scholarly journals On some peculiarities and problems of legal regulation of payments without a bank account

Author(s):  
Ekaterina Vavilova

Due to the extensive changes introduced into the Civil Code of the Russian Federation in 2017, which affected the area of electronic payments, it is relevant to examine the problem and peculiarities of legal regulation of their separate type – payments without a bank account. The subject of this research is legislation of the Russian Federation, case law and doctrine in the area of establishment and development of legal regulation of payments on behalf of private entities without opening a bank account. The object of this research is the public relations emerging in the sphere of legal regulation of payments by payment orders. Analysis is conducted on correlation between payment orders and payments without opening a bank account. The article also examines the grounds for refusal by credit institutions to accept a payment order. The conclusion is made on the existence of discrepancies in understanding of particular grounds for refusal by credit institution to accept payer’s order on transferring funds to a recipient. The formulated conclusions are supported by the law enforcement practice that does not contain the exhaustive list of reasons for refusal. Therefore, the article offers an original interpretation of the Paragraph 2 of Section 2 of the Article 864 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation stipulating the reasons for refusal to accept payment order for execution.

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.


Author(s):  
M.B. Uage

The article reveals the main problematic aspects of legal regulation of public relations arising from the conclusion of a land purchase and sale agreement. It is noted that in most cases the difficulties that arise with respect to these agreements are associated with a sufficient amount of documents required to conclude an agreement, as well as the procedure for use, which is established for each category of land separately. In addition, the parties are in no way insured against the risks of providing false information about the object of the transaction, and unscrupulous sellers take advantage of this, practicing fraud in the purchase and sale of land, which is by no means uncommon. In connection with these aspects, an acute question arises about improving the legislation in the field of regulation of the transactions in question. It is noted that the legal institution for the purchase and sale of land is not fully formed. The norms of paragraph 7 of Chapter 30 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation ensure that only certain features of the land as a real estate object are taken into account. The provisions of Article 37 of the Land Code of the Russian Federation do not regulate all issues, moreover its provisions duplicate civil legislation, which in turn complicates the process of law enforcement in this area.


Author(s):  
Татьяна Алексеевна Безгодкова ◽  
Людмила Дмитриевна Туршук

В статье рассматриваются проблемы правового регулирования наследования имущества члена крестьянского (фермерского) хозяйства. КФХ может существовать в двух формах: как юридическое лицо и без образования юридического лица. ГК РФ определяет порядок перехода по наследству имущества лишь КФХ без образования юридического лица. The article deals with the problems of legal regulation of inheritance of property of a member of a peasant (farmer) farm. PFF can exist in two forms: as a legal entity and without the formation of a legal entity. The Civil Code of the Russian Federation defines the procedure for the inheritance of property only in a farm without the formation of a legal entity.


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 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
pp. 27-32
Author(s):  
V. K. Andreev ◽  

The article discusses the forms of clarification on matters of judicial practice by the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, the Presidium of the Supreme Court, as well as in the Review of judicial practice on some issues of the application of legislation on business companies dated December 25, 2019. Clarifications of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on issues of judicial practice are characterized as the positions of the courts identified in the course of studying and summarizing the judicial practice of the corresponding category of cases, which are acts of individual regulation of public relations. Focusing on Art. 6 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and Section 6, Art. 12 of the APC RF shows the validity of dividing wrong into two types of wrong: the «moderate» type of «judicial law-making and the position of the court» and the «radical» type of «judicial law-making», when the court develops the rule of law, which contradicts the constitutional principle of separation of powers. When resolving corporate disputes, it is necessary to investigate whether the charter of a non-public company does not contain the rights and obligations of its participants, which they themselves created by making a unanimous decision and including them in the charter of the company (paragraph 3 of Art. 66.3 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, paragraph 3 of Art. 14 of the Law about LLC).


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.


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.


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 ◽  
pp. 114-123
Author(s):  
Svetlana Gennad'evna Byval'tseva ◽  
Artem Aleksandrovich Kovalev

The object of this research is the public relations arising when the prosecutor is involved in court hearing of civil cases by intervening into a case for delivering an opinion in the appellate, cassation and supervisory bodies, as well as problematic aspects of the application of his powers to deliver an opinion in the aforementioned bodies. The subject of this research is the materials of prosecutorial law enforcement and judicial practice, norms of civil procedural legislation of the Russian Federation that regulation these public relations, as well as positions formulated on the matter. Despite the fact, that the scientific literature paid attention to the separate aspects of submission of prosecutorial decision, the questions of submission of prosecutorial decision in the retrial of civil cases did not receive due coverage. Such situation led to a contradictory approach towards the question on possibility of delivering an opinion by the prosecutor in retrial of civil cases in the theory and case law. Therefore, based on the conducted research, the author makes recommendation with regards to exercising prosecutorial powers in submission of decision in retrial of civil cases by the courts, as well as the changes in current legislation that would bring certainty into these legal relations and contribute to elimination of the emerged contradictions.


Author(s):  
Y. E. Monastyrsky ◽  

Introduction: of all the instruments of protection of subjective property rights, the fundamental role belongs to the institute of indemnification, whose regulatory framework needs to be clarified. The purpose of this paper is comparative description of the important legal aspects of the main type of property liability. In accordance with the purpose, the following objectives were set: to determine the extent to which legal provisions of general regulations on obligations laid down in the Civil Code of the Russian Federation should or can be applied to claims for damages; to formulate the proposals for improving the indemnification court practice. Methods: the methodological framework of the study consists of specific scholarly (special legal, comparative legal) and general scholarly (problem-theory, teleological, and system) methods of analysis. The main trends in the development of the institute of liability and the debatable aspects reflected in the Russian and foreign documents were studied with the use of the problem-theory and system analysis methods. Results: being a summary overview of the available knowledge and comparative regulatory material, this paper allowed us to articulate the ideas aimed at improving the fundamental principles of legal regulation of relations in the sphere of protection of subjective rights, in particular indemnification. Discussion: indemnification is a developing major institute of civil law, invariably attracting the attention of scholars around the world. Lately it has taken on special significance and some of its aspects have become a focus of a separate field of scholarly discussion. Many Russian scholars have written about indemnification in a comparative aspect: О. N. Sadikov, V. V. Baibak and others [2, 15]; this paper focuses on the reform of Russian law of obligations and the new provisions of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation of March 8, 2015 and reveals the consequences of the reform for the institute of damages, discussing this topic in detail as a separate standalone issue. Conclusion: we hope that this paper will contribute to further discussion in the civil law doctrine of the ideas and conclusions presented.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document