This article is devoted to the questions to the notions “digital economy,” “digital asset”, “Big Data.” It provides the reader on the view’s resident in economic and legal doctrines as to the notions of “digital asset” and “Big Data.”
The purpose of this article is to investigate the legal nature and legal regime of the digital assets, big data.
It should be stressed that “Big Data” is a property complex including a group objects with different legal nature, which has a common aim. The aim of this property complex is combined (connected) this group objects (elements of the complex) into one object of civil law. This object of civil law has features tradability and it involves specific methods, forms and means to protect the rights of its owner.
The following conclusions are drawn that Big Data consist in 1) information, which conclude “raw data” and the results of processing of “raw data” (which may be including materialized form), 2) property rights (for example, intellectual rights of the electronic computers programs, database). Moreover, it is stressed that the feature of this property complex is the value (for individuals or society) not only itself, but also the elements of such a complex
Purpose of lands is one of its main characteristics, which determines its value and possible uses. Russian legislation and law enforcement practice are very ambiguous in its application, which is a problem for law enforcement.
The article analyzes the main approaches to understanding the institution of the purpose of land based on the provisions of the current legislation, materials of judicial practice, explanations of the authorities and the provisions of the legal doctrine. The article deals with the content and problems related to the implementation of the legal principle of land use in accordance with the established category and the permitted use: the problem of the ratio of these legal institutions, the order of their definition and changes by the authorities, the availability of discrepancies in the official documents establishing them, as well as determining the scope of authorized actions that the owner of land has the right to carry out in accordance with the established legal regime.
The article uses the formal legal (dogmatic) method of researching the problem.
On the basis of the conducted research general recommendations are given on the possible solution of the considerable part of the revealed problems.
In a complex and dynamic process of legal regulation a special role belongs to law enforcement. It is a mechanism to ensure the systemic exposure of law to socio-economic and other processess. Nevertheless, up to now the "situational-sanction" approach prevails in understanding of this phenomenon and it is reflected in the conceptual and social practices. The article attempts to carry out an analysis of law as a public method of anticipatory reflection of reality by means of a systemtic mechanism of legal influence on the processess and phenomena. In this mechanism the interconnected legal and behaviorial, institutional, regulatory, supervisory, analytical and evaluative elements are highlighted. The target orientation of this mechanism contributes to the achievement of outcomes and a new legal condition. The new approach allows for the correlation between aims, regulators and legal outcomes.
The Labour Code of Russia was amended in 2013 in a way that a new body of workers’ representation – works councils – can be established. These amendments don’t add any new rights or obligations neither to employers nor to employees. They are made with purely political purposes and only imitate the creation of the analog of the well-known German system of works councils.
The author comes to conclusion that currently existing rights in informing and “taking into account” the workers’ representative body opinion, contained in the Russian Labour Code, are not sufficient for existence of the real industrial democracy.
The article is aimed at answering the question, whether an implementation of functioning works councils may be beneficial to the adequate balancing of social rights of workers and economic rights of the employers.
Although the full transposition of the German works councils system seems to be impossible, some of its positive features may be effectively adopted in the Russian law. For example, the employer’s obligation to consult workers shouldn’t be dependent on the existence of the workers’ representative bodies. Besides, a range of issues that are subject to the mandatory informing of workers by the employer must be significantly broadened. The procedure of consultations must include the real negotiations between the employer and employees on the basis of good faith principle.
The article analyzes the problems raised from the use of foreign civil procedure norms in the settlement of disputes in the international civil process. The trend towards the application of foreign civil procedural rules has emerged in judicial practice relatively recently, but the reference to foreign procedural law is now enshrined in most national and international legal instruments on private international law and on international civil procedure. This gives rise to the problem of distinguishing a special category of conflict of laws — procedural conflict of laws rules, the problem of determining their concept and structure (including rules on the resolution of conflict of jurisdiction). Процессуальное право 85 The aim of the study is to illustrate that there is a special category of rules in international private law and international civil procedure which prescribes the application of foreign civil procedure law, i.e. procedural conflict-of-laws rules. The task of the study is to show that the using of procedural law of the court’s country in the current international civil process is advisable to position not as a procedural imperative, but as a general conflict – of-laws binding. The relevant norms of national laws and international legal acts, examples from judicial practice are considered to solve mentioned tasks. The author gives a brief overview of doctrinal views on the problem raised in the article. Main research methods are: comparative law, comparative and retrospective analysis. Currently, the application of foreign civil procedure rules is a daily reality, and therefore it is possible to assert the existence of a special legal category “procedural conflict-of-laws rules”. The law of the court’s country in the international civil process should be approved not as a procedural imperative, but as a conflict-of-laws principle, as a general conflict-of-laws binding. Also the author proposes to define the conflict-of-laws rules as a procedural conflict-of-laws rules. Keywords: international private law, international civil process, procedural conflict-of-laws rules, foreign civil procedure rules, procedural conflict-of-laws question, conflict of jurisdiction.
The problems encountered in the resolution of conflicts (contradictions) with the participation of the norms of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation are considered, due to the absence of a solution to the earlier problems and the appearance of additional problems in connection with prioritizing the new edition of the first part of this Code.
The purpose of the article is to prove the erroneousness of the approach on the priority of the norms of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation to the norms of other federal laws; for this purpose, its contradiction to the general order of resolving conflicts between norms of law based on general legal principles, as well as the impossibility of unconditional priority of the norms of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation as codified Act due to its unconstitutionality and contradictory approaches used in the construction of a system of legislation.
To obtain the research results, general scientific methods of analysis and synthesis, comparisons, generalizations, classifications, as well as literal and system-logical interpretation of legal norms were applied.
As a result, on specific examples of the formation of the charter capital of business entities, it is justified that the priority of the norms of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation can only be regarded as the reception of legal techniques, when the legislator himself (other parts of the conceptual apparatus, classifications of subjects and objects, the structure of relations, etc.), and transitional provisions of civil legislation on such a priority can not be rejected Change priority of special rules. As a means of solving the emerging problems, it is proposed to exclude the provision on the priority of the norms of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation from this Code, and from the point of view of legislative technology, special and general norms should be changed simultaneously, otherwise the operation of the modified general norms will be blocked by special norms.