Regulatory Choices of Russian and Ukrainian Legislators in Consumer Credit: a Comparative Perspective
Russia and Ukraine have recently adopted complex statutes on consumer credit. Ukraine, unlike Russia, declared the aim of the new act, inter alia, harmonization of the legislation with international and EU standards. Prior to enactment, both countries had a fragmentary regulation of few aspects of consumer credit in general consumer protection laws. I consider peculiarities of the elimination of the contract disproportion of debtor and creditor rights in contracts on consumer credit under new Russian and Ukrainian regulations from a comparative perspective. EU law does not regulate some important issues covered by Russian and Ukrainian legislations, e.g. priority of payments. On the contrary, some useful concepts, which are applicable to consumer loans under EU law, like “linked credits,” “open-end agreements” are absent in both Russian and Ukrainian laws. While comparing new Russian and Ukrainian consumer credit statutes, it is clear that in some aspects the Ukrainian one is pro-consumer, and in some other aspects the Russian one is more pro-consumer. Some provisions of both Russian and Ukrainian consumer credit statutes are very controversial and unclear; in some instances they could lead to debt slavery, so they must be corrected in the future.
This article focuses on the reverse mortgage as a tool to enhance the well-being of the elderly by providing a way to use owned and occupied real estate to generate income in retirement. We describe the key features and history of the reverse mortgage program in the United States, with a particular focus on the types of mortgages offered, state support for the program, consumer protection and lender regulation. We compare the US experience to that of the other countries with developed reverse mortgage markets, such as the UK, Australia and Canada.
New approaches of the Russian legislation and case-law of Russian supreme courts in financial services
The article analyzes the new Russian parliamentary law and judiciary approaches by the Supreme Court, the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation relating to bank lending. The author criticizes a number of new relevant courts decisions of this category, proving the invalidity of arguments of some of them. Also, the author argues the fallacy of the sharp differences in the approaches to the courts to assessment of legitimacy of separate contractual conditions of credit agreements between business and consumer loans.
In the essay, provisions of the articles 53.1 and 1253.1 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation regarding the basis for the civil liability are analyzed. By comparing them with norms of the General Part of the Civil Law and with doctrinal views, it is found out in which direction the national legislation in the realm in question develops. The author comes to the conclusion that the chosen way does not seem to be the best of all possible ones.
The most widespread infringements on consumer energy market are analysed in the article. Exemplary components and provisions of relevant types of legal liability are generalised for the purposes of consumer energy market.