scholarly journals STRENGTHENING THE COMPENSATORY BASICS FOR VIOLATED SUBJECTIVE CIVIL RIGHTS PROTECTION IN THE EUROPEAN UNION MEMBER STATES AND THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

2017 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-18 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sergey V. Romanchuk ◽  
Svetlana S. Racheva
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Civil Rights ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Union Member ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
European Union Member States

scholarly journals Identification of the areas for improving the Russian legislation on taxation of controlled foreign companies based on the experience of European Union member-states

2021 ◽  
pp. 26-39
Author(s):  
Aleksandra Melnikova
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Union Member ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Legal Form ◽  
Member States ◽  
Foreign Companies ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
European Union Member States

This article is dedicated to identification and analysis of the gaps in legal regulation of profit taxation of controlled foreign companies (CFC) in the Russian Federation, by comparing the Russian legislation with the legislation of the European Union member-states. Comparison is conducted on the current legislation of the Russian Federation on CFC with analogous rules in France, Germany, Netherlands, and Great Britain. The author determines the similarities and differences in the regimes of profit taxation of controlled foreign companies, and substantiates the need for introducing point amendments to the current legislation of the Russian Federation on profit taxation of controlled foreign companies. The structure of the Russian rules on CFC is largely similar to such in the developed European countries. The definition of the concept of control in the Russian legislation for the most part aligns with the definitions of the analogous concept in the legislation of France, Germany, and Netherlands; although the Russian definition is certainly broader, as it applicable to foreign structures without formation of legal entity, and contains both quantitative and qualitative criteria. Despite formal similarity of the Russian rules on CFC and their foreign equivalents, there are gaps in the Russian legislation, the interpretation of which by the tax authorities and the Ministry of Finance is at times contradictory and often does not benefit the taxpayer. Numerous questions arise from filling out and submitting participation notices and CFC notices, the procedure for which also contains multiple gaps, and the grounds for their submission in the legislation are quite ambiguous. Taxpayers often do not timely notify the tax authority on the participation in CFC or do not submit the corresponding notice due to inaccessibility of software for filling out notices for companies established in particular organizational-legal form.

scholarly journals Wpływ embarga Federacji Rosyjskiej na eksport jabłek z Polski w latach 2004-2015

2017 ◽  
Vol 104 (1) ◽  
pp. 22-38 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adam Ambroziak
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Union Member ◽  
Food Products ◽  
Single Market ◽  
Agricultural Products ◽  
The European Union ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
European Union Member States ◽  
The Eu

In August 2014 the Russian Federation introduced a ban on imports of many food and agricultural products from the European Union member states, including Poland. It was the second embargo imposed on Poland after its accession to the European Union. The aim of the study is to assess the consequences of measures adopted by the Russian Federation to restrict imports of apples, one of the most important agri-food products, in 2004-2015. During the recent embargo, Poland did not limit itself, as it had been the case during the first ban in 2006-2008, to redirecting exports to Russia via Lithuania, Belarus and Ukraine, but it looked for new markets, including the EU single market.

scholarly journals Castaño avoids a clash between the ECtHR and the CJEU, but erodes Soering. Thinking human rights transnationally

2020 ◽  
pp. 203228442097974
Author(s):  
Sibel Top ◽  
Paul De Hert
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Union Member ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Criminal Matters ◽  
European Union Member States

This article examines the changing balance established by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) between human rights filters to extradition and the obligation to cooperate and how this shift of rationale brought the Court closer to the position of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in that respect. The article argues that the ECtHR initially adopted a position whereby it prioritised human rights concerns over extraditions, but that it later nuanced that approach by establishing, in some cases, an obligation to cooperate to ensure proper respect of human rights. This refinement of its position brought the ECtHR closer to the approach adopted by the CJEU that traditionally put the obligation to cooperate above human rights concerns. In recent years, however, the CJEU also backtracked to some extent from its uncompromising attitude on the obligation to cooperate, which enabled a convergence of the rationales of the two Courts. Although this alignment of the Courts was necessary to mitigate the conflicting obligations of European Union Member States towards both Courts, this article warns against the danger of making too many human rights concessions to cooperation in criminal matters.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document