scholarly journals Topical Issues of the Improvement of Legal Regulation in the Sphere of Subsoil Use

2020 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 85-90
Author(s):  
Roza N. Salieva ◽  

This article examines issues pertaining to the improvement of the legal regulation of subsoil use relations in the Russian Federation. It contains specific proposals on the improvement of subsoil use law. The purpose of the legal regulation of subsoil use relations shall be enshrined in the Russian Law “On Subsoil” according to the objectives of the state energy policy for subsoil use and state subsoil fund management. The Law “On Subsoil” needs to reflect the subsoil use goals of the state described in Russia’s Energy Strategy until 2035. It seems reasonable to include a section containing basic terms and definitions used in the subsoil legislation into the Law “On Subsoil”. It is important to make sure the Law “On Subsoil” contains a rule stating that a license agreement is an integral and mandatory part of a license to help streamline the legal regulation of subsoil use licensing. It is advisable to reinforce the Russian Law “On Subsoil” and codify state control and regulation principles.

2020 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 30-36
Author(s):  
Roza N. Salieva ◽  

This article examines issues pertaining to the improvement of the legal regulation of subsoil use relations in the Russian Federation. It contains specific proposals on the improvement of subsoil use law. The purpose of the legal regulation of subsoil use relations shall be enshrined in the Russian Law “On Subsoil” according to the objectives of the state energy policy for subsoil use and state subsoil fund management. The Law “On Subsoil” needs to reflect the subsoil use goals of the state described in Russia’s Energy Strategy until 2035. It seems reasonable to include a section containing basic terms and definitions used in the subsoil legislation into the Law “On Subsoil”. It is important to make sure the Law “On Subsoil” contains a rule stating that a license agreement is an integral and mandatory part of a license to help streamline the legal regulation of subsoil use licensing. It is advisable to reinforce the Russian Law “On Subsoil” and codify state control and regulation principles.


Lex Russica ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 136-145
Author(s):  
Ya. M. Ploshkina

The paper examines the concept of recovery of harm caused by the crime under Russian law in comparison with the concept of compensation for harm under German law. The results of the comparative legal study represent characteristics of the legal regulation and disclosure of the content of recovery and compensation for harm caused by a crime under the legislation of the Russian Federation and Germany, as well as the problems related to restrictions associated with compensation of harm in a narrow sense and recovery of harm under German Law. In Germany, the law provides for the legal institution of compensation of harm to the injured person by the person who committed a criminal act, which envisages its comprehensive legal regulation in specific provisions of criminal and criminal procedure laws. Legal regulation of recovery of harm in the Russian Federation is still unsettled due to the fact that recovery of harm is a mandatory element of various legal institutions (for example, termination of the criminal case due to active repentance, reconciliation of the parties, imposition of a judicial fine or circumstances mitigating the sentence, etc.). To determine the content of the harm caused by the crime, it is necessary to refer not only to the text of the law, but also to the legal acts of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation with due regard to the article defining the contents of recovery of harm caused by the crime. Under German law, compensation for the injured person by a person who committed a criminal act is used in two senses: narrow and broad ones, including recovery. The paper presents the criteria that allow us to limit these forms of response to the crime committed, as well as the content of compensation for harm in a broad sense.


2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 81-103
Author(s):  
A. Avtonomov ◽  
V. Grib

The article is a comparative study of legal regulation on non-profits in the Russian Federation by federal law, including the Constitution, federal statutes, decrees of the President of the Russian Federation, resolutions of the Government and Constitutional Court rulings in connection with certain international legal acts dealing with the right to association, and by the law of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation. The main stages of the development of the law on non-profits both at the federal level and at the level of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, as well as the main trends in the development of non-profit law in modern Russia, are explored.


2020 ◽  
pp. 5-7
Author(s):  
Ekaterina Kovalenko ◽  
Nadezhda Tydykova

The article centers on the study of new concepts in the legislation of the Russian Federation on physical training and sports. The authors analyze the concept of «fitness center», whichhas appeared in the legislation quite recently. There have arisen doubts about the rationale for its use among the variety of many similar terms that are actuallyemployed, which creates difficulties in determining their correlation. It has been noted that the term «fitness» has no conventional meaning and is not traditional for Russian reality. Another option is proposed to regulate the operation of physical training and sports organizations, the purpose of which is to provide citizens with services of physical training and physical development. In the approach proposed by the authors, the text of the law should contain a general term to unify names of such organizations. Under this approach, the term «fitness center» is unnecessary. The authors have not found any reasons for introducing the term «fitness» into the text of the Russian law, although they do not exclude their appearance in the future. Many practical problems have been noted that arise due to the lack of high-quality legal regulation of the activities of organizations that provide citizens with physical training and physical developmentservices. The authors come to the conclusion that the main problem is not the name of such organizations, but the contents of the regulation of their activities. The necessity of legislative clarification of such terms as «crossfit», «aqua fitness», «fitness aerobics», «body fitness», «fitbox» and some others is analyzed. The authors note that their indtoduction  intothe text of a normative legal act is possible in order to set the rules for a particular sport or instructions for coaches, orin other similar documents. Simple placing of terms and their definitions in the text of the law is perceived as inappropriate.


Author(s):  
Anna Lipuntsova

We raise questions related to the theoretical and practical aspects of the implementation of a legal experiment in the Russian Federation. The purpose of the study is to consider the problem of conducting an experiment on pre-trial appeal against decisions of the control (supervisory) body, ac-tions (inaction) of its officials, which is implemented from August 17, 2020 to June 30, 2021. The study of this topic is particularly relevant in the light of the state control and supervision reform through the introduction of the “regulatory guillotine” mechanism. We analyze the approaches to the essence of the legal experiment that have developed in science, consider the experiments previously conducted in the country, characterize the position that determines the procedure for conducting a legal experiment in the field of pre-trial appeal against decisions of control (supervisory) bodies, present the positions of practicing lawyers on the implementation of this experiment. We conclude that the implementation of a legal experiment in practice is positive, since it contributes to the development of legal regulation in one area or another and the use of this institution in the field of control and supervisory relations will allow the continued effective reform of the state control and supervision system.


The Russian Prosecutor’s Offie carries out its activities in the main areas stipulated by the Federal Law «On the Prosecutor’s Offie of the Russian Federation». Despite the specifis of each of these areas, the work of the Prosecutor’s Offie here is characterized by actions of prosecutors provided by law and carried out in the manner prescribed by law. These actions can be described as legal means of the prosecutor aiming at maintenance of legality. Nevertheless, there is no defiition of legal means of the prosecutor in the Russian legislation. Academic approaches to understanding this institution vary considerably as well. The article aims to analyze the scholars’ views on the legal means of the prosecutor, to give its defiition and to classify it. The authors point out that in the Russian law and legal studies there is a lack of unity of understanding key concepts such as powers of the prosecutor, legal means of the prosecutor, and legal means of the prosecutor’s response. The article discusses the topical issues of the concept and essence of the legal means of prosecutors used in supervision over the implementation of laws and non-supervisory functions of the prosecutor’s offie; means of detecting violations of the law; legal means of prosecutorial response to identifid violations of the law; acts of prosecution response; problems of the powers of the prosecutor in exercising supervisory and non-supervisory functions, rights and opportunities of the prosecutor; principles and characteristics of the legal means of the prosecutor, including the means of identifying violations of the law and the means of the prosecutor’s response to the violations of the law, classifiation of legal means. Recommendations on improving the Russian legislation are given.


Author(s):  
E.V. Klovach ◽  
◽  
A.S. Pecherkin ◽  
V.K. Shalaev ◽  
V.I. Sidorov ◽  
...  

In Russia, the reform of the regulatory guillotine is being implemented in the field of control and supervisory activity. It should result in a new regulatory system formed according to the principles specified in the key federal laws: «On state control (supervision) and municipal control in the Russian Federation» (Law on Control) and «On mandatory requirements in the Russian Federation» (Law on Mandatory Requirements) adopted in August 2020. In the field of industrial safety, this process was launched by the Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation № 1192, which will come into force on January 1, 2021. The main provisions are discussed in the article, which are related to the Law on Control and the Law on Mandatory Requirements. The Law on Control establishes the priority of preventive measures aimed at reducing the risk of causing harm in relation to the control activities, the grounds for carrying out control (supervisory) activities, the types of these activities in the forms of interaction with the controlled person and without such, the procedure for presentation of the results of control (supervisory) activity. The Law on Mandatory Requirements establishes that the provisions of regulatory legal acts should enter into force either from March 1 or September 1, but not earlier than 90 days after their official publication, and their validity period should not exceed 6 years. The drafts of regulatory legal acts developed by the federal executive bodies are subject to regulatory impact assessment. With a view to ensuring systematization of mandatory require ments, their register is kept. The federal executive body prepares a report on the achievement of the goals of mandatory requirements introduction. By January 1, 2021, 10 resolutions of the Government of the Russian Federation, 48 federal norms and rules in the field of industrial safety and 9 other regulatory legal acts of Rostechnadzor should be adopted. The drafts of all the documents are already prepared, some of the acts are completing the process of discussion and approval.


2020 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 88-93
Author(s):  
K.N. Golikov ◽  

The subject of this article is the problems of the nature, essence and purpose of prosecutorial activity. The purpose of the article is to study and justify the role of the human rights function in prosecutorial activities in the concept of a modern legal state. At the heart of prosecutorial activity is the implementation of the main function of the Prosecutor’s office – its rights and freedoms, their protection. This means that any type (branch) of Prosecutor's supervision is permeated with human rights content in relation to a citizen, society, or the state. This is confirmed by the fact that the Federal law “On the Prosecutor's office of the Russian Federation” establishes an independent type of Prosecutor's supervision-supervision over the observance of human and civil rights and freedoms. It is argued that the legislation enshrines the human rights activities of the Prosecutor's office as its most important function. It is proposed to add this to the Law “On the Prosecutor's office of the Russian Federation”.


Author(s):  
F.V. Matveenkov ◽  
◽  
D.A. Tolstova ◽  
O.V. Masharova ◽  
O.V. Sachkova ◽  
...  

Risk-oriented approach in the implementation of control (supervision) activities is an important state task that affects the country economy. As part of the implementation of the priority area of reforming control and supervision activities, the Federal Law «On the state control (supervision) and municipal control in the Russian Federation» was adopted, which comes into force on July 1, 2021. In order to implement the Federal Law «On state control (supervision) and municipal control in the Russian Federation», it is advisable to revise the regulation on the federal state energy supervision. It is required to study the issue of taking into account the risks of causing harm (damage) to legally protected values when carrying out control (supervision) activities in relation to the subjects (objects) of the energy sector, as well as criteria for assigning it to the risk category and indicators of the risk of mandatory requirements violation. Currently, the only criterion for assigning the harm (damage) to the risk category is the dependence on the established and (or) transmitted capacity of the energy facilities used, which is nonobjective due to the changes in the normative-regulatory framework for the implementation of control and supervision activities. It is required to study the issue of categorization depending on the established (transmitted) capacity of the object, the amount of economic damage as a result of the implementation of emergency situations and (or) emergency incidents (in value terms), the number of people killed (irretrievable losses), the number of people whose vital functions were disrupted as a result of the implementation of emergency situations and (or) emergency incidents.


2021 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 59-83
Author(s):  
Andrey Fursov

Currently, public hearings are one of the most widespread forms of deliberative municipal democracy in Russia. This high level of demand, combined with critique of legal regulations and the practices for bringing this system to reality – justified, in the meantime, by its development (for example, by the Agency for Strategic Initiatives and the Public Chambers of the Russian Federation) of proposals for the correction of corresponding elements of the legal code – make both the study of Russian experiences in this sphere and comparative studies of legal regulations and practical usage of public hearings in Russia and abroad extremely relevant. This article is an attempt to make a contribution to this field of scientific study. If the appearance of public hearings in Russia as an institution of Russian municipal law is connected with the passing of the Federal Law of 6 October 2003 No.131-FZ, “On the general organisational principles of local government in the Russian Federation,” then in the United States, this institution has existed since the beginning of the 20th century, with mass adoption beginning in the 1960s. In this time, the United States has accumulated significant practical experience in the use of public hearings and their legal formulation. Both countries are large federal states, with their own regional specifics and diversity, the presence of three levels of public authority and different principles of federalism, which cause differences in the legal regulation of municipal public hearings. For this reason, this article undertakes a comparative legal analysis of Russian and American experiences of legal regulation and practical use of public hearings, on the example of several major municipalities – the cities of Novosibirsk, Nizhny Novgorod, Voronezh and New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago. A comparison of laws influencing the public hearing processes in these cities is advisable, given the colossal growth in the role of city centers in the industrial and post-industrial eras. Cities in particular are the primary centers for economic growth, the spread of innovations, progressive public policy and the living environment for the majority of both Russian and American citizens. The cities under research are one of the largest municipalities in the two countries by population, and on such a scale, the problem of involving residents in solving local issues is especially acute. In this context, improving traditional institutions of public participation is a timely challenge for the legislator, and the experiences of these cities are worth describing. The unique Russian context for legal regulations of public hearings involves the combination of overarching federal law and specific municipal decrees that regulate the hearing process. There are usually two municipal acts regulating public hearings on general issues of the city district (charter, budget, etc.) and separately on urban planning. In the United States, the primary regulation of public hearings is assigned to the state and municipality level, with a whole series of corresponding laws and statutes; meanwhile, methodological recommendations play a specific role in the organisation of hearings, which are issued by the state department of a given state. It is proposed that regulating the corresponding relationships at the federal subject level will permit a combination of the best practices of legal administration with local nuances, thereby reinforcing the guarantee of the realization of civil rights to self-government. There are other features in the process of organizing and conducting public hearings in the United States, which, as shown in the article, can be perceived by Russian lawmakers as well in order to create an updated construct of public discussions at the local level.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document