scholarly journals Exemption of a joint stock company from the obligation to provide information to a shareholder.

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 103-122
Author(s):  
Andrey V. Gabov
Keyword(s):  
Information Exchange ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Joint Stock Company ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Stock Company ◽  
Research Issues ◽  
The Law ◽  
Right To Information ◽  
The Right ◽  
To Receive

The subject of research. Issues concerning the exercise of the right of shareholders to receive information are analyzed. The focus is on the issues of exemption of a joint-stock company from providing information. The development of the institute of the information provision to shareholders by joint stock companies are consistently analyzed. The main trends in the development of this institute are shown: gradually narrowing the ability of shareholders to exercise their right to receive information through such means as restriction, differentiation and exemption from providing information. Special emphasis is placed on the institute of exemption from providing information. The purpose of the article is to show the main drawbacks of the existing model of exemption of a joint-stock company from the obligation to provide information to shareholders and to formulate directions for the development of legislation. The author's main scientific hypothesis can be summarized as follows. The Federal law «On joint-stock companies» contained an initial defect in the description of information exchange between a shareholder and a joint-stock company. The shareholder's right to information was not described, in fact, it was «embedded» in the obligation of the joint-stock company to provide information. The subsequent changes to the law resulted in a narrowing of the rights of the shareholder, practically depriving the minority shareholder of the right to information. This defect has led to significant legal uncertainty when the joint-stock company exercises its right to be exempt from providing information. This uncertainty should be eliminated, because the regulatory goals for granting joint-stock companies an exemption from the obligation to provide information to shareholders (article 92.2 of the Federal law «On joint-stock companies» that counters sanctions pressure) are absolutely correct. At the same time, some of the grounds for exemption from the obligation to provide information to shareholders (article 92.1 of the Federal law «On joint-stock companies») must either be excluded or reformulated. The author notes the complete «break» between the current regulation and the ideas about information exchange between a shareholder and a joint-stock company, that initially inspired the creation of the law on joint-stock companies. The inclusion of sanctions in the law on joint - stock companies as a factor affecting the performance by a joint-stock company of its obligation to provide information to shareholders should be fully welcomed. However, the legal and technical design of the corresponding political and legal idea cannot be considered optimal. In this part, the legislation requires a complete renovation based on the principle of balancing constitutional values and the interests of the state, majority and minority shareholders. Description of research methodology. The research is based on a systematic analysis, as well as the interpretation of Russian legislation and doctrine. Information about the main scientific results. The development of legislation on joint-stock companies in terms of providing information is shown. It is shown that if legislator taking into account sanctions when regulating the obligation of a joint-stock company to provide information, the goals of legislative regulation fully comply with constitutional principles, but specific legal decisions cannot be considered optimal. Conclusions. It is concluded that development of legislation on joint-stock companies has led to a significant restriction of the ability of shareholders to receive information. The author formulated the priority of regulatory goals in countering sanctions pressure and offered specific directions for improving legal regulation.

scholarly journals The right of Police officers and the Criminal-executive system to use firearms: some issues of theory and practice

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (3) ◽  
pp. 136-143
Author(s):  
A. А. Alimov ◽  
◽  
S. A. Yunusov ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Police Officers ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
Penal System ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Executive System ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Right

The article is devoted to the analysis of the Federal Law «On the Police» and the law of the Russian Federation «On Institutions and Bodies Executing Criminal Sentences in the Form of Imprisonment», which empowers the police and the penal system with the right to use firearms. Possible problems of the implementation of the provisions of the legislation are identified, specific measures are proposed to improve the efficiency of legal regulation of the use of firearms by police officers and the penal system

scholarly journals LEGAL REGULATION OF THE PORT OF TALLINN

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (72) (2) ◽  
pp. 20-30
Author(s):  
B. V. Zmerzlu
Keyword(s):  
Supervisory Board ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Board Members ◽  
Joint Stock Company ◽  
Current Version ◽  
Stock Company ◽  
Sea Transport ◽  
Management Board ◽  
Rules Of Procedure ◽  
The Law

The article States that the organization of activities and management of commercial ports in Estonia is organized on the basis of the law on ports and the law on commercial sea transport in the current version. The port of Tallinn received its modern legal organization in 2018 with the formation of the corresponding joint-stock company and registration on the Nasdaq Tallinn exchange on June 13, 2018. the Basic regulations governing the system of its higher management are the «Regulations on the Association of Aktiaselts Tallinn Sadam» and «Rules of procedure of the Supervisory Board of Aktiaselts Tallinn Sadam». In them set out the procedure for possession and use of the stock of this company, Supervisory Board, management Board and other bodies working on permanent and temporary foundations; requirements for Board members.

scholarly journals Main Trends in the Development of Russian Law on Non-Profit Organizations

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 81-103
Author(s):  
A. Avtonomov ◽  
V. Grib
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Non Profit ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Russian Law ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Right

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.

scholarly journals DESIGNATED PURPOSE OF NON-DELEGATED PROCEDURAL RIGHTS OF SUSPECTS AND ACCUSED (DEFENDANTS) WITHIN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS

2019 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Defense Attorneys ◽  
Trial Report ◽  
Personal Rights ◽  
Procedural Code ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Right ◽  
Procedural Rights ◽  
To Receive

The author of the article emphasizes the lack of regulation of the issue about the scope of the inalienable personal procedural rights of suspects and accused (defendants) within national criminal procedural legislation. The implementation of these rights can not be entrusted to other persons, in particular, their defense attorneys, legal representatives. Such procedural rights are called undelegated, since they are exercised directly by suspects and accused (defendants). Special attention is paid to the fact that such a gap in the law can not negatively affect the legal regulation of the procedural status of both suspects, accused (defendants), and other participants in the criminal proceedings, to whom the legislator delegates the rights of the latter, namely: a defense attorney, a legal representative, persons in respect of whom it is supposed to use coercive measures of a medical or educational nature or there was the issue about their application, their legal representatives. It is stated that there are no studies in modern procedural science, containing a close to exhaustive list of undelegated procedural rights of suspects and accused (defendants). We set the goal to single out a group of inalienable personal rights of suspects and accused (defendants) within the totality of their procedural rights that are exercised solely by them and can not be delegated to other participants in the criminal proceedings. The group of the above procedural rights includes such rights of suspects, accused (defendants) as: to be clearly and timely informed about their rights provided by the Criminal Procedural Code, as well as to obtain their explanation; to waive the right to counsel at any time of criminal proceedings; do not say anything on the merits of suspicion, accusations against them or at any time refuse to answer questions; to give explanations, testimonies in terms of suspicion, accusations or to refuse at any time to provide them; to demand compensation for damage caused by unlawful decisions, actions or omission of the agency involved in carrying out operative and search activities, pre-trial investigation, of a prosecutor’s office or courts, in the manner prescribed by the law, as well as restoration of reputation in case if suspicion, charge have not been confirmed; to conclude a guilty plea agreement or a reconciliation agreement with the victim. The procedural right of a suspect to state his testimony during the interrogation with his own hand is undelegated one. As for an accused (defendant), he can not delegate other participants in the criminal proceedings to exercise his right to receive clarification on the procedure for the preparation and use of the pre-trial report, refuse to participate in the preparation of the pre-trial report; to participate in the preparation of the pre-trial report, to provide information to the representative of the probation authority for the preparation of such a report, to submit own comments and clarifications. The author has grounded the purpose of the indicated procedural rights of suspects and accused (defendants).

scholarly journals Anonymization of Court Decisions: Are Restrictions on the Right to Information in “Accordance with the Law”?

2016 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 150-170
Author(s):  
Edita Gruodytė ◽  
Saulė Milčiuvienė
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Right To Privacy ◽  
The Right To Privacy ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Law ◽  
Right To Information ◽  
The Right

Abstract In Lithuania rules for the anonymization of court decisions were introduced in 2005. These rules require automatic anonymization of all court decisions, which in the opinion of the authors violates the public interest to know and freedom of expression is unjustifiably restricted on behalf of the right to privacy. This issue covers two diametrically opposed human rights: the right to privacy and the right to information. The first question is how the balance between two equivalent rights could be reached. The second question is whether this regulation is in accordance with the law as it is established in the national Constitution and revealed by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania and developed by the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. The authors conclude that the legislator is not empowered to delegate to the Judicial Council issues which are a matter of legal regulation and suggest possible solutions evaluating practice of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the European Court of Human Rights, and selected EU countries.

scholarly journals Certain problems of legal regulation of the activities of operational police units

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 (2) ◽  
pp. 165-171
Author(s):  
Igor' Skokov
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Police Officers ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Search Activity ◽  
Legal Method ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Right

Introduction. The article deals with the history of the law enforcement and alteration to certain provisions of the Federal law «On police» from 07.02.2011 № 3-FZ. Goal. The purpose of the work was to evaluate certain provisions of the Federal law «On police» and the Federal law «On operational and investigative activities» from the point of view of operational search activity and on the basis of a comparative legal method of cognition of normative acts regulating the process of law enforcement and operational search activity. To identify the problems of the interaction of these laws. The article presents inconsistencies between the provisions of the Federal law «On police» and the Federal law «On operational and investigative activities». Results. As a result of the work, the author identified and attributed to the number of problematic provisions concerning the right of police officers to conduct operational search activities, the right to enter the homes of citizens, and some others. The author’s suggestions for amendments to the law «On police» are given, and the need for further research aimed at eliminating the identified shortcomings and solving the problems under consideration is determined. The author comes to the conclusion that the timely elimination of the shortcomings of the legal relationship between the Federal law «On police» and the Federal law «On operational and investigative activities» in the context of regulating the activities of operational police units will only increase the efficiency of the organization of operational and investigative activities of the internal affairs bodies.

scholarly journals Die staatliche Blockierung des Zugangs zu Internetinhalten in Russland – Eine Analyse aus verfassungsrechtlicher Sicht

2019 ◽  
Vol 65 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-36
Author(s):  
Julian-Ivan Beriger
Keyword(s):  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Attorney General ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Eine Analyse ◽  
Russian Constitution ◽  
Internet Censorship ◽  
Right To Information ◽  
The Right

Since 2012, the legal possibilities for state blocking of web content in Russia have been largely expanded by amendments to the Federal Information Act (Art. 15.1.-15.8. Federal law of 27 July 2006 No. 149-FZ). Therefore, Internet censorship has been steadily growing in Russia over the last years. From a constitutional point of view, the “ordinary procedure” in Art. 15.1. InfoG and the “express block” in Art. 15.3. InfoG are the most important state blocking procedures. While in the “ordinary procedure” the owner of the website is given the opportunity to voluntarily delete the offending information, the “express block” suggests immediate blocking of the relevant websites by order of the Attorney General of the Russian Federation. The state blocking of online content affects the right to information and communication and the freedom of expression, guaranteed in Art. 29 of the Russian Constitution (Art. 10 ECHR and Art. 19 ICCPR). The current blocking practice of the Russian authorities does not meet the requirement of “proportionality“ of state action, which is stated by Art. 55 (3) of the Russian Constitution (Art. 10 (2) ECHR and Art. 19 (2) ICCPR). Legal regulation of the internet is expected to continue growing in Russia due to the various legislative initiatives in this field.

Studying Demand for Institutes of Corporate Governance: Legal Aspects

2003 ◽  
pp. 50-61 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. Medvedeva ◽  
A. Timofeev
Keyword(s):  
Corporate Governance ◽  
Legal Aspects ◽  
Joint Stock Company ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Stock Company ◽  
Open Joint Stock Company ◽  
Open Joint ◽  
Market Relations ◽  
Corporate Legislation

The article analyzes legal aspects of institutes of corporate governance. Different draft laws "On Joint-Stock Companies" are considered which reflected interests of separate groups of participants of market relations. Stages of property redistribution are outlined. The advantages of the model of the open joint-stock company are formulated. Special attention is paid to the demand for legal institutes of corporate governance as well as to the process of accepting the Federal Law "On Entering Amendments to the Federal Law "On Joint-Stock Companies"" which was enacted in 2002. The article contains proposals directed at improvement of corporate legislation.

Slovak Simple Joint Stock Company – Critical Review and Preliminary Assessment

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 205-230 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mária Patakyová ◽  
Matej Kačaljak ◽  
Barbora Grambličková ◽  
Ján Mazúr ◽  
Patrícia Dutková
Keyword(s):  
Policy Maker ◽  
Critical Review ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Company Law ◽  
Joint Stock Company ◽  
Legal Analysis ◽  
Stock Company ◽  
Preliminary Assessment ◽  
Legal Form ◽  
Innovative Potential

The aim of this paper is to describe a relatively new legal form of the simple joint stock company introduced into Slovak company law in 2017 and evaluate whether it may indeed be a suitable corporate vehicle for new companies with highly innovative potential (startups), or alternatively assess whether the legal form is suitable for other legal and business use cases; and explore and identify potential issues.Moreover, this paper provides an overview and legal analysis of the legal regulation of the simple joint stock company form in comparison with other legal company forms. The attractiveness of some of the key elements of the simple joint stock company’s regulation is verified by an empirical statistical method from public databases. Additionally, the article also provides an assessment as to what extent the identified objectives of the policy maker in relation to the introduction of the new legal form were achieved.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document