This paper examines the concept of the ‘right to the city’ by offering an analysis of the roots of the idea: the writings of the French Marxist and social theorist Henri Lefebvre. While there has been a growing utilization of Henri Lefebvre’s concepts during past two decades all over the world, he is neither translated in Russian nor widely recognized among the national legal scholars. The article explores how his theoretical writings on space and the urban can be used to redefine the existing Moscow district courts’ practice. The author emphasizes the main dimensions of the Russian legal framework governing the right to the city (the right to a healthy environment, the right to take part in public hearings, the right to information, etc.) and some civil procedural problems in the context of Lefebvre’s heritage (public interest lawsuits, the discussion “a right or an interest?”).
The paper proposes a method for studying the legal consciousness of judges, based on the analysis of judicial decisions, which overcomes certain limitations of questionnaires and interviews. The effectiveness of this method is shown — a study of several groups of Russian higher court judgments has allowed describing deep attitudes in the legal consciousness of judges of these courts. The analysis covered the legal reasoning of the RF Constitutional Court, the RF Supreme Court and the RF Supreme Arbitrazh (Commercial) Court as well as their interpretation of legal norms and the mechanisms for selecting decisions for referral to the Supreme courts. It is also shown that, despite the limited material used in the study, it is sufficient to make general and justified conclusions about the legal consciousness of judges.
The article examines the issue of sale of the state-owned (municipal) share in common real estate ownership and its acquisition by the other participants of common ownership without bidding but through the pre-emptive right in compliance with the legislation on privatisation. Therefore, the author analyses the statutory regulation of privatisation of a share in common ownership, and examines the ratio of the norms in civil and privatisation laws. The pre-emptive right is evaluated and its category is recognised by privatisation legislation. The author determines the essence of trading and analyses the requirement to follow the rules of antitrust and privatisation laws. The conflicting decisions and arguments from two courts are reviewed focusing on the necessity of ensuring both public and private interests of those involved. A summary is provided for the points of view of public officials and other courts including the Supreme Court. Finally, the author concludes that it is necessity to use the pre-emptive right of other participants in common real estate ownership in the case of acquisition of a state-owned (municipal) share in it.