CONTRADICTION TO THE PUBLIC POLICY OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION AS A GROUND FOR CANCELLATION OF THE DECISION OF THE ARBITRATION COURT AND REFUSAL TO ISSUE A WRIT OF EXECUTION

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (5) ◽  
pp. 140-158
Author(s):  
V.V. MOLCHANOV

The contradiction with the public order of the Russian Federation is an unconditional basis for cancellation of the decision of the arbitration court and refusal to issue a writ of execution. What is meant by the public policy? There is no definition in the legislation. According to the position of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation under the public policy are understood the fundamental legal principles (principles) having the highest imperative and universality. Study and analysis of the practice of consideration and resolution of cases about the cancellation of arbitration court decisions and refusal to issue writs of execution by arbitration courts and courts of general jurisdiction shows that the content of the concept of public policy in view of the abstract nature of normativity, inherent in the concept of fundamental principles of Russian law, is interpreted by judicial practice very widely. Since establishing in what cases the decision of an arbitration court violates the fundamental principles of Russian law, and hence the public policy of the Russian Federation, refers to the discretion of the court considering the case, and the boundaries of application of this ground for reversal of decision are determined by the discretion of the court in the context of the specific circumstances of the case. The article also concludes that the position of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, which lies in the fact that since the arbitration courts do not exercise judicial power and are not part of the judicial system of the Russian Federation, the state courts are not empowered to verify the legality of decisions of arbitration courts, which involves identifying the correctness of interpretation and application of law by the court of arbitration, must be understood systematically. According to the author, it is necessary to take into account that the function of state courts to control arbitration proceedings consists, among other things, in ensuring compliance of the results of arbitration proceedings with fundamental legal values, which include the legality of decisions rendered by arbitration courts in terms of interpretation and application of rules of law.

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hristina Peshkova ◽  
Vladimir Pachkun

The monograph examines the practical aspects of the application of the budget legislation of the Russian Federation in judicial practice — the practice of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and arbitration courts, as well as the functions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation on the interpretation of budget legislation. The article analyzes the theoretical and legal provisions of law enforcement activities in the field of the budget, as well as the categories of budget and legal science. For legal scientists, graduate students, students of legal educational organizations, as well as practitioners of courts, financial control bodies and other state and municipal institutions.


2016 ◽  
Vol 4 (11) ◽  
pp. 0-0
Author(s):  
Вячеслав Воронин ◽  
Vyacheslav Voronin

Part 3 of article 60 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation refers to the common criteria of individualization of punishment the nature and degree of public danger of committed crime in each criminal case. The purpose of this article is to analyze the legal practice of this provision, as well as the construction of clarification on the issue of taking into consideration the public danger, which will be useful for the judiciary. For this purpose the author supposes to solve following problems: analysis of dogmatic ideas about the nature and degree of public danger; search for factors that courts consider in determining public danger in judicial practice; analysis of the survey data of judges from different regions of the country. As a result the author concludes that the nature of public danger depends on the object of the offense and cannot influence on individualization of punishment, because it was considered by the legislator when constructing the corresponding article of the Special Part and therefore should be excluded from Part 3 of art. 60 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Degree of public danger when individualizing is determined subject to the objective and subjective elements of a crime. The author proposed to make recommendations on considering into account degree of public danger in the judgment 22.12.2015 No. 58 adopted by the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation “On practice of criminal sentencing by courts of the Russian Federation”.


Lex Russica ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. 30-38
Author(s):  
Yu. A. Meteleva

The problem of liability of persons managing a legal entity was raised in Russian civil law after the adoption of legislation on joint-stock companies. At the beginning, it was more theoretical in nature, since the civil legislation did not contain any mechanisms for the implementation of such liability. To date, due to the reform of the Civil Code and changing approaches in jurisprudence, disputes concerning property liability of directors have formed a considerable category of cases. The paper analyzes the elements of such civil wrongs as damage caused to a legal entity by persons who are members of the managerial boards and are able to exercise a significant impact on such boards. All elements of the civil wrong under consideration are being analyzed: the act, the consequences (damage), the causal link between the act and the consequences, and the fault of the wrong-doer. The paper also elucidates the participants involved in such disputes. Exploring specific court cases, the author shows which acts of directors are recognized by the courts as illegal, what restrictions are expressed in the legal standings of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation to qualify as illegal different acts of directors and other persons. In the vast majority of cases of this category, persons exercising the functions of the sole executive body are prosecuted. Sometimes they are also the participants at the same time. The scope of persons covered by the term “determining the acts of a legal entity” is not defined in the law, which also hampers judicial practice. Judicial proceedings bringing such persons to justice are exceptional. Therefore, the author proposes to define in the Civil Code all persons who can commit an act and thereby cause damage to a legal entity. In addition, it is proposed to establish criteria of unreasonableness and dishonesty of actions of directors and other persons.


2020 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
pp. 60-75
Author(s):  
T. V. Fedorova ◽  

The review examines the procedure for judges of courts of General jurisdiction in resolving cases of administrative offenses under article 6.1.1 of the administrative Code of the Russian Federation, and analyzes the practice of courts in various regions of the Russian Federation. The paper offers solutions to controversial issues of judicial practice, considers the positions of the constitutional Court of the Russian Federation and the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on the circumstances to be clarified in the case of an administrative offense under article 6.1.1 of the administrative Code of the Russian Federation.


2021 ◽  
pp. 130-142
Author(s):  
Mariia Viktorovna Globa

The present study is devoted to determining the place and role of legal positions of higher judicial bodies of Russia (judicial legal positions) in the mechanism of legal regulation. Let us specify in advance that the author means the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation (taking into account the 2014 amendments made to the legislation concerning the liquidation of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation) as the higher judicial bodies of Russia. Establishing the meaning and role of judicial legal positions in the mechanism of legal regulation is carried out by the author of this study through the analysis and demonstration of the main sources of formation of legal positions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation. In this regard, the author of this work identifies as sources of formation of judicial legal positions: legal and non-legal. Non-legal sources of formation of legal positions of the highest courts of Russia differ from the legal ones in the fact that initially they do not have material expression, exist in the abstract, however, have no less importance for the process of formation of judicial legal positions. To the legal sources of creating legal positions of the highest judicial bodies of Russia the author includes: formal sources of law, current legal practice, legal doctrine. As non-legal sources of formation of legal positions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation are: the inner conviction of a judge and professional legal consciousness of a judge. The author of this scientific research consistently reveals the importance and role of each source of formation of judicial legal positions. The conducted study of the most significant sources of formation of judicial legal positions allowed to better understand the place of legal positions of higher courts of Russia in the legal system and their role in legal regulation, which is reduced not just to the interpretation of judicial acts, but also to the formation of new legal provisions, which ultimately form a uniform judicial practice. Methodological basis of the study consisted of: analysis, synthesis, comparative-legal method, deduction, induction and other ways of knowledge used in science. Scientific conclusions and proposals contained in this work may serve as a basis for further theoretical study of the problems of judicial legal positions and used in the activities of legislative and law enforcement bodies.


2019 ◽  
pp. 143-158
Author(s):  
Alexey Semitko

The paper analyzes the principle of sustaining citizen’s trust to the law and actions of the state in the system of individual / authorities relations. This principle is introduced into the Russian legal system by rulings of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation possessing the legal force of the Russian Constitution. However, the Supreme Law itself does not feature this property in the text. It is accordingly required – which is the purpose of this paper – to study this principle’s notion, content, nature, character, scope and place in the system of other legal principles, including those established in the Constitution of the Russian Federation, some of which are referenced by the Court in its rulings to justify the identification of the analyzed principle. To solve the above tasks, methods of interpreting official legal texts were applied (systemic, special legal and logical methods), as well as the anthropological approach. It is established that the researched principle is a general legal (universal) principle that stands on its own in the system of principles and is associated with the need for the whole state’s activity to comply with the established value, moral and ideological beliefs, generally accepted social conventions, etc., i.e. society’s legitimate expectations, which defines its scope and applicability. The recognition and respect of human dignity is central in society’s legitimate expectations from the state as it implements its activities. The latter requirement is fundamental for this principle and the public trust to state’s activities that is shaped during its realization; at the same time, such requirement is a criterion of how aligned state’s actions are with the society’s legitimate expectations. The novelty of this approach rests on identifying closely interconnected grounds, features, content and scope of the researched principle.


2020 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. 27-30
Author(s):  
Elvina I. Fagmanova ◽  

The article is devoted to the research of the mechanism in the reconsidering judicial acts under reopened or new circumstances as providing the necessary deviation from the requirement of stability in judicial practice to correct an erroneous judicial act, an analysis of the grounds for reviewing and the importance of judicial review procedures in the system. The author pays an attention to discussions about the possibility of reconsidering a judicial act, due to the development of the position of the supreme court on legal issues, on its borders. The article also analyzes the most important judicial practice of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, the ECHR, and the Resolutions of the Plenum of the Supreme court of the Russian Federation, which substantively reveal the approach of these courts to the mechanism in reconsidering judicial acts under reopened or new circumstances.


Author(s):  
A.I. Shmarev

The author of the article, based on the analysis of statistical indicators of the Prosecutor's office for 2018-2019 and examples of judicial practice, including the constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, examines the problematic issues of implementing the right to rehabilitation of persons unlawfully and unreasonably subjected to criminal prosecution, and the participation of the Prosecutor in this process. According to the author, the ambiguous judicial practice of considering issues related to the rehabilitation of this category of citizens requires additional generalization and analysis in order to make appropriate changes to the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 11 of 29.11.2011 "On the practice of applying the norms of Chapter 18 of the Criminal procedure code of the Russian Federation regulating rehabilitation in criminal proceedings". The examples given in the article of cancellation of lower-level court decisions were based on complaints of persons who independently sought to restore their rights, and not on the representations of the prosecutors involved in them, who were called upon to ensure the possibility of protecting human and civil rights and freedoms at the court session. The adoption of organizational measures, including those proposed by the author, in the system of the Prosecutor's office of the Russian Federation will increase the role of the Prosecutor in protecting the rights of illegally and unreasonably prosecuted persons.


2020 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 48-58
Author(s):  
M. A. Fokina ◽  

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.


2021 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 66-80
Author(s):  
T. V. Fedorova ◽  

The review examines the rules and procedure for judges actions in resolving cases of administrative offenses with the application of the provisions of Article 2.7 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation; analyzes the practice of courts in various regions of the Russian Federation. Proposed solutions to controversial issues of judicial practice, the position of the constitutional Court of the Russian Federation and the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on the content and the relationship of the terms to be clarified in the case of an administrative offense, with the purpose of application of article 2.7 of the Administrative Code.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document