scholarly journals Verification of constitutionality of tax breaks: Russian and U.S. approaches

2020 ◽  
pp. 67-78
Author(s):  
Tatiana Dmitrievna Bratko
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
The United States ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Constitutional Rights ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Positive Assessment ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Constitutional Right

  Ensuring compliance with the generally accepted principles of law, protection of human and civil constitutional right and freedoms are attributed to a number of fundamental problems of the Russian and foreign law. Special place among them belongs to the problem of protection of constitutional rights of tax payers, particularly the contest of constitutionality of tax breaks. The essentially different approaches towards verification of constitutionality of tax breaks have established in the Russian Federation and the United States. Unlike the Supreme Court of the United States, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation refuses to verify the constitutionality of tax breaks based on compliances of the taxpayers, and thus in the author’s opinion, neglects the violation of constitutional norms. The goal of this article consists in examination of the problem of contest of constitutionality of tax breaks by the Russian taxpayers, and finding a possible way for its solution that would ensure compliance with the constitutional requirements in terms of tax incentivization. For achieving the set goal, the author resorts to comparative analysis of the practice of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation and the Supreme Court of the United States on the questions of verification of constitutionality of tax breaks. The author believes that the Supreme Court of the United States leans on the presumption of constitutionality of tax breaks, while the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation – on the fiction of constitutionality of tax breaks. The conclusion is made in the need for implementation of the U.S. experience in the Russian Federation due to positive assessment of the developed by the Supreme Court of the United States algorithm of verification of constitutionality of tax breaks and presumption of constitutionality of tax breaks.  

scholarly journals State Legislatures Have the Courage to Pass Antiabortion Laws and Test the Ideology of the “New” United States Supreme Court

2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 136-150
Author(s):  
Jill Oeding
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
State Legislatures ◽  
United States Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Undue Burden ◽  
Constitutional Right ◽  
Reported Data ◽  
The Right

Many state legislatures are racing to pass antiabortion laws that will give the current Supreme Court the opportunity to review its stance on the alleged constitutional right to have an abortion. While the number of abortions reported to be performed annually in the United States has declined over the last decade, according to the most recent government-reported data, the number of abortions performed on an annual basis is still over 600,000 per year. Abortion has been legal in the United States since 1973, when the Supreme Court recognized a constitutional right to have an abortion prior to viability (i.e. the time when a baby could possibly live outside the mother’s womb). States currently have the right to forbid abortions after viability.  However, prior to viability, states may not place an “undue burden” in the path of a woman seeking an abortion. The recent appointments of two new Supreme Court justices, Neil Gorsich and Brett Kavanaugh, give pro-life states the best chance in decades to overrule the current abortion precedent. The question is whether these two new justices will shift the ideology of the court enough to overrule the current abortion precedent.

The United States Supreme Court’s case selection: A primer for the South African Constitutional Court in hearing matters of general public importance

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 149-174
Author(s):  
Paul Nkoane
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
South African ◽  
General Public ◽  
The United States ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
United States Supreme ◽  
The South ◽  
Case Selection ◽  
The Supreme Court

The jurisdiction of the South African Constitutional Court has been extended for the court to administer ‘matters of general public importance’ in addition to administering constitutional matters. There is no South African court that accepted appeals on the grounds that the matter raised an arguable point of law of general public importance. This novelty in the South African law requires an inspection of other jurisdictions to determine which matters the Constitutional Court should accept for appeals. In this respect, the article inspects the Supreme Court of the United States case docket to determine the kinds of cases the court accepts for appeals.

Review of the Practice of Consideration of Cases of Administrative Offenses under Article 6.1.1 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
pp. 60-75
Author(s):  
T. V. Fedorova ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Controversial Issues ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Administrative Code

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.

All Things in Proportion? The United States

2019 ◽  
pp. 96-126
Author(s):  
Alec Stone Sweet ◽  
Jud Mathews
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Twentieth Century ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Current Approach ◽  
Constitutional Rights ◽  
Rational Basis ◽  
State Laws ◽  
Strict Scrutiny ◽  
The Supreme Court

This chapter considers constitutional rights doctrines of the United States in light of the global spread of proportionality. It challenges the view that proportionality is alien to the American constitutional experience, showing that American courts have developed approaches to rights that closely resemble proportionality. In particular, the Supreme Court’s test for state laws that burdened interstate commerce, developed in the nineteenth century, resembled proportionality, and so did “strict scrutiny” review as it was initially applied by the Supreme Court in the mid-twentieth century. The Supreme Court’s current approach to constitutional rights, relying heavily on separate tiers of review, is characterized by three pathologies: (i) judicial abdication, in the form of rational basis review; (ii) analytical incompleteness, when an explicit balancing stage is omitted; and (iii) instability, leading to reclassification and doctrinal incoherence. The chapter argues that proportionality can protect rights more consistently and coherently than the current American approach, and concludes by showing how courts courts could give proportionality greater expression in constitutional doctrine.

INDIVIDUAL CONSCIENCE AND HOW IT SHOULD BE TREATED

2016 ◽  
Vol 31 (3) ◽  
pp. 306-320 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kent Greenawalt
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Constitutional Rights ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Critical Issues ◽  
Supreme Court Decisions

This essay summarizes crucial ways that society—in particular, the United States—has treated claims by individuals to be free of generally required duties because their convictions tell them that performing the duties is deeply wrong. Among the topics I address are how the Supreme Court decisions involving constitutional rights and organizational claims relate to this treatment, but my main focus is on what I see as the critical issues and what I believe to be the wise choices for addressing such claims. Without attempting an extensive account of all that has been written on claims of exemptions, I refer to some relatively recent books that can help one to understand what is at stake and what can be said in favor of competing positions. I also provide references to recent and forthcoming work of my own that explores claims of exemptions in greater depth.

Freedom of Communication in the US and Europe

ICL Journal ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Pedro Tenorio
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
The United States ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
The Press ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Us

AbstractThis paper compares the freedom of communication in the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of the United States and the European Court of Human Rights, departing from the judgments of the Supreme Court of the United States. It is noted that there are differences, as specified herein. Regulatory texts invite to speak of two distinct models, though this may be a far-fetched statement. This paper makes the following concluding remarks: 1) There are many concepts of freedom of expression that are compatible with democracy; the one derived from the Sullivan Judgment in the US (and in Europe from the Lingens Judgment) is not the only one, although it is currently considered the most consist­ent with democracy. This point is not discussed here. 2) Major changes sometimes occur through seemingly small details. In this sense, the shift of the burden of proof in defama­tion cases (Sullivan) has created an earthquake in the legal regime governing the press. The Sullivan doctrine can be summarized as follows: first, errors are inevitable, as freedom of speech requires ‘breathing room’; second, the malice of those accused of defamation must be proven; third, it is necessary to prove the lack of veracity of the slanderer. This doctrine allows the press to play its role as the watchdog of freedom. 3) In Spain, the press also appears to play this role, thus requiring us to ask whether there is, or ever was, a Sullivan Judgment in Spanish jurisprudence. We tend to attribute the privileged position of the press in Spain to the fact that the Constitutional Court has given preferential consid­eration to freedom of speech when it is in conflict with honor, intimacy and self-image privacy. This preference is justified by its connection to democracy. Since the judgment of the Spanish Constitutional Court (STC hereafter) 6/1981 of 16 March, the Spanish Consti­tutional Court has stressed the importance of freedom of information for democracy, and since the STC 159/1986 of 16 December, the Constitutional Court has suggested the pref­erential position of freedom of expression. However, the incorporation of the Sullivan doc­trine into the Spanish system occurred through STC 6/1988 of 21 January, almost ten years after the passage of the Constitution into law.

scholarly journals Sources of Formation of Legal Positions of Russian Highest Judicial Bodies

2021 ◽  
pp. 130-142
Author(s):  
Mariia Viktorovna Globa
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Legal Doctrine ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
Legal Method ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation

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.

scholarly journals A Special Legal Approach to Interpretation of Norms of Criminal Procedure Law

Lex Russica ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 63-74
Author(s):  
D. P. Velikiy
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Legal Interpretation ◽  
Legal Method ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Criminal Procedure Law ◽  
The Russian Federation

The paper discusses the issue of a special legal approach to interpretation of norms of criminal procedure law. On the example of criminal procedural law the author substantiates the independent character of the special legal method of interpretation, its difference from the grammatical and systematic (systemic) methods of interpretation of law, as well as the place of this method among other means of interpretation. The subject of special legal interpretation include: special legal terms, concepts, categories, legal structures, types (regularities) of legal regulation, rules of legal technique, theoretical provisions. The vast majority of such interpretations were carried out by the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, which is predetermined by the need for a common understanding of criminal procedural terminology. Unlike grammatical interpretation, which provides a linguistic analysis of the text of the law, systematic interpretation in which interpretation takes into account the place of the norm in the systemic relationship with other norms, in special legal interpretation the main source of information is legal knowledge, i.e. the knowledge of law and legal theory. If a special legal interpretation is carried out by an official body, it is usually normative. Also, based on the legal stances of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, the author gives examples of “evolution” of legal standings from special legal interpretation to adoption and amendment of legal norms. The article investigates the judicial practice containing the results of special legal interpretation of criminal procedural rules, e.g. legal concepts and terms defined by the same words, but having different meaning depending on the branch of law in which they are used. The author also gives examples of determination of the branch of law to which the norm belongs by means of special legal interpretation.

scholarly journals The Theory of Criminal Law Should Not Be Reduced to the Analysis and Criticism of Criminal Legislation

2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 121-140
Author(s):  
Anatoly Naumov
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Legal Nature ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Legislation ◽  
Principle Of Legality

In both normative and sociological senses criminal law includes three components — criminal legislation, judicial practice, and criminal law doctrine, and the development of this branch of law is possible only in their unity. The criminal law doctrine is to a certain extent superior to the other components of the "triad" and involves the development of the branch’s principles, goals and objectives. At the same time, the improvement of criminal law is not the only goal of the theory of criminal law. It should not be limited only to criticism of the current legislation and proposals for its improvement. However, the vast majority of modern domestic criminal law publications, such as monographs, articles in legal periodicals, dissertations, are devoted to criticism of the current Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Indeed, the current criminal law is not perfect, but the "imbalance" of research into the "law-making" side significantly reduces the scope of criminal law doctrine. And there will always be demand for theoretical studies on the analysis of the subject and method, system and objectives of criminal law, its sources.Debatable, for example, still is the issue of the legal nature of the decisions of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and, in particular, the judgments of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation. The explanations of the Plenum of the Supreme Court are a special kind of judicial interpretation and a fairly reliable tool for the courts to understand "the letter of the criminal law" and it’s applicability to the particular case. As for the assessment of the legal nature of the judgments of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, the criminal law doctrine often fails to notice that they touch upon the methodological problems of the theory of criminal law. In relation to a number of criminal law prohibitions, judgments of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation are a source of criminal law, along with the Criminal Code. The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation specified the most important principle of criminal law — the principle of legality and clarified the characteristics of criminality of socially dangerous acts prohibited by criminal law, which is directly related to the issue of criminal liability. In this sense, the Constitutional Court formulated a new and important addition to the content of the principle of legality — the certainty of criminal law rules, and, first of all, the criminal law prohibitions. Thus, the judicial authority overtook the criminal law doctrine in solving one of the most important issues for criminal proceedings.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document