scholarly journals Procedural Independence of the Court: the Thorny Way from Communist Myths to the Objective Reality of Russian Justice

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 38-48
Author(s):  
Nikolay Nikolaevich Kovtun
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Constitutional Principle ◽  
Current State ◽  
European Court ◽  
Administration Of Justice ◽  
Full Independence ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Right ◽  
Judicial Protection

In the context of substance and consequences of the constitutional principle of the court’s independence the author through the analysis of the final acts of judicial power (judicial precedents and acts of judicial interpretation of law, objectified as the resolution of the plenum) probes the current state of Russian justice alleged to be in whole has perceived and effectively implements the main elements of this fundamental idea. The author as the final conclusions of the consummated analysis on the contrary states the growing condition of legal uncertainty in the studied branch of state activity, the origins and real reasons of which, first of all, are in the apparent duality of legal positions and the final acts of the administration of justice on the same subject; in the full «independence» of a court in the administration of justice from the literal dictates of the law, acts of constitutional justice and acts of the European Court of human rights, the interpretative positions of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, from own rules-precedents which are designed to be the standards of application the law for conflict law situations. Above doesn’t agree with the essence and content of the idea of procedural independence of a court, but also clearly grades the fundamental and universally recognized idea of the supremacy of law, its certainty. Turning to the institution of judicial protection and justice as a constitutional function of a court, the parties initially have the right to depend on the legal nature of the activities of a court, normative base and, properly, predictability of the final acts of the administration of justice and not from factors of ideological, political, subjective nature which are taken to the attention of «independent», powerfully protected court. Only on this objective base interested parties will objectively perceive justice as a real and effective element of forming the legal state and civil society in the Russian Federation.

scholarly journals MEDICINES: CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL REGULATION ON RESTRICTION OF THE PROPERTY RIGHT CONCERNING TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER SUBJECTS AND THE RIGHT TO CONDUCT ENTREPRENEURSHIP ON IMPORT OF MEDICINAL PRODUCTS IN CONDITIONS OF CONFLICT AND TEMPORARY OCCUPATION

2021 ◽  
pp. 6-13
Author(s):  
Юрій Бисага
Keyword(s):  
Technology Transfer ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Democratic Society ◽  
Medicinal Products ◽  
Public Values ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Right

  The purpose of this article is to identify the features of restriction of ownership on the subjects of technology transfer regarding production of medicines and the right to run business on the import of medicines in conditions of conflict and temporary occupation. The methodological basis of the conducted research is the general methods of scientific cognitivism as well as concerning those used in legal science: methods of analysis and synthesis, formal logic, comparative law etc. When determining the legitimate purpose of restriction, it is necessary to apply the principle of proportionality, which is the concordance of measures applied to the above entities in order to limit the exercise of their rights with those public values that are protected by such restriction. On the procedural level, the State having realized the right for withdrawal has to comprehensively inform the General Secretary of the Council of Europe as for the measures taken and the reasons for them, as well as the time when those measures have ceased to apply and the provisions of the Convention are profoundly applied again. As the case law of the European Court of Human Rights shows, the derogation from the obligations under the Convention must have territorial and temporal specifications. The following features of the constitutional and legal regulation of restriction of property rights for subjects of technology transfer to the production of medicines are revealed: 1) restrictions on the implementation of these rights should be provided by the law, which must meet the following requirements: clarity, accuracy, accessibility; 2) the measure is a temporal one; 3) the range of entities in respect of which it is applied to are the subjects of technology transfer being residents of the aggressor country; 4) legitimate purpose of implementation is protection of public values (national security, life and health of persons staying on the territory of Ukraine, territorial integrity, etc.); 5) necessary in democratic society. The following features of the constitutional and legal regulation of restrictions on the right for running business activities regarding import of medicines during conflict and temporary occupation of the part of the territory of Ukraine by the Russian Federation are revealed: 1) restrictions on the exercise of these rights are provided by the Law of Ukraine “On Foreign Economic Activity” from 04.07.2017 №18.1-07/18369, which meets the following requirements: clarity, accuracy, accessibility; 2) the measure is temporal one; 3) the range of entities in respect of which it is applied to is addressed to the applicants of medicinal products, alternative and/or potential manufacturers, applicants-holders of registration certificates of which are the subjects of the Russian Federation; 4) legitimate purpose of implementation is protection of life and health of persons staying on the territory of Ukraine in connection with the impossibility of providing Ukraine with proper control over the quality of production of medicines within the Russian Federation; 5) necessary in democratic society.    

scholarly journals Application of the Principle of Increased Tolerance of Public Persons to Criticism Addressed to Them in the Russian Federation

2019 ◽  
pp. 29-34
Author(s):  
E. V. Loos
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Civil Rights ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Russian Law ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Right ◽  
Official Status

The article discusses the legal and philosophical aspects of the application in the Russian Federation of the principle of increased tolerance of public persons to criticism addressed to them established by the European Court of Human Rights. The author believes that the principle in question contradicts Article 19 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation that guarantees equality of human and civil rights and freedoms regardless of property and official status, membership in public associations, as well as other circumstances. The author has questioned the appropriateness of the introduction of the principle of increased tolerance in Russian law enforcement practice, since it does not contribute to the realization of the “spirit of the law,” while leading to unnecessary accumulation of the law. It is noted that the question of the balance between the right to freedom of expression and opinion and the right to protection of the honour and dignity of the person in the process of criticism of public persons and their activities cannot be settled exhaustively in the legislation as it affects the sphere of morality.

scholarly journals INDICATIVE APPROACH IN THE EVALUATION OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO JUDICIAL PROTECTION IN THE STATE LANGUAGES OF THE RF SUBJECTS

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (6) ◽  
Author(s):  
Damir Kh. Valeev ◽  
Anas G. Nuriev ◽  
Rafael V. Shakirjanov
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
The State ◽  
Practical Implementation ◽  
Current State ◽  
Hand Signal ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Civil Cases ◽  
Constitutional Right ◽  
The One ◽  
Judicial Protection

The implementation of the constitutional right to judicial protection is an important guarantee for participants in legal relations in case of violation of the rights of one of the parties or a threat of violation of the rights of participants in legal relations. Judicial protection is of particular relevance for the participants in legal relations, who do not speak the languages in which the administration of justice is carried out. Within the framework of this article, the authors analyze indicators that are designed to, on the one hand, signal on the current state and existing possibilities of implementing the constitutional right to judicial protection in the state languages of the subject of the Russian Federation (statistical function), and, on the other hand, determine growth drivers that can provide language guarantees for the territory of our state, which is defined as a democratic federal legal state according to Art. 1 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. Within the framework of this article, three indicators are highlighted and analyzed: 1) existing legal potential for the implementation of the constitutional right to judicial protection in civil cases in the state languages of the republics within the Russian Federation; 2) analysis of the practical implementation of the opportunities currently available for the implementation of the constitutional right to judicial protection in civil cases in the state languages of the republics within the Russian Federation; 3) determination of growth points in the implementation of the constitutional right to judicial protection in civil cases in the state languages of the republics within the Russian Federation

Liability for Administrative Offences: Standards of European Court of Human Rights and the Current State of the Legislation on Administrative Offences in Russia

2018 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 307
Author(s):  
Olga E. SHISHKINA ◽  
Olga V. HABIBULINA ◽  
Aleksandr F. REKHOVSKIY
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Economic Reforms ◽  
Criminal Sanctions ◽  
Current State ◽  
European Court ◽  
Judicial Proceedings ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Procedural Safeguards ◽  
The One

Recently, there has been a substantial increase in the number of judgments delivered by the European Court of Human Rights with regard to the Russian Federation on the complaints filed by Russian citizens, including the complaints related to the liability for administrative offences. The characteristic tendency of the European Court of Human Rights to qualify administrative offences as criminal acts not only brings into focus the issue of ensuring procedural safeguards for individuals charged with administrative offences but also touches upon material aspects of the relation between criminal and administrative law-breaking in Russia as well as changes the traditional juristic view upon the essence of the legislation on administrative offence. Political and economic reforms of Perestroika and the first post-Soviet decade had a significant influence on the institution of administrative justice. Hence, on the one hand, its current state is caused by objective reasons. On the other hand, the legislator, having quite a broad discretion in determining whether to impose administrative or criminal sanctions in each particular case, has seriously blurred the material boundary between criminal and administrative offences. The problem of present-day legislation on administrative offences in Russia is a material hypertrophy of administrative liability together with continuous reduction of procedural safeguards and guarantees for individuals charged with administrative offences. The procedural norms of the existing Code of Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation cannot provide for the adversarial nature of the administrative trial due to the fact that the Code of Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation is not methodologically aimed at regulating administrative (judicial) proceedings.

The “Bolotnoe Affair” and the Implementation of the Right to Freedom of Assembly in the Russian Federation

2016 ◽  
Vol 41 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 396-426
Author(s):  
Mariya Riekkinen
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Court Cases ◽  
Legal Analysis ◽  
Parliamentary Elections ◽  
European Court ◽  
Moscow City ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Right

A series of protests across Russia, triggered by procedural violations during the 2011 parliamentary elections and results of the 2012 presidential elections, culminated on 6 May 2012 with a demonstration at Bolotnaia Square in Moscow. That demonstration led to violent clashes between protesters and the police. The dispersal of this demonstration and the subsequent criminal and administrative trials conducted against some of the protesters, as well as the controversy regarding the severity of some of the penalties imposed by the courts, became known as the Bolotnoe Affair. The Bolotnoe Affair is analyzed from the perspective of implementing the right to freedom of assembly in Russia. The main goal is to conduct a contextual legal analysis clarifying whether the right to freedom of assembly is adequately implemented in the legal order of the Russian Federation, in order to illustrate whether the protesters in the Bolotnoe Affair were able to express their opinions with regard to the procedure and results of the elections. The leading court cases relevant to the participatory rights of the protesters as exemplified by the appellate decisions of the Moscow City Court will also be examined. In particular, twelve decisions of the Moscow City Court during the period 2012–2014 (full texts of which are reproduced in publicly available legal databases) are reviewed, as well as two recent judgments in European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) cases closely related to these earlier cases. Analyzing the Moscow City Court decisions vis-à-vis the judgments of the ECtHR, the author concludes that the Moscow City Court’s rulings did not conform with the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights (echr) regarding the right to freedom of assembly and the right to liberty.

scholarly journals Leniency programmesfor cartel: mature reforms

2018 ◽  
pp. 24-33
Author(s):  
K. N. Aleshin ◽  
S. V. Maksimov
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Main Factors ◽  
The Law ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
The Right

The problems of interpretation of criminal law and administrative law institutes of active repentance (“leniency programmes”) in relation to cartels are considered.The definition of the effectiveness of the institution of active repentance is given as the ability of this institution to achieve the goals stipulated by law (in the aggregate or in a particular combination): 1) termination of the committed offense (crime) (“surrender”),2) assistance in investigating the relevant administrative offense (crime), 3) compensation for the harm caused by his offense (crime), 4) refusal to commit such offenses (crimes) in the future.The condition of the quadunity of these goals is investigated. It is noted that among the main factors reducing the effectiveness of administrative law and criminal law institutions of active repentance (“leniency programmes”) in relation to a cartel is the legal inconsistency of these institutions.Proposals are being made to amend par. 3 of the Notes to Art. 178 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and Note 1 to Art. 14.32 of the Code of the Russian Federation Code of Administrative Offenses iin order to bring together the relevant institutions of active repentance.The necessity of legislative consolidation of general procedural rules for the implementation of the person who participated in the conclusion of the cartel, the law granted him the right to active repentance is substantiated.

scholarly journals Franchise agreement under the law of the Russian Federation

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 149-154
Author(s):  
Roza Iosifovna Sitdikova ◽  
Dmitriy Anatolievich Petrov
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
The Other ◽  
Know How ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Relationship

The franchise agreement in the Russian Federation is the main agreement that formalizes the relationship for organizing a business in the form of franchising. Under a franchise agreement, one party (franchisor) undertakes to provide the other party (user), for a fee, for a period or without specifying a period, the right to use in the user's business a set of exclusive rights belonging to the franchisor, including the right to a trademark, service mark, as well as rights to other objects of exclusive rights provided for by the agreement, in particular to a commercial designation, a secret of production (know-how). The paper analyzes the content and features of this agreement.

scholarly journals The right of Police officers and the Criminal-executive system to use firearms: some issues of theory and practice

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (3) ◽  
pp. 136-143
Author(s):  
A. А. Alimov ◽  
◽  
S. A. Yunusov ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Police Officers ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
Penal System ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Executive System ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Right

The article is devoted to the analysis of the Federal Law «On the Police» and the law of the Russian Federation «On Institutions and Bodies Executing Criminal Sentences in the Form of Imprisonment», which empowers the police and the penal system with the right to use firearms. Possible problems of the implementation of the provisions of the legislation are identified, specific measures are proposed to improve the efficiency of legal regulation of the use of firearms by police officers and the penal system

Issues of Superion Courts of the Russian Federation when Implementing the Legislative Initiative

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. 32-41
Author(s):  
N. G. Stenichkin ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
Practical Implementation ◽  
Legislative Process ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Legal Method ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Legislative Initiative ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Right

The problem. The concept of «issues of reference» is used in the Constitution of the Russian Federation when listing the subjects of the law of legislative initiative in relation to the judiciary. The legislation does not disclose or define this concept, which leads to discussion about its content and, as a result, raises questions about the practical implementation of the separation of powers principle in the legislative process. Aims and objectives of the study: we determined the limitations of the law of legislative initiative of the higher courts of Russia from the point of view the legal grounds for such restrictions, their subjects and legal consequences. Methods: we use both the common scientific methods (e. g. systemic, deductive) as the special-legal methods (formal, dogmatic, state-legal modeling method, comparative legal method etc.). Results: we conclude that «issues of reference» is a special constitutional legal term used in the Constitution of the Russian Federation to describe all functions of the certain branch of power or the public authority. This term in its content is broader than the concepts of «authority», «subjects of jurisdiction» and «jurisdiction». The use of the term «issues of reference» towards the higher courts, as subjects of the right of legislative initiative, does not allow us to assert the constitutional sense of existence various types of legislative initiative right, such as general right and limited (special) right. The practice of exercising the right of legislative initiative by the higher courts, as well as the applying the Procedure Rules of the State Duma of the Russian Federation does not provide for any restrictions on the right of courts to initiate bills. Russian legislation lacks mechanisms for applying the term «issues of reference» as an instrument restricting the constitutional right of the higher courts to participate in the legislative process. Also, such mechanisms are not reflected in the regulatory framework governing the activities of the higher courts. The term «issues of reference», applied to the legislative initiative right of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation and the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, does not imply any exemptions from the right to initiate bills given by the Constitution to other entities, but this term is used in the delimitation of legislative functions between the higher courts.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document