The article analyzes the legislation in force as well as the legal opinions that exist with respect to the legal treatment of public services, legal powers, and administrative functions of the executive authority. The author notes the ambiguous and contradictory nature of legal regulation in the sphere of public services and the absence of a uniform approach to understanding them in the Russian law theory. The existing legislation defines public services through administrative functions or works or activities or legal powers. This is unacceptable from the standpoint of legal writing as clarity and unambiguousness of terminology adopted in legislation is one of the most important factors of its efficiency and of the quality of state governing. The author concludes that public services, legal powers, and administrative functions are widely different terms that denote different legal phenomena. "Legal powers" and administrative functions are an institution of public law, whereas "public services" belong to the domain of private law.
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.