The present article is devoted to the consideration of the consortia, the concept and reg ulation of which is lacking in the Russian law. Nonetheless, in practice there are a large number of agreements and even legal entities, the name of which includes the word «consortium». The authors analyze the experience of regulation of consortia in foreign countries, reveal the key features of consortia, give their general characteristics, which allows to draw conclusion about their possible qualification under Russian law.
In the article devoted to the review of the S.A. Sinitsyn’s book “General Provisions on Real Law: Comparative Legal Research: Monograph”, the author analyzes numerous new ideas and approaches regarding the concept, essence, features, meaning and place of real law in modern legal systems. The author’s critical comments on the current state of the mechanism of legal regulation of real rights in Russia are evaluated, and additional arguments for the new theoretical and practical approaches proposed in the book are presented.
In this article, the author on the basis of Russian judicial practice formulates and analyzes the conditions for upholding actio negatoria.. According to the author, these conditions boil down to the following: violation of the right of the owner ; the causal connection between the violation and the actions of the defendant, as well as the unlawfulness of the actions of the defendant. These conditions coincide with the conditions for satisfaction of the tort claim. The similarity of an actio negatoria with a tort one is caused by the fact that the law does not formulate conditions for upholding of an actio negatoria , but only declares the owner’s right to demand the elimination of a violation of his right not related to the loss of possesion. . When considering a dispute over an actio negatoria and in the absence of a detailed regulation of its conditions, the court, by analogy, applies the rules on tort. The author believes that this situation is acceptable, since an actio negatoria is a form of tort in the field of property.
This article is devoted to the analysis of existing civil law norms and case law applicable to the regulation of commercialization of datasets as one of the potentially most significant assets in the digital economy. The article provides a definition of a dataset and considers its possible place in the system of civil rights objects, as well as the likelyhood of qualification as a database, know-how, services, or “other property”. It is concluded that it is impossible to adequately regulate and protect datasets within the above mentioned legal regimes, both due to existing problems in definitions and because of their incompatibility with the essence of relations arising from the collection and processing of data. The article also discusses the relationship between the civil law and legislation on personal data in the commercialization of datasets associated with individuals, as well as the legislative trends in this area.
The article deals with the legal mechanisms of applying the category of good faith in subjective and objective sense in corporate relations, including the public reliability of the register of legal entities and the fiduciary duties of the bodies of the legal entity and members of the corporation.
The article covers a 130-year period of development of legislation on the protection of private life. The research has both historical and systemic aspects, demonstrating the sequence and factors of development of this legal institution. The author identifies and analyzes four historical directions of legislation in this area. The first direction was the protection of privacy as a special area of human life that requires protection from interference. As events unfolded, potential threats and violators changed (individuals, then the state, then business again), but the protection mechanism remained the same. The second direction protected information about a person that can be used for commercial purposes. By making such information an object of exclusive right, legislators created institutions for celebrity rights, rights to name, image, and performance. The third area was the protection of personal data. Having appeared in response to the state’s invasion of privacy, this institution now works as a condition for the existence of a global digital market. Finally, the fourth area that closed the circle of protection of human-related information was the doctrine of contextual privacy. In combination with the concept of privacy by design, it protects the interests of the individual in areas where government intervention is impossible or ineffective.
This paper presents a scientific and practical commentary of the provisions of the bill on amendments to the Civil Code of the Russian Federation on the building leasehold somebody else’s land. The author stresses the relevance of the law in modern Russian socio-economic conditions, explains the rules proposed in the draft law on the establishment of building leasehold and its termination, the content and value of the contract on the establishment of a real right of building leasehold, subjects and objects of this right, shows the difference between the building leasehold and other rights. The article analyzes the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed provisions in the bill. The work is accompanied by a comparative analysis of similar legal structures of the European legal order.