article 12 “Equality before the law”»; mentioned document was assessed from the point of view of the Russian legal science; the interpretation of article 12 was developed on the basis of the consideration of the Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities as a universal international treaty.
Research methods: dialectical, logical, formal legal, comparative legal, etc.
Analysis of General Comment No. 1 showed that the system of legal regulation of the legal personality of persons with mental disorders, which is recommended by the Committee on the rights of persons with disabilities in Russia, is fundamentally different from domestic approaches to the legal regulation of these issues, is not well tested and raises many questions in terms of the realism of its application. In this regard, article 12 is interpreted on the basis that the provisions of the Convention allow for different ways of their implementation, depending on the legal system that has developed in a particular country.
Keywords: legal capacity, legal personality, person with mental disorders, disabled person, Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities.
Andrianov S. N., Berson A. S., Nikiforov A. S. Anglo-russkiy yuridicheskiy slovar [English-Russian law dictionary]. Moscow, 2005. 512 p.
Bartenev D. G. Realizatsiya mezhdunarodnykh standartov v sfere nedeesposobnosti i opeki v stranakh Vostochnoy Yevropy [Implementation of the international standards in the sphere of incapacity and guardianship in countries of Eastern Europe]. Nezavisimyy psikhiatricheskiy zhurnal, 2009, no. 4, pp. 61—64.
Bratus S. N. Subekty grazhdanskogo prava [Subjects of civil law]. Moscow, 1950. 367 p.
Bryan A. Garner. Black's Law Dictionary. 7th ed. West Group, 1999. 1793 p.
Ivanova L. Ya. Grazhdanskaya pravosubektnost lits, stradayushchikh psikhicheskim rasstroystvom [Civil legal personality of the persons having a mental disorder]. Cand. diss. thesis. Yekaterinburg, 1993. 19 p.
James E. Clapp. Random House Webster's Dictionary of the Law. New York, 2000. 544 p.
Kholodkovskaya Ye. M. Deesposobnost psikhicheski bolnykh v sudebno-psikhiatricheskoy praktike [Capacity mentally sick in forensic-psychiatric practice]. Moscow, 1967. 111 p.
Kosareva I. A. K voprosu o nedeystvitelnykh brakakh [To a question of invalid marriages]. Pravo i politika, 2010, no. 5, pp. 934—943.
Mamulin A. S., Kashkin S. Anglo-russkiy polnyy yuridicheskiy slovar [English-Russian Comprehensive Law Dictionar]. Moscow, 2005. 816 p.
Shepel T. V., Tkachenko T. V. Uchastie grazhdan, priznannykh nedeesposobnymi vsledstvie psikhicheskogo rasstroystva, v brachnykh pravootnosheniyakh [Participation of citizens recognized incapable due to mental disorder in marital legal relationship]. Vlast zakona, 2016, no. 4, pp. 58—66.
Shodonova M. E., Lozovskaya S. V. Realizatsiya izbiratelnogo prava grazhdaninom, ogranichennym v deesposobnosti [Electoral right realization by the citizen limited in capacity]. Gosudarstvennaya vlast i mestnoe samoupravlenie, 2015, no. 5, pp. 37—39.
A. P. ALEKSEENKO
associate professor at the Department of civil law disciplines of the Vladivostok State University of Economics and Service, candidate of legal sciences
41, Gogol st., Vladivostok, Russia, 690014
Investment disputes between the state and foreign investors related to expropriation carry a large number of economic risks that may arise as a result of the loss of the host country’s investment. The increasing number of claims filed against Russia in international investment arbitrations emphasizes the need to study the experience of the Russian Federation in participating in these disputes. Such analyze will support the preparation of the texts of the agreements on the protection and promotion of investments, as well as will improve law enforcement practice.
The purpose of the study is to identify the positions of international investment arbitration in cases involving the Russian Federation. Objectives of the study: to analyze the practice of international investment arbitrations with the participation of Russia as a defendant, to identify and characterize the approaches of arbitration to determine their competence to consider the dispute, to study the techniques used by arbitration to establish the fact of Russian expropriation.
The achievement of the goals and objectives is ensured by the use of methods of analysis and synthesis, formal legal and comparative legal methods, as well as the collection and processing of empirical data in the form of publicly available arbitral awards and acts of national courts.
The author reveals that international investment arbitrations interpret any unclear moments connected with the claim procedure of dispute settlement in favor of the investor. In addition, the arbitration may interpret the most-favoured-nation treatment provisions so as to apply to both the substantive and procedural rules of a bilateral investment treaty. The article also demonstrates the arbitration’s approach to the recognition of the legitimate actions of the state measures equivalent to expropriation. In the author’s opinion, all of these points demonstrate the need to include provisions excluding such a broad interpretation in the conclusion of international treaties relating to investment.
Keywords: bilateral investment agreement, foreign investment, capital investment, competence, international arbitration, nationalization.
Avtonomov A. S. Vremennoe ispolnenie mezhdunarodnykh dogovorov v svete rossiyskogo konstitutsionnogo pravosudiya [Temporary enforcement of international treaties in the light of Russian constitutional justice]. Aktualnye problemy teorii i praktiki konstitutsionnogo sudoproizvodstva, 2017, no. 12, pp. 84—96.
Danelyan A. A. Mezhdunarodnyy investitsionnyy arbitrazh: novye vyzovy, problemy i puti ikh preodoleniya [International investment arbitration: new challenges, problems and ways to overcome them]. Mezhdunarodnyy pravovoy kurer, 2014, no. 6, pp. 6—10.
Doronina N. G., Semilyutina N. G. Mezhdunarodnoe chastnoe pravo i investitsii [Private international law and investments]. Moscow, 2012. 272 p.
Doronina N. G., Semilyutina N. G. Znachenie dvustoronnikh soglasheniy o zashchite kapitalovlozheniy i perspektivy ikh sovershenstvovaniya [Sense of the bilateral treaties on protection of investments and its perspectives]. Zhurnal rossijskogo prava = Journal of Russian Law, 2017, no. 9, pp. 119—129.
Khlestova I. O. Mezhdunarodno-pravovye dogovory o zashchite inostrannogo investora [International agreements for the protection of foreign investor]. Zhurnal zarubezhnogo zakonodatel'stva i sravnitel'nogo pravovedeniya = Journal of Foreign Legislation and Comparative Law, 2017, no. 4, pp. 99—105.
Malinskaya R. V. Mozhet li arbitrazhnaya ogovorka yavlyatsya “neblagopriyatnoy”? Sovremennye podkhody k rasprostraneniyu rezhima naibolee blagopriyatstvuemoy natsii na arbitrazhnye ogovorki [Can an arbitration clause be “unfavorable”? Modern approaches to the extension of the most-favored-nation treatment to arbitration clauses]. Novye gorizonty mezhdunarodnogo arbitrazha. Iss. 2. Ed. by A. V. Asoskov, A. I. Muranov, R. M. Khodykin. Moscow, 2014. Pp. 195—233.
Popov Ye. V. Problemnye voprosy ispolneniya resheniy v sfere mezhdunarodnogo investitsionnogo arbitrazha protiv suverennykh gosudarstv [Challenging issues of execution of judgments in international investment arbitration against sovereign states]. Arbitrazhnyy i grazhdanskiy protsess, 2018, no. 1, pp. 42—47.
Rachkov I. V. Soglasie gosudarstva na rassmotrenie mezhdunarodnykh investitsionnykh sporov [The state consent to the resolution of its disputes with foreign investors]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, 2014, no. 4, pp. 96—122.
Skvortsov O. Yu. Arbitrazh (treteyskoe razbiratelstvo) v Rossiyskoy Federatsii [Arbitration (third party settlement) in the Russian Federation]. Moscow, 2017. 239 p.
Susan D. Franck. The Legitimacy Crisis in Investment Treaty Arbitration: Privatizing Public International Law Through Inconsistent Decisions. Fordham Law Review, 2005, vol. 73, pp. 1521—1625.
Yu. E. IBRAGIMOVA
junior research fellow of the Department of judicial practice and law enforcement of the Institute of Legislation and Comparative Law under the Government of the Russian Federation
22/24, Bolshoy Kharitonevskiy lane, Moscow, Russia, 107078
The Convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms supposes both positive and negative obligations of the state to comply with it. The effective implementation of positive obligations requires, inter alia, preventive measures to ensure such protection at the national level, without involving the European Court of Human Rights. The current system of response to the ECtHR decisions in the Russian Federation supposes a set of measures, as well as the activities of the entities responsible for them, i.e. a specific mechanism. The Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation, involved in the dialogue with the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, holds the list of ECtHR decisions. A great role in the dialogue with the ECtHR belongs to the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, which in its practice borrows the legal positions of the ECtHR and brings them to implementation at the national level. However, the implementation of general measures is ensured not only by legislative regulation, but also by adjusting judicial practice. In this regard, it is appropriate to affirm the implementation of the Convention in the national legal order, which includes both legislation and judicial as well as other law enforcement practices. In this process the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation is one of the main subjects of the mechanism under consideration. In its acts the Supreme Court takes into account the ECtHR decisions, and also explains to the courts the procedure for the implementation of the European Convention. The article examines the internal mechanism of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation to ensure this implementation, as well as its practice, which contributed to the change of approaches to the protection of rights under Convention.
Keywords: Convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, legal order, implementation, judicial practice, law enforcement practice, Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.
Burkov A. L. Kak sudi i advokaty primenyayut Yevropeyskuyu konventsiyu o zashchite prav cheloveka i osnovnykh svobod [How Judges and Advocates Apply the European Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms]. Kak sudi prinimayut resheniya: empiricheskie issledovaniya prava. Ed. by V. V. Volkov. Moscow, 2012.
Fokin Ye. A. Razumnye sroki sudoproizvodstva v arbitrazhnom protsesse: sootnoshenie pravovykh pozitsiy Yevropeyskogo suda po pravam cheloveka i rossiyskoy sudebno-arbitrazhnoy praktiki [Reasonable Time of Trial in the Arbitration Process: the Correlation Between Legal positions of the European Court of Human Rights and the Russian Judicial Arbitration Practice]. Rossiyskiy ezhegodnik Yevropeyskoy konventsii po pravam cheloveka (Russian yearbook of the European convention on human rights). Iss. 2. Moscow, 2016.
Gracheva (Perchatkina) S. A. Konstitutsionnoe pravosudie i realizatsiya resheniy Yevropeyskogo suda po pravam cheloveka [Constitutional Justice and Realization of the Decisions of the European Court of Human Rights]. Moscow, 2012.
Jorem H. Protecting Human Rights in Cases of Urgency: Interim Measures and the Right of Individual Application under Article 34 ECHR. 30 Nordic Journal of Human Rights, 2012.
Kak sudi prinimayut resheniya: empiricheskie issledovaniya prava [How Judges Make Decisions: the Empirical Research of Law]. Ed. by V. V. Volkov. Moscow, 2012.
Khabrieva T. Ya., Lazarev V. V., Kapustin A. Ya. et al. Implementatsiya resheniy Yevropeyskogo Suda po pravam cheloveka v rossiyskoy pravovoy sisteme: kontseptsii, pravovye podkhody i praktika obespecheniya [Implementation of the Decisions of the European Court of Human Rights in Russian Legal System]. Ed. by V. V. Lazarev. Moscow, 2019.
Kovler A. I. Gosudarstvennyy suverenitet i “Suverenitet prav cheloveka” [State Sovereignty and “Sovereignty of Human Rights”]. Trudy Instituta gosudarstva i prava RAN, 2016, no. 2.
Kovler A. I. Yavlenie sudeyskogo aktivizma: osobye mneniya sudey YeSPCh [The Phenomenon of Judicial Activism: the Separate Opinions of Judges of the ECtHR]. Rossiyskiy ezhegodnik Yevropeyskoy konventsii po pravam cheloveka (Russian yearbook of the European convention on human rights). Iss. 2. Moscow, 2016.
Kovler A. L'instance de supervision (nadzor) dans la procedure civile en Russie: regard de Strasbourg. Revue internationale de droit compare, 2009, Juillet—Septembre, no. 3.
Kovler A. I. Dvadtsat let chlenstva Rossii v Sovete Yevropy: obreteniya i poteri. Internatsionalnye protsessy v Yevrope i Yevrazii: rol konventsiy Soveta Yevropy [Twenty years of Russia's membership in the Council of Europe: Gains and Losses. International Processes in Europe and Eurasia: The Role of Council of Europe's Conventions]. Moscow, 2017.
Kovler A. I. Nadzornaya instantsiya v sisteme grazhdanskogo sudoproizvodstva Rossii: Vzglyad iz Strasburga [Nadzor Instance in the System of Civil Proceedings in Russia: A Look from Strasbourg]. Zakon, 2009, no. 5.
Kovler A. I. Rol organov zakonodatelnoy vlasti v implementatsii Konventsii po zashchite prav cheloveka i osnovnykh svobod [The Role of Legislative Authoritutes in the Implementation of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms]. In Khabrieva T. Y., Lazarev V. V., Kapustin A. Ya. et al. Implementatsiya resheniy Yevropeyskogo Suda po pravam cheloveka v rossiyskoy pravovoy sisteme: kontseptsii, pravovye podkhody i praktika obespecheniya [Implementation of the Decisions of the European Court of Human Rights in Russian Legal System]. Ed. by V. V. Lazarev. Moscow, 2019.
Oganesyan T. D. Pravovaya priroda i sushchnost protsedury pilotnogo postanovleniya Yevropeyskogo suda po pravam cheloveka [The Legal Nature and Essence of the Pilot Judgment Procedure of the European Court of Human Rights]. Aktualnye problemy rossiyskogo prava, 2017, no. 4.
Ozhegov S. I. Slovar russkogo yazyka [The Russian Language Dictionary]. Moscow, 1981.
Postanovleniya Yevropeyskogo suda po pravam cheloveka, ispolzovannye v postanovleniyakh i obzorakh Verkhovnogo Suda Rossiyskoy Federatsii (2010—2015) [The Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in the Judgments and Reviews of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation]. Ed. by V. C. Lambina. Moscow, 2016.
Rossiya i Yevropeyskaya konventsiya po pravam cheloveka: 20 let vmeste. 20 del, izmenivshikh rossiyskuyu pravovuyu sistemu [Russia and the European Convention on Human Rights: 20 Years Together. 20 Cases that Changed the Russian Legal System]. Pretsedenty Yevropeyskogo suda po pravam cheloveka, 2018, no. 5.
Supervision of the execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights 2017 — 11th Annual Report of the Committee of Ministers (2018). P. 45. Available at: https://rm.coe.int/annual-report-2017/16807af92b (accessed 10.09.2018).
Svodnye statisticheskie svedeniya o deyatelnosti federalnykh sudov obshchey yurisdiktsii i mirovykh sudey za 2015—2017 gody [Summary Statistics on the Activities of Federal Courts of General Jurisdiction and Justices of the Peace for the Years 2015—2017]. Available at: www.cdep.ru (accessed 01.09.2018).
Tumanov V. A. Yevropeyskiy sud po pravam cheloveka. Ocherk organizatsii i deyatelnosti [European Court of Human Rights. Essay on its Organization and Activities]. Moscow, 2001.
I. A. IGNATYEVA
professor at the Lomonosov Moscow State University, doctor of legal sciences