The paper is devoted to the legal aspects of the application of public-private partnership agreements from the point of view of the current legislation. The analysis of the subject composition and content of non-concessionary forms of public-private partnership is carried out. The author substantiates the prospects and opportunities of public-private partnership in the fields of scientific institutions, higher educational institutions and industrial production.
In the process of liquidation the capacity of a legal entity is limited, the main purpose is accumulation and distribution of the assets in accordance with the procedure prescribed by laws. So the standards of the liquidator’s activities get more stringent compared to those of a head of a commercial organisation: a liquidator has to take actions not within normal entrepreneurial risks, but within civil risks. A liquidator, who has made a mistake on his own, bears the risk of adverse consequences, caused by those mistakes. Thus, non-fulfillment or improper fulfillment of responsibilities for ensuring accounting reliability, including inventory, leads to the reversal of the burden of proof of compensable losses to the liquidator.
The article considers the cases of imposing the duty for compensation for harm on a person who is not the causer of it, for example civil liability of legal persons for harm caused by its employee. The author provides comparative legal research liability of a legal entity, and presents the current judicial practice reflecting the legal basis of liability of persons other than the direct tortfeasor.
In this article there is an analysis of existing positions about an issue on entities composition of a public-private partnership agreement, including the existing limits for participation as private or public partner.
The authors, investigating the Institute dismissal of an employee to reduce the number or state employee, as well as judicial and law enforcement practices have come to the conclusion that an ambiguous interpretation and application of Part 3. 81 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation leads, in some cases, impossible to protect the legitimate interests of the employer and offer making these changes into the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court on March 17, 2004 № 2.
The article analyses the existing legal regulation of the problem of defi nition of concepts of “electronic document” and “electronic message”, correlation of these concepts and also the problem of authenticity and feasibility of electronic document as a means of evidence in civil and arbitrazh proceedings.