13. In the Case of the Verification of the Constitutionality of the Practice of Application of the Law [Concerning] the Restriction of the [Amount of] Time Remunerated for Forced Absence from Work Due to an Unlawful Dismissal That Has Developed on the Basis of the Application of Legislation on Labor and of the Decrees of the Plenums of the USSR Supreme Court and the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation Regulating the Given Questions

1994 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 43-54
Author(s):  
V.D. Zor’kin ◽  
N.V. Vitruk
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Law ◽  
Absence From Work ◽  
The Given

scholarly journals Binding Nature of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation Explanations in Criminal Law

Lex Russica ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 95-107
Author(s):  
I. A. Klepitskiy
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
General Rule ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Nulla Poena Sine Lege ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Law

The question of the legal nature and the binding nature of explanations of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation remains debatable in the literature. When considering criminal cases, the courts do not always follow the decisions of the Plenum of the Supreme Court. It seems that the explanations of the Supreme Court, while not being a source of criminal law, are nevertheless binding on courts and officials applying the norms of criminal law. This is a general rule, to which there are exceptions. First, there are erroneous explanations of the Supreme Court, which are not based on the established judicial practice and are not supported by it. Second, there are outdated explanations of the Supreme Court that do not meet modern legal realities. Third, there are explanations of the Supreme Court, which, in relation to a particular situation, require an expansive or restrictive interpretation. In these three situations, the Supreme Court’s explanations do not bind the law enforcement officer. The binding nature of the Supreme Court’s explanations is determined by the value of the law as such. Questions of law require a uniform resolution. An alternative to a uniform interpretation of the law is arbitrary administration. Arbitrary administration is not within the competence of the judge. There is no case law in Russia. The works of legal scholars in modern Russia also cannot satisfy the need for a uniform interpretation of the law. The significance of the explanations of the Supreme Court determines the high requirements for their quality. The Supreme Court’s explanations should not directly contradict the law. The Supreme Court’s explanations should not change unless there is an urgent need to do so. The rule nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege, being an achievement of legal culture, binds the Supreme Court. By clarifying the practice of applying the law, the Supreme Court forms and preserves judicial doctrine, thereby providing legal certainty.

scholarly journals The Perpetrator of the Crime in Complicity and without Complicity: A Universal Role in the Diversity of Legal Constructions

Lex Russica ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 107-122
Author(s):  
D. M. Molchanov
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Main Element ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Special Part ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Law ◽  
Legal Sense

A comprehensive study of the perpetrator’s role leads to the following conclusions: “perpetrator of the crime” is a universal term used to describe an act that constitutes an objective element of the crime committed both in complicity and without complicity. Four alternatives to the actions of the perpetrator exist: executor who performed the objective element alone, an accomplice who performed the objective element with other accomplices, an indirect perpetrator, an indirect accomplice. Other ways to qualify person’s act as a perpetrator are based not on the law, but on the recommendations of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation that de facto acquired the status of the provisions of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (joint participation in the organized group, joint participation in a crime with “technical distribution of roles”). The main element of the act of the perpetrator includes the fulfillment of the objective element described in the disposition of the article of the Special Part. The content of the objective element of a particular crime does not depend on the existence of complicity, hence the term “perpetrator” is applicable to any crime and has a universal value. It is impractical to describe in the law the same acts in different terms. “Technical distribution of roles” is a doctrinal term. Its content is disclosed in some resolutions of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the RF. Extensive interpretation of the term “perpetrator” in crimes with “technical distribution of roles” is a forced measure on the part of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, since the term “the group of persons in conspiracy” is interpreted restrictively. This interpretation complicates the application of the criminal law and does not allow us to adequately assess the greater risk of crimes committed in complicity. The term “technical distribution of roles” does not have a universal (acknowledged) interpretation in jurisprudence, which also makes it difficult to apply the law. Joint participation in a legal sense in crimes committed by an organized group is a construct that is not based on law applied to crimes with a special subject, which contradicts part 4, Art. 34 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

scholarly journals The Concept of Freedom of Enterprise Through the Prism of Criminal Law Characteristics of Fraud

2019 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 291-299
Author(s):  
Yekaterina Yakimova
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Negative Results ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Law ◽  
Entrepreneurial Activities

The research of issues connected with the analysis of business risks is relevant because of the problem of qualifying the actions of entrepreneurs under the fraud-related Articles of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Besides, the development of technologies increases the number of frauds in the digital environment, which makes it necessary to determine key features of fraudulent actions connected with the changes in the economic organization of the society connected with the digital transformation of some branches of the world economy in general and Russian economy in particular, of the social sphere, and of the specifics of public administration of some areas of life. The responsiveness of lawmakers manifested in amending a group of Articles in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation regarding the legal characteristics of fraud, shows that there are some problems in the legislative regulation of this sphere. The author believes that they are caused by an attempt to assess the degree of freedom of enterprise and the degree of involvement of each side of legal relations in the risk of investment. The analysis of legislation, the law enforcement practice, statistical data give reason to believe that most of the problems of legislative understanding of fraud in entrepreneurship are not connected with contradictions in the legal regulation, but rather with the drawbacks of the law enforcement practice, the prevalence of repressive methodology in classifying the actions of entrepreneurs and the inner conviction of the law enforcement employees that entrepreneurs intentionally strive to obtain negative results in any, and primarily entrepreneurial, activities. The author argues that further improvement of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation will not yield any tangible results, which testifies to a considerable transformation of the fraud-related Articles in the last 15 years. Changes in the practice of enforcement of the criminal law’s articles regarding fraud are only possible after the principles of such work are worked out by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, who at present pays much attention to this issue, although some clauses of the Plenary Session of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation require further analysis and improvement.

scholarly journals PROBLEMS OF QUALIFICATION OF CLAIMS OF CREDITORS AFFILIATED WITH THE DEBTOR IN BANKRUPTCY CASES

2020 ◽  
pp. 26-30
Author(s):  
Y.V. Holodenko ◽  
D.M. Nazemcev
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Positive Development ◽  
Legal Entity ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Bona Fide ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Law ◽  
Debt Obligation

Along with the positive development of the institution of bankruptcy in Russia, there are mixed problemsin judicial practice. One such problem is the fate of the contractual claims of the controlling persons of theorganization and other affiliated creditors in the bankruptcy of the legal entity. The law does not explicitlyprohibit the financing of a corporation, through civil designs. However, problems regarding the qualificationof such financing methods arise when a society falls into bankruptcy proceedings. In this part, the courtsare faced with questions about the possibility of reclassifying the debt obligation into a relationship forthe precapitalization of society and recognizing the debt model of financing the requirement “arising fromparticipation.” This article is devoted to problems of qualification of claims of “corporate” creditors inbankruptcy cases. Various approaches of the Judicial Board on Economic Disputes of the Supreme Courtof the Russian Federation to loans issued by participants of economic companies are studied. The need toderogate from the position taken by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation is justified in order toprotect the rights of bona fide participants of economic companies.

scholarly journals Implementation of the Doctrine of Good Faith (Bona Fides) in Corporate Legal Relations

2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (12) ◽  
pp. 70-80
Author(s):  
Yu. V. Brisov
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
Good Faith ◽  
Corporate Ethics ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Usa ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Law

Good faith (bona fides) is presented in the Civil Code of the Russian Federation as a general principle and presumption. In resolving corporate disputes, the courts are governed by general principles of good faith. However, corporate relations have a specificity due to, inter alia, the variety of corporate forms. It can be assumed that the application of good faith provisions should also vary taking into account the characteristics of corporate patterns, the types and forms of corporate relations, subjective internal corporate circumstances. Common law countries have developed a system of good faith elements and special tests to apply the required requirement of good faith according to the context. A special place is given to fiduciary relations as a product of bona fides. The author has carried out a comparative analysis of the provisions of the Plenums of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and the law enforcement practice of Germany, the USA, Great Britain and Canada on the issues of good faith in the consideration of corporate disputes. Special attention is paid to the interrelation between corporate ethics and law. Examining a number of key cases from the law-enforcement practice of the courts of the Anglo-American system of law, the author substantiates the possibility of applying special tests, namely, objective and subjective good faith tests, to regulate matters related to the application of the rules of good faith from the Civil Code and special laws in dealing with corporate disputes. Special attention is paid to the role of courts and permissible discretion in the formation of standards of enforcement of blanket norms and general principles of law in corporate relations.

scholarly journals Additional procedures in cassation and supervision proceedings of civilistic procedure

2022 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 197-208
Author(s):  
L. A. Terekhova
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Basic Rule ◽  
Record Keeping ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Law ◽  
Special Rules ◽  
The Right

The subject of the research is the additional powers of the Chairman of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in relation to cassation and supervisory complaints.The purpose of the article is to substantiate the necessity or redundancy of certain additional powers of the Chairman of the Russian Supreme Court taking into account the nature of such powers and the conditions for their application.The methodology. Analysis and synthesis, dialectical method as well as formal legal interpretation of Russian legislative acts and judicial practice of Russian Supreme Court were used.The main results. Since the transformation of the three-tier supervisory proceedings into a system of two cassation and one supervisory instance, as well as the liquidation of the Supreme Arbitration Court, the powers of the Chairman of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation have spread to a fairly wide range of relations that allow influencing the movement of the case in the cassation and supervisory instance, and on itself initiation of a case in a supervisory instance. Moreover, such activities are far from always regulated by the norms of the law.The Chairman of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation (or his deputy) currently has leverage over the possibility of considering a case in the cassation instance of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation (Judicial Collegium of the Supreme Court) and in the supervisory instance (Presidium of the Supreme Court). These possibilities are called control and substitute in the article. Control powers should include: 1) regulation of key deadlines in cassation and supervisory proceedings; 2) interference in the procedure for filtering complaints. The procedure and conditions for the use of these powers are not regulated in the procedural codes. Having such powers in relation to procedural terms, the President of the Supreme Court actually influences the very possibility of initiating a case in a court of cassation or supervisory instance, as well as the duration (and, accordingly, the quality) of the examination of the complaint. The intervention of the Chairman of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in the procedure for filtering complaints has a clearly pronounced discretionary nature, moreover, it is selective. It would not be superfluous to point out that such as "order" in itself creates conditions for its abuse both by the participants in the case and by the courts. The substitute authority is the right of the Chairman of the Supreme Court to initiate supervisory proceedings on his own initiative, contrary to the basic rule of civil proceedings based on the principle of discretion (the case is initiated by the person whose rights have been violated). Supervisory proceedings are currently intended to appeal against judicial acts adopted by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation itself when considering cases in the first, appeal and cassation instances. However, among the objects of appeal there are also acts of the Judicial Collegium of the Supreme Court, applications to which are possible with complaints against acts of any lower courts, with some restrictions on the decisions of justices of the peace (Article 390.4 of the Civil Procedure Code; Article 291.1 of the Arbitration Procedure Court). In this regard, the supervisory authority must continue to be viewed as the final link in the system of reviewing judicial acts. However, the system for reviewing judicial acts is very contradictory. On the one hand, there are a number of strict rules that cut off certain types of judicial acts from appeal; filtering complaints in the second cassation and supervision; establishing special rules for the jurisdiction of complaints. On the other hand, it is possible not to comply with these strict rules and directly contact the Chairman of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.This extraordinary power of the Chairman of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation has been preserved, precisely because the Russian legislator firmly and consistently adheres to the conviction that it is necessary to leave at least one official who is not a party to the case the right to initiate an audit of a judicial act.Conclusions. The extraordinary powers of the Chairman of the Supreme Court are of an extra-procedural nature, at best they are based on the rules of record keeping (instead of the law), are selective and opaque.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document