RIGHT OF ACTION TO CHALLENGE TRANSACTIONS THAT RESULT IN FOREIGN INVESTORS GAINING CONTROL OVER BUSINESS ENTITIES OF STRATEGIC IMPORTANCE

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 112-138
Author(s):  
D.A. FEDYAEV

In the Russian Federation, as in a number of other economically developed countries, there are legal restrictions on the admission of foreign investors to participate in commercial corporate organizations of strategic importance for national defence and state security. Failure by foreign investors to comply with this mechanism leads to the nullity of transactions and, as a consequence, to legal disputes, the subject of which are mainly restitution claims. There have been numerous problems and academic debates in recent court practice regarding the reasons and the possibility of satisfying such claims. In particular, in view of the changed circumstances after the conclusion of the contested transaction, the real public interest is not always visible pursued by the claim for application of consequences of its invalidity. The author proposes that in the course of judicial proceedings in such cases, when the defendant raises the relevant reasoned objections, not only to state the fact of violation of the law by a foreign investor, but also to reveal the public interest defended by the foreign investor. The author proposes that, in such cases, the defendant’s arguments should not be limited to stating that the foreign investor has breached the law. If one is not established, a claim may be dismissed under certain conditions, taking into account established doctrinal approaches to the understanding of the right of action.

Jurnal Hukum ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 1833
Author(s):  
Rihantoro Bayu Aji

 AbstractActually the existence of foreign investment in Indonesia is not new phenomenon, due to foreign investment exist since colonialism era.The existence of foreign investment is still continuing to Soeharto era until reformation era. Spirit of foreign investment in colonialism era, Soharto era, and reformation era are different. Foreign investment in colonialsm era just explore of nation asset and ignore of nation welfare, and this matter is different from the character of foreign investment in Soeharto era also reformation era. Eventhough the involvement of foreign investor have any benefits to the host country, but on the other hand foreign investment have business oriented only whether the investment is secure and may result of profit. Refer to The Law Number 25 Year of 2007 Concerning Investment (hereinafter called UUPM) can not be separated from various interest that become of politic background of the law, even the law tend to liberalism of investment. Liberalism in the investment sector particularly of foreign investment basically exist far from issuing of UUPM, and the spirit of liberalism also stipulate in several rules among others The Law Number 5 Year of 1999 Concerning Prohibitation of Anti Trust and Unfair Competition, The Law Number 22 Year of 2001 Concerning Oil and Gas, The Law Number 7 Year of 2004 Concerning Water Resource, and also The Law Number 30 Year of 2009 Concerning Electricity.   Many rules as mentioned above has liberalism character and also indicator opposite wit the right to manage of the state to nation asset that relate to public interest as stipulated in the Indonesia Constitution. Actually the issuing of UUPM in case of implementation of article 33 Indonesia Constitution (UUD NRI 1945). Due to opportunity by Government to foreign investment as stipulate by article 12 UUPM and also the existence of many rules as well as The Law Number 5 Year of 1999 Concerning Prohibitation of Anti Trust and Unfair Competition, The Law Number 22 Year of 2001 Concerning Oil and Gas, The Law Number 7 Year of 2004 Concerning Water Resource, and also The Law Number 30 Year of 2009 Concerning Electricity, so the foreign investment that relate to public service is more exist in Indonesia. The existence is reflected many foreign companies. Free of foreign investment relate to public service is opposite with spirit of article 33 Indonesia Constitution. Keywords: Foreign Investment, Right of  State, Article 33 Indonesia Consitution AbstrakEksistensi penanaman modal asing (investasi asing) di Indonesia sebenarnya bukan merupakan fenomena baru di Indonesia, mengingat modal asing telah hadir di Indonesia sejak zaman kolonial dahulu.   Eksistensi penanaman modal asing terus berlanjut pada era orde baru sampai dengan era reformasi. Tentunya semangat penanaman modal asing pada saat era kolonial, era orde baru, dan era reformasi adalah berbeda. Penanaman modal asing pada saat era kolonial memiliki karakter eksploitatif atas aset bangsa dan mengabaikan kesejahteraan rakyat, hal ini tentunya berbeda dengan karakter penanaman modal asing pada era orde baru, dan era reformasi. Sekalipun kehadiran investor membawa manfaat bagi negara penerima modal, di sisi lain investor yang hendak menanamkan modalnya juga tidak lepas dari orientasi bisnis (oriented business), apakah modal yang diinvestasikan aman dan bisa menghasilkan keuntungan. Melihat eksistensi Undang–Undang Nomor 25 Tahun 2007 tentang Penanaman Modal (UUPM) tidak dapat dilepaskan dari beragam kepentingan yang mendasari untuk diterbitkannya undang–undang tersebut, bahkan terdapat kecenderungan semangat dari UUPM lebih cenderung kepada liberalisasi investasi. Liberalisasi pada sektor investasi khususnya investasi asing pada dasarnya eksis jauh sebelum lahirnya UUPM ternyata juga tampak secara tersirat dalam beberapa peraturan perundang–undangan di Indonesia. Perundang–undangan tersebut antara lain Undang–Undang Nomor 5 Tahun 1999 tentang Larangan Praktek Monopoli dan Persaingan Usaha Tidak Sehat, Undang–Undang Nomor 22 Tahun 2001 tentang Minyak Dan Gas Bumi, Undang–Undang Nomor 7 Tahun 2004 tentang Sumber Daya Air, dan Undang–Undang Nomor 30 Tahun 2009 tentang Ketenagalistrikan.Banyaknya peraturan perundang–undangan yang berkarakter liberal sebagaimana diuraikan di atas mengindikasikan bahwa hak menguasai negara atas aset bangsa yang berkaitan dengan hajat hidup orang banyak sebagaimana diamahkan oleh Undang–Undang Dasar 1945 (Konstitusi) mulai “dikebiri” dengan adanya undang–undang yang tidak selaras semangatnya. Padahal, UUPM diterbitkan dalam kerangka mengimplementasikan amanat Pasal 33 Undang–Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1945 (UUD NRI 1945). Dengan adanya peluang yang diberikan oleh pemerintah kepada investor asing sebagaimana yang diatur dalam Pasal 12 UUPM ditambah lagi dengan adanya Undang–Undang Nomor 5 Tahun 1999 tentang Larangan Praktek Monopoli dan Persaingan Usaha Tidak Sehat, Undang–Undang Nomor 22 Tahun 2001 tentang Minyak Dan Gas Bumi, Undang–Undang Nomor 7 Tahun 2004 tentang Sumber Daya Air, dan Undang–Undang Nomor 30 Tahun 2009 tentang Ketenagalistrikan, maka investasi asing yang berhubungan dengan cabang– cabang yang menguasai hajat hidup orang banyak semakin eksis di Indonesia. Terbukanya investasi asing atas cabang–cabang produksi yang menguasai hajat hidup orang banyak tentunya hal ini bertentangan dengan konsep hak menguasai negara sebagaimana diatur dalam Pasal 33 UUD NRI 1945. Kata Kunci: Investasi Asing, Hak Menguasai Negara, Pasal 33 UUD NRI Tahun          1945


Author(s):  
Tim Press

This chapter focuses on the law of breach of confidence, which protects trade secrets and privacy. It is judge-made law, with its origins in equity. The action for breach of confidence now resembles a common law cause of action, but its equitable basis is still evident in the flexibility and discretion the judges adopt in deciding cases. The Human Rights Act 1998 required the courts to implement the right to private and family life. The courts have done this, in cases concerning private information, by extending the law to protect privacy where the information concerned was not secret. This is now regarded as a separate branch of the law. Special considerations also apply in relation to the duties employees owe to their employer both during and after their employment. There is a defence to an action for breach of confidence where publication is in the public interest.


Author(s):  
Tim Press

This chapter focuses on the law of breach of confidence, which protects trade secrets and privacy. It is judge-made law, with its origins in equity. The action for breach of confidence now resembles a common law cause of action, but its equitable basis is still evident in the flexibility and discretion the judges adopt in deciding cases. The Human Rights Act in 1998 required the courts to implement the right to private and family life. The courts have done this, in cases concerning private information, by extending the law to protect privacy where the information concerned was not secret. This is now regarded as a separate branch of the law. Special considerations also apply in relation to the duties employees owe to their employer both during and after their employment. There is a defence to an action for breach of confidence where publication is in the public interest.


2016 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 1-11
Author(s):  
Anna Dalkowska

Abstract Effective enforcement of tax liabilities guarantees proper functioning of the state. The key role is played by the administrative enforceable title [Polish: tytuł wykonawczy], issued by the creditor, which constitutes the basis for initiation and implementation of enforcement proceedings. It is an official document constituting evidence of a taxpayer’s failure to meet an obligation in a timely manner, giving an enforcement authority the right to use coercive measures on that taxpayer. The aim of the article is to present the enforceable title, as a necessary basis for the administrative enforcement of tax claims to condition its compliance with the law regulations and attempt to answer the question: does the legal enforceable title in current law regulations guarantees the creditor realization of the public interest and the taxpayer the right to legal procedures for enforcement? Primarily, legal and comparative method based on the condition and operation of the law in force is used in the article.


1984 ◽  
Vol 43 (2) ◽  
pp. 266-289
Author(s):  
Yvonne Cripps

No court may require a person to disclose, nor is any person guilty of contempt of court for refusing to disclose, the source of information contained in a publication for which he is responsible, unless it be established to the satisfaction of the court that disclosure is necessary in the interests of justice or national security or for the prevention of disorder or crime.Lord Scarman, speaking during the House of Lords report stage of the Contempt of Court Bill, stated that the relevant provision would “ameliorate the law relating to contempt of court so that the public right to be informed is not impeded or obstructed.” Similarly, Lord Morris, speaking in support of the same clause of the Bill, noted that it “creates a privilege in aid of truth, a privilege in aid of the public interest, a vital and essential privilege, particularly when one bears in mind the ever-encroaching power, whether direct or indirect, of the Executive over the well-being or otherwise of the taxpayer and voter.”


2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Gagah Yaumiyya Riyoprakoso ◽  
AM Hasan Ali ◽  
Fitriyani Zein

This study is based on the legal responsibility of the assessment of public appraisal reports they make in land procurement activities for development in the public interest. Public assessment is obliged to always be accountable for their assessment. The type of research found in this thesis is a type of normative legal research with the right-hand of the statue approach and case approach. Normative legal research is a study that provides systematic explanation of rules governing a certain legal category, analyzing the relationship between regulations explaining areas of difficulty and possibly predicting future development. . After conducting research, researchers found that one of the causes that made the dispute was a lack of communication conducted between the Government and the landlord. In deliberation which should be the place where the parties find the meeting point between the parties on the magnitude of the damages that will be given, in the field is often used only for the delivery of the assessment of the compensation that has been done.


Author(s):  
Dirk Voorhoof

The normative perspective of this chapter is how to guarantee respect for the fundamental values of freedom of expression and journalistic reporting on matters of public interest in cases where a (public) person claims protection of his or her right to reputation. First it explains why there is an increasing number and expanding potential of conflicts between the right to freedom of expression and media freedom (Article 10 ECHR), on the one hand, and the right of privacy and the right to protection of reputation (Article 8 ECHR), on the other. In addressing and analysing the European Court’s balancing approach in this domain, the characteristics and the impact of the seminal 2012 Grand Chamber judgment in Axel Springer AG v. Germany (no. 1) are identified and explained. On the basis of the analysis of the Court’s subsequent jurisprudence in defamation cases it evaluates whether this case law preserves the public watchdog-function of media, investigative journalism and NGOs reporting on matters of public interest, but tarnishing the reputation of public figures.


Author(s):  
Chen Lei

This chapter examines the position of third party beneficiaries in Chinese law. Article 64 of the Chinese Contract Law states that where a contract for the benefit of a third party is breached, the debtor is liable to the creditor. The author regards this as leaving unanswered the question of whether the thirdparty has a right of direct action against the debtor. One view regards the third party as having the right to sue for the benefit although this right was ultimately excluded from the law. Another view, supported by the Supreme People’s Court, is that Article 64 does not provide a right of action for a third party and merely prescribes performance in ‘incidental’ third party contracts. The third view is that there is a third party right of action in cases of ‘genuine’ third party contracts but courts are unlikely to recognize a third party action where the contract merely purports to confer a benefit on the third party.


2015 ◽  
Vol 54 (4) ◽  
pp. 926-946 ◽  
Author(s):  
Helen MacDonald

AbstractFrom the mid-twentieth century, England's coroners were crucial to the supply of organs to transplant, as much of this material was gleaned from the bodies of people who had been involved in accidents. In such situations the law required that a coroner's consent first be obtained lest removing the organs destroy evidence about the cause of the person's death. Surgeons challenged the legal requirement that they seek consent before taking organs, arguing that doing so hampered their quick access to bodies. Some coroners willingly cooperated with surgeons while others refused to do so, coming into conflict with particular transplanters whom they considered untrustworthy. This article examines how the phenomenon of “spare part” surgery challenged long-held conceptions of the coroner's role.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document