COLLODIZING LINKS IN PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW

2021 ◽  
pp. 19-21
Author(s):  
Н.Д. Эриашвили ◽  
Г.М. Сарбаев ◽  
В.И. Федулов

В представленной статье рассмотрены проблемы коллодирующих привязок в международном частном праве и особенности их правовой регламентации в законодательстве Российской Федерации. Автором проанализированы особенности нормативного закрепления данного типа привязок в системе международных договоров, а также механизм имплементации этих норм в национальном законодательстве различных государств. На основе сложившейся практики применения коллодирующих привязок национальными органами государственной власти обоснована необходимость учета публичных интересов государства в данных правоотношениях. The present article examines the problems of collodizing links in private international law and the peculiarities of their legal regulation in the legislation of the Russian Federation. The author analyzed the peculiarities of this type of binding in the system of international treaties, as well as the mechanism for implementing these norms in the national legislation of various states. On the basis of the established practice of applying collodial links by national authorities, the need to take into account the public interests of the State in these legal relations is justified.

Author(s):  
Larisa Yur'evna Dobrynina ◽  
Anna Viktorovna Gubareva

The authors examine the economic sanctions introduced nu the U.S., EU and their allies against the Russian Federation, as well as the legal mechanism of retaliatory measures taken by Russia on the nationwide scale. The changes in the international legal regulation derailed the vector of global development, which was bringing real freedom of economic activity. Establishment of the sanction regime by the aforementioned parties signifies a struggle for own influence, weakening of the positive trade and economic ties, as well as an attempt to institute a regime of protectionism within the international trade turnover exclusively for their own benefit. Based on the analysis of the normative-legal documents, an assessment is made on the legal legitimacy of the introduced discriminatory measures of the allies from the perspective of the norms of international law. This article presents the analysis of the positions of federal laws and other legislative bills of the Russian Federation, establishing gradual constraining countermeasures for foreign subjects in various spheres of activity. The authors substantiate the fact that introduction of retaliatory economic sanctions by the Russian Federation with regards to the United States, European Union, and their allies is directly related to the implementation of the principle of reciprocity, currently existing within private international law. It is noted that all these actions on protection from illegitimate sanctions are realized by Russia practically without participation of UN, WTO and other reputable international organizations in regulation of the “sanctions” issue. The extraterritorial measures introduced by the United States and the European Union justifies the movement of Russian into a new stage of evolution of legal regulation of the foreign economic activity, and in foreign trade – establishment of new markets in Asia, Africa and Latin America.


2015 ◽  
Vol 3 (5) ◽  
pp. 0-0
Author(s):  
Татьяна Лазарева ◽  
Tatyana Lazaryeva

The article deals with conflict of laws regulation of transfer of creditor’s rights to another person (assignment of claims (cessions) and transfer of rights under the law) in terms of amendments to Part III of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. The author notes that though amendments to the separate article on cession are not fundamental, the amendments of other articles of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, concerning contractual obligations, do influence regulation of relations between the parties in assignment. The article pays special attention to the new conflict of law rule regulating the transfer of the creditor’s rights under the law. Relevant court practice is analyzed. On the basis of comparing legislations of specific countries, as well as norms of EC No. 593/2008 (‘‘Rome I’’) Regulation and EC No. 864/2007 (‘‘Rome II’’) Regulation the author draws the conclusion that despite some differences in conflict of laws regulation of the transfer of the creditor’s rights, in general the Russian rules comply with modern trends in private international law in the majority of European countries.


2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 283-286
Author(s):  
R. Kadzharov

The article discusses the legal problems of inheritance relations in the Russian Federation and foreign countries. The relevance of the topic under study is due to the need to form a legal environment emerging in the process of inheritance of tort obligations and the form of the will in Russian and foreign laws. A legal analysis of Russian legislation and international treaties, foreign legislation and judicial practice in the field of inheritance regulation in the Russian Federation and foreign countries is carried out. Particular attention is paid to the unification of international norms in the field of testament form. The author concludes that international law on inheritance has its drawbacks and requires further adjustments.


Author(s):  
Наталия Власова ◽  
Nataliya Vlasova ◽  
Ольга Муратова ◽  
Olga Muratova

The article contains the review of the International scientific-practical conference “Private International Law in Global World” devoted to the 90th anniversary of the birth of O. N. Sadikov, classic of the Russian civil law, Doctor of Law, Professor, honoured worker of science of the Russian Federation, which took place on November, 18, 2015 in the Institute of Legislation and Comparative Law under the Government of the Russian Federation. The members of the working group on amendments to Chapter 3 of the Civil Code of Russian Federation, top scientists, representatives of the academic community and leading higher educational establishments, legal practitioners, arbiters of International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation, academics from the former Soviet Union and elsewhere took part in the conference. A wide scope of common and special questions was discussed during the conference: exploration of the development trends in the private international law such as unification and self-governing; the results of the renewal of Section VI “Private International Law” of Chapter 3 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation as well as the amendments to foreign legislative acts on private international law; the problems of legal regulation of several institutes of private international law, concerning, for example, the status of legal entities, proprietary relations, competitive relations under the conditions of globalization of the world economic cooperation, conflict-of-law rules according to pre-contractual relations, ruling of international jurisdiction in international property matters, etc.; settlement of the problem of foreign state’s immunity.


2021 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 59-83
Author(s):  
Andrey Fursov

Currently, public hearings are one of the most widespread forms of deliberative municipal democracy in Russia. This high level of demand, combined with critique of legal regulations and the practices for bringing this system to reality – justified, in the meantime, by its development (for example, by the Agency for Strategic Initiatives and the Public Chambers of the Russian Federation) of proposals for the correction of corresponding elements of the legal code – make both the study of Russian experiences in this sphere and comparative studies of legal regulations and practical usage of public hearings in Russia and abroad extremely relevant. This article is an attempt to make a contribution to this field of scientific study. If the appearance of public hearings in Russia as an institution of Russian municipal law is connected with the passing of the Federal Law of 6 October 2003 No.131-FZ, “On the general organisational principles of local government in the Russian Federation,” then in the United States, this institution has existed since the beginning of the 20th century, with mass adoption beginning in the 1960s. In this time, the United States has accumulated significant practical experience in the use of public hearings and their legal formulation. Both countries are large federal states, with their own regional specifics and diversity, the presence of three levels of public authority and different principles of federalism, which cause differences in the legal regulation of municipal public hearings. For this reason, this article undertakes a comparative legal analysis of Russian and American experiences of legal regulation and practical use of public hearings, on the example of several major municipalities – the cities of Novosibirsk, Nizhny Novgorod, Voronezh and New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago. A comparison of laws influencing the public hearing processes in these cities is advisable, given the colossal growth in the role of city centers in the industrial and post-industrial eras. Cities in particular are the primary centers for economic growth, the spread of innovations, progressive public policy and the living environment for the majority of both Russian and American citizens. The cities under research are one of the largest municipalities in the two countries by population, and on such a scale, the problem of involving residents in solving local issues is especially acute. In this context, improving traditional institutions of public participation is a timely challenge for the legislator, and the experiences of these cities are worth describing. The unique Russian context for legal regulations of public hearings involves the combination of overarching federal law and specific municipal decrees that regulate the hearing process. There are usually two municipal acts regulating public hearings on general issues of the city district (charter, budget, etc.) and separately on urban planning. In the United States, the primary regulation of public hearings is assigned to the state and municipality level, with a whole series of corresponding laws and statutes; meanwhile, methodological recommendations play a specific role in the organisation of hearings, which are issued by the state department of a given state. It is proposed that regulating the corresponding relationships at the federal subject level will permit a combination of the best practices of legal administration with local nuances, thereby reinforcing the guarantee of the realization of civil rights to self-government. There are other features in the process of organizing and conducting public hearings in the United States, which, as shown in the article, can be perceived by Russian lawmakers as well in order to create an updated construct of public discussions at the local level.


2021 ◽  
pp. 55-62
Author(s):  
I. S. Polyakova

The objective of this research is to consider some controversial issues of the development of public-and-private partnership (and concession agreements as its most common form) in Russia. Some complaints made by Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Russian Federation to some infrastructure projects are reviewed. The author studied dynamics of private investments into infrastructure projects in the conditions of imperfect legal regulation. The assessment of the validity of the position of Federal Antimonopoly Service is given. It is predicted whether the legislative collisions will prevent the growth of private investments into infrastructure. Recommendations on the development of the mechanism of public-and-private partnership with the observance of antimonopoly regulation, as well as recommendation on the improvement of the legislation in this area are developed. The results of the research can be used by both private participants of public-and-private partnership and the federal, regional and municipal authorities, and also by legislators working on the improvement of the legislative regulation in this area.


Lex Russica ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. 84-103
Author(s):  
O. F. Zasemkova

In May 2018, at the 4th and final meeting of the Special Commission of the Hague Conference on Private International Law, the draft Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters that had been developed since 1992 was represented. It is expected that after the Diplomatic Session that will be held in the mid-2019 the draft will be finalized and the Convention will be adopted and opened for signature.In this regard, the article attempts to analyze the main provisions of the draft Convention and assess the appropriateness for the Russian Federation to access it, taking into account the fact that Russia has a limited number of international treaties permitting recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in Russia and decisions of Russian courts abroad. Based on the results of the analysis, the author concludes that the adoption of this Convention will provide for a simple and effective basis for the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments eligible for States with different legal, social and economic circumstances. This, in turn, will increase the practical value of court decisions ensuring the most comprehensive protection of the rights and interests of the party in whose favour the decision has been made and, as a consequence, will contribute to the attractiveness of this method of dispute resolution for parties involved in cross-border private law relations.However, the mixed attitudes of the EU and the USA to the Draft Convention raises the question of their accession to the future Convention and may significantly reduce the impact of the adoption of the document under consideration.


Author(s):  
Irina Damm ◽  
Aleksey Tarbagaev ◽  
Evgenii Akunchenko

A prohibition for persons holding government (municipal) positions, for government (municipal) employees, and some other employees of the public sphere who are public officials to receive remuneration (gifts) is aimed at preventing bribery (Art. 290, 291, 291.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), and could be viewed as a measure of anti-corruption criminological security. However, the existing collisions of civil, administrative and criminal law norms that regulate this prohibition lead to an ongoing discussion in research publications and complexities in practice. The goal of this research is to study the conditions and identify the problems of the legal regulation of receiving remuneration (gifts) in connection with the performance of official duties that prevent the implementation of anti-corruption criminological security. The authors use the legal theory of security measures to analyze the provisions of Clause 3, Part 1, Art. 575 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and Clause 6, Part 1, Art. 17 of the Federal Law «About the Public Civil Service in the Russian Federation», examine the doctrinal approaches to defining the priority of enforcing the above-mentioned norms, study the significant features of the category «ordinary gift» and conduct its evaluation from the standpoint of differentiating between gifts and bribes, also in connection with the criteria of the insignificance of the corruption deed. The empirical basis of the study is the decisions of courts of general jurisdiction. The authors also used their experience of working in Commissions on the observance of professional behavior and the resolution of conflicts of interests at different levels. The conducted research allowed the authors to come to the following fundamental conclusions: 1) the special security rule under Clause 6, Part 1, Art. 17 of the Federal Law «About the Public Civil Service in the Russian Federation», which sets a full prohibition for government employees to receive remuneration (gifts) in connection with the performance of official duties, contradicts Clause 3, Part 1, Art. 575 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation (the existing legal-linguistic vagueness of categories in Art. 575 of the CC of the RF leads to problems in law enforcement and makes a negative impact on the anti-corruption mentality of people); 2) as the concepts «gift» and «bribe» do not logically intersect, the development of additional normative legal criteria for their delineation seems to be unpromising and will lead to a new wave of scholastic and practical disagreements; 3) the introduction of a uniform and blanket ban on receiving remuneration (gifts) in the public sphere by eliminating Clause 3, Part 1, Art. 575 of the CC of the RF seems to be an effective measure of preventing bribery, and its application is justified until Russian society develops sustainable anti-corruption mentality.


Lex Russica ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 9-19
Author(s):  
Т. V. Novikova

In modern private international law, the principle of the closest connection involves not only the identification of the prevailing territorial connection, but also the consideration of substantive factors (protection of a weaker party, preferability to keep the transaction valid, etc.). The paper substantiates the thesis that, being initially based on the territorial localization of the relationship, the analyzed principle in the course of its development was enhanced with the achievements of others doctrinal approaches to the resolution of the conflict-of-law issue, including the concept of “governmental” or “state” interest developed by American legal scholar Brainerd Currie. A genius breakthrough suggested by B. Currie is examined as an attempt to overcome the mechanical approach of conflict-of-law rules, expand the subject matter field of assessment at the stage of resolving the conflict-o-law issue and, ultimately, evaluate the substantive law result of this decision within the framework of understanding law as a tool for the protection of an individual by the state. Nevertheless, substantive law factors, contrary to one of the main tenets of B. Currie’s teaching, do not replace traditional conflict-of-laws rules at all. To the extent that the conflict-of-law regulation mechanism balances predictability and flexibility of decisions, it complements the search for territorial connection with substantive law considerations. The research makes it possible to conclude that the principle of the closest connection in private international law of the Russian Federation, in the context of global trends in the development of approaches to the resolution of conflict-of-law issues, is complex in nature, as indicated by the explanation of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation that “when determining the closest connection, the court,” first, establishes ”the prevailing territorial connection” and, second, “may take into account the application of the law of which country will best realize the universally recognized principles of civil law and of its institutions.” As a consequence, it is the combination of territorial and substantive law components in the content of the principle of the closest connection that provides an appropriate balance between predictability and flexibility of the modern mechanism of conflict-of-law regulation.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document