Joint bankruptcy of spouses: theory and practice issues

2021 ◽  
pp. 271-280
Author(s):  
Irina E. Belova
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Scientific Literature ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Right

We research the issue of the current law enforcement practice of considering cases of joint bankruptcy of spouses in the framework of insolvency procedures of individuals. We emphasize that at the legislative level, joint bankruptcy of spouses and multiple persons on the debtor’s side is not provided for. Initially, this resulted in a lack of courts’ uniform approach, which has become a subject of discussion in the scientific literature. In this context, we pay attention to the importance of adoption by the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of position on the combining admissibility of spouses’ banknote cases. In turn, the permissibility of combining cases did not resolve the issue of possibility of accepting a joint bankruptcy application, which again led to discrepancies in judicial practice. Special attention is paid to the admissibility of combining cases, which is the right of the court, and not its duty. We note that the arbitration courts, when solving this issue, study such circumstances as the subject composition of the persons participating in the cases of debtors, the volume and nature of prop-erty that is part of the bankruptcy estate of each debtor’s property, the per-formance of duties of financial manager by the same person. Despite the de-veloping judicial practice of joint bankruptcy of spouses, justified by the ex-planations of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, we believe that it expedient and necessary to establish the grounds, procedure and conditions for joint bankruptcy of individuals who are spouses at the legislative level.

scholarly journals «Use of office position» when committing fraud: problems of application

2021 ◽  
Vol 60 (1) ◽  
pp. 97-104
Author(s):  
Valeria V. Zabrodina ◽  
Anna G. Menshikova
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Position Errors ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
Official Position ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Russian Federation

The authors in the article consider the problems of establishing the qualifying feature use of official position when committing fraud. Based on the analysis of the doctrine of criminal law, clarifications of the highest court, materials of specific judicial practice, a circle of subjects related to persons using their official position is determined, as well as the procedure and mechanism for using official position in fraud. According to the results of the study, it is proposed to include in the current resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation On judicial practice in cases of fraud, misappropriation and embezzlement additional clarifications that reveal the understanding of the content of the sign use of official position. The authors propose to expand the understanding of the subject of official fraud. Such provisions will promote uniformity in law enforcement and helpavoid qualifying fraud using official position errors.

scholarly journals ISSUES OF THE QUALIFICATION OF A MURDER FOR THE PURPOSES OF USING VICTIM’S ORGANS OR TISSUES (CLAUSE М PART 2 ARTICLE 105 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION)

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. 46-51
Author(s):  
Andrey L. Ivanov ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
Human Organs ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation

The article substantiates the solution of some of the issues of qualification of murder discussed in theory and practice in order to use human organs or tissues, the results of a study of judicial practice, in which clarifications of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on this topic were applied.

scholarly journals Features of signs of the crime object provided by article 166 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation

2019 ◽  
Vol 2019 (2) ◽  
pp. 192-198
Author(s):  
Алена Харламова ◽  
Alena Kharlamova ◽  
Юлия Белик ◽  
Yuliya Belik
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Social Relations ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Direct Object ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Right

The article is devoted to the problematic theoretical and practical issues of the content of the signs of the object of the crimes under Art. 166 of the Criminal Code. The authors determined the main direct object, revealed the essence of the right of ownership, use and disposal. Marked social relations that can act as an optional direct object. Particular attention is paid in the article to the subject of the crime. Attempts have been made to establish criteria that are crucial for the recognition of any vehicle as the subject of theft. The content of the terms “automobile” and “other vehicle” is disclosed. The analysis of the conformity of the literal interpretation of the criminal law to the interpretation of the law enforcer is carried out. It is summarized that the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation narrows the meaning of the term “other vehicle”, including in it only vehicles for the management of which, in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation, is granted a special right. The authors provide a list of such vehicles and formulate a conclusion on the advisability of specifying them as the subject of a crime. The narration of the article is accompanied by examples of decisions of courts of various instances in cases of crimes under Art. 166 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation

scholarly journals Some Issues of Qualification of the Hijacking of an Aircraft, a Sea-Going Ship, or a Railway Train (Article 211 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation)

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 367-376
Author(s):  
Denis Kraev
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Water Transport ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
Rolling Stock ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Railway Rolling Stock

The article is devoted to the problems of qualification of hijacking of an aircraft, a sea-going ship, or a railway train, provided for by Art. 211 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Despite the fact that Art. 211 has been present in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation since its adoption, it should be noted that there is a lack of theoretical research on its analysis, as well as the existence in court practice of the difficulties of applying this norm (in addition, Federal Law No. 130 of May 5, 2014 -FZ in Art. 211 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation a new Part 4 was introduced, providing for liability for the combination of hijacking of a ship of air or water transport or railway rolling stock with a terrorist act or other terrorist second activity that, in the absence of specific explanations of the Plenum of the Supreme Court, has created additional challenges for law-qualification). This determines the relevance of the chosen topic. Analyzing the current legislation, the provisions of the Decree of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated December 9, 2008 No. 25 “On judicial practice in cases of crimes related to violation of the rules of the road and the operation of vehicles, as well as their unlawful seizure without the purpose of theft”, scientific positions and court decisions on these issues, the author comes to the following conclusions that seem interesting for theory and practice. Small boats of water transport relate to the subject of hijacking of a ship of air or water transport or railway rolling stock, and the commission of a crime under Part 4 of Art. 211 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, and the associated terrorist act, requires qualification in the aggregate of Part 4 of Art. 211 and Art. 205 of the Criminal Code. Military aircraft and boats, submarines, etc.) are also the subject of a crime under Art. 211 of the Criminal Code. The of hijacking of an aircraft, a sea-going ship, or a railway train, as well as the seizure of such a ship or train for the purpose of hijacking, associated with the murder, assault on the life of a law enforcement officer, person conducting justice or preliminary investigation, a state or public figure are qualified in the aggregate of Art. 211 and Art. 105, Art. 277, Art. 295, Art. 317 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. When of hijacking of an aircraft, a sea-going ship, or a railway train, as well as hijacking such a ship or train for the purpose of hijacking, committed with the use of violence dangerous to the life or health of the victim, or with the threat of such violence, in addition to item “c” of Part 2 of Art. 211 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation of additional qualification in parts 1, 2 of Art. 111, Art. 112, Art. 115, Art. 117, Art. 119 of the Criminal Code is not required. The of hijacking of an aircraft, a sea-going ship, or a railway train is often fraught with violation of the traffic safety rules and operation of the relevant transport provided for in Art. 263 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation: the deed is covered by Art. 211 of the Criminal Code, if the violation specified in Art. 263 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation expressed itself in theft; if not, qualification is possible in the aggregate of art. 211,263 of the Criminal Code.

scholarly journals Assignment of a Claim Under an Obligation in Which the Identity of the Obligee Is Essential for the Obligor

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 455-464
Author(s):  
A. A. Martsun
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Scientific Literature ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
Essential Value ◽  
A Value ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
The Right

The Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation adopted a resolution of December 21, 2017 No. 54 “On some issues of application of the provisions of Chapter 24 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation on the change of persons in an obligation on the basis of a transaction", which sets out important clarifications regarding the application standards contained in this chapter. At the same time, not all issues related to the assignment of the claim were resolved by the above resolution. One of these issues is the definition of the term “essential value of the identity of the creditor” or approximate criteria for such a value in the context of the need to obtain the latter’s consent to the assignment of rights. The presence of this problem is rightly indicated in the scientific literature [3, p. 549–655, 688–713]. The Author examines the Model Rules of European Private Law and the UNIDROIT principles in order to find a solution to the problem. Attention is drawn to the problem of determining the essential value of the creditor for the debtor in the case of assignment of the right of claim, as well as to the consequences of making the assignment without the consent of the debtor under an obligation in which the identity of the creditor was essential.In the Author's opinion, the identity of the creditor is recognized as essential for the debtor when the connection between the debtor and the creditor arose as a result of the conclusion of a transaction that has a personallyconfidential nature, or if the connection arose during the conclusion of other transactions in the case when the connection was broken during the execution assignment of rights entails or may entail a significant deprivation for the debtor of what he had the right to count on when concluding a transaction with the creditor.In addition, situations are considered that are an exception to the presumption of the absence of a significant value of the creditor's personality for the assignment of claims for monetary obligations. The author also points out that the consequence of the transaction on the assignment of rights without the consent of the debtor in the context of paragraph 2 of Art. 388 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation is the nullity of the transaction on the basis of paragraph 2 of Art. 168 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation.

scholarly journals INTERPRETATION PROBLEM CRITERION OF CONFERENCE, LIMITING THE SCOPE OF THE MECHANISM ACQUISITION

2021 ◽  
Vol 6(72) (3) ◽  
pp. 57-66
Author(s):  
N. A. Ablyatipova ◽  
N. V. Rogozhin
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Scientific Literature ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Good Faith ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Good Conscience ◽  
Interpretation Problem

Based on the analysis of the current civil law, judicial practice and scientific literature, this article explores some of the problems of interpreting good faith as the requisite for acquiring ownership by prescription. The authors draw attention to the limited situations to which the rule on acquisitive prescription may apply, due to the existing official regulatory clarification of the good faith criterion. The work examines the latest practice of the judicial board for civil cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, which formed a position on the interpretation of good faith, which seems to contradict the legitimate understanding of this condition. In this regard, some situations of life are examined, namely, the seizure of property by moving into an empty abandoned house, as well as the situation when the cohabitant (actual spouse) becomes an independent owner of the property of the owner. Using these examples, the authors show how the problems of interpreting the criterion of “good conscience” as part of acquisitive prescription investigated in the article affect the formation of ambiguous, and in some cases, illegal judicial practice.

scholarly journals Malfeasances: features of law enforcement.

2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 331-337
Author(s):  
M.P. Pronina ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Legal Assessment ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Legislation

The article deals with the problems of law enforcement in the group of malfeasances. Official crimes are most dangerous due to the fact that they undermine the prestige of the authorities and directly violate the rights and legitimate interests of citizens and organizations. In this regard the legislator has established criminal liability for officials who abuse their functional duties. In particular the author studies the problems of qualification arising in the legal assessment of crimes enshrined in Ch. 30 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, due to the highest level of their blanketness and evaluativeness. Examples of judicial and investigative practice on competition issues of general and special rules are given. Difficulties are revealed in the legal assessment of the actions of officials when determining the signs of abuse of office, enshrined in Art. 286 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Arguments are presented that are a clear demonstration of the fact that the solution to the identified problems of applying the norms of the criminal law lies in the plane of reducing the level of conflict of laws of criminal legislation. Practical proposals are being made to include amendments to the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 09.07.2013 No. 24 “On judicial practice in cases of bribery and other corruption crimes” (clause 12.1) and Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 16.10.2009 No. 19 “On judicial practice in cases of abuse of office and abuse of office” (p. 21.1). The solution of the stated problems in the field of application of the norms of the criminal law consists in the development of a uniform practice of application of the norms of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, reduction of the level of gaps in criminal legislation, the development of methodological and scientific recommendations with the participation of law enforcement officials and scientists, the preparation of draft laws and plenums of the Supreme Court aimed at elimination of gaps and gaps.

scholarly journals Deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities: regulatory issues and law enforcement practice

2021 ◽  
Vol 234 (11) ◽  
pp. 16-24
Author(s):  
SERGEY A. PICHUGIN ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Scientific Methods ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Domestic Legislation ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Right

The article is devoted to various aspects of the regulation and execution of punishment in the form of deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities. The subject of the article is the norms of the current domestic legislation, data from official statistics of the Judicial Department at the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and the Federal Penitentiary Service of Russia, as well as law enforcement practice on the topic under consideration. The purpose of the article is to analyze the normative regulation and practice of applying punishment in the form of deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities. The methodological basis of the research is represented by a set of general and specific scientific methods. The work used methods such as analysis, synthesis, formal legal, statistical. As a result of the study, proposals were formulated to amend the current legislation in terms of improving preventive work with persons sentenced to punishment in the form of deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities. Conclusions are made about the essence, features of legal regulation and law enforcement practice of the considered type of punishment in modern conditions, about the need to increase the effectiveness of preventive activities in relation to persons sentenced to punishment in the form of deprivation of the right to engage in activities related to driving a vehicle. Key words: deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities, punishment, penal inspectorates, the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, convict, deprivation of the right to engage in activities related to driving.

scholarly journals PROCEDURAL FEATURES OF THE CONSIDERATION OF CASES OF UNAUTHORIZED CONSTRUCTION

2020 ◽  
Vol 35 (3) ◽  
pp. 91-100
Author(s):  
A.V. Akhmedov ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Scientific Literature ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Procedural Law ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Right

The article reveals some procedural features of the consideration of cases of unauthorized buildings. Purpose: to identify the procedural norms contained in the substantive legislation that have a significant impact on determining the competence of jurisdictional bodies to consider the category of cases under investigation, the lawsuit form of protection of the right and persons involved in the case. The study is based on the analysis of scientific literature, the study of the material and procedural legislation of the Russian Federation and the legal positions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation and the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. The results of the study. The author has identified criteria for distinguishing administrative and judicial forms of considering cases of unauthorized buildings, as well as criteria for delimiting the competence of courts of general jurisdiction and arbitration courts in these cases. The conclusion is substantiated on the need for legislative consolidation of the right of the prosecutor to appeal to the court and the right of the court to involve a third party in the process, declaring independent claims if he has consent. Proposals are made aimed at improving the rules of procedural law governing the procedure for considering cases of unauthorized buildings.

Hearing of Cases about Indemnification, Caused to the Environment: Procedural Questions ofJudicial Practice

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 48-58
Author(s):  
M. A. Fokina ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Research Gaps ◽  
Supreme Courts ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation

Research objective is the analysis of practice of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation and the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on cases of indemnification caused to the environment. Proceeding their concepts of integrative right understanding the author reveals the importance of legal positions of the supreme judicial authorities for law-enforcement practice of inferior courts by hearing of cases about indemnification, caused to the environment. During the research gaps in the current legislation and ways of their completion in judicial practice are revealed. Methods. As methods of a research the legallistic method, synthesis, the analysis, induction, deduction were used. Results. The research showed certain shortcomings and gaps of legal regulation of an order of the indemnification caused the environment. Legal positions of the supreme courts which allowed to meet lacks and shortcomings of the legislation are revealed and analysed and to provide appropriate protection of the rights of citizens and legal entities.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document