The article covers problems of cross-border insolvency and insolvency of cross-border
groups which are to be discussed at the St. Petersburg International Legal Forum.
Problems and issues of legislators and legal professionals arising from insolvency
complicated by foreign element are considered in the context of the world’s largest
insolvencies. Author lays special emphasis upon the fact that the lack of legal base
does not exclude Russia of such world tendencies as unification and competition of
insolvency regulation. Our national legal community faces challenges of exploration of
cross-border insolvency, and particularly of international practice in this sphere, with
the aim to propose possible solutions to the legislator. Legislator is after all at the point
where the need for imposing special rules for addressed legal matters becomes urgent
The paper is focused on the analysis of possible ways of improvement of existing personal data legislation in order to eliminate unreasonable barriers to the implementation of Big Data technologies in light of associated risks: data leaks, improper use of data, processing of imprecise data, and discriminatory practices. The author criticizes legislative initiatives to liberalize collection processing and aggregation of user data in social networks and other publicly available data by exempting it from the existing regulatory framework for data protection. It is argued that adequate protection of privacy rights of internet users is necessary, since user data is a continuation of personality in digital area and any non-controlled use of it by commercial companies may lead to loss of trust in online services and dictatorship of data.
Almost two years have passed since the adoption of the governmental program “Digital Economy”. However, as the texts of draft laws relating to regulation of data —the main asset in the digital economy —show, no holistic approach to its regulation has been developed so far. Instead, a fragmentary and chaotic approach dominates, with the main goals to ‘patch’ the existing legal framework and correct some extremes in law enforcement practice. At the same time, the massive usage of data in social life creates not only new business models and innovative solutions but also new risks, which cannot be adequately mitigated by using existing legal instruments of the analogue/offline age. Therefore, there is a pressing need for development of the concept of data regulation in the digital economy, which would reflect the core principles forming the future data governance framework. This paper represents an effort to provide such principles, based on the analysis of the existing experience of other jurisdictions and discussions at various forums.
Author of the article submits the idea that many problems of the enforcement of the court acts could be solved through the improvement of substantive, but not procedural law. Using as the example the cases, where the debtor has been ruled to commit certain actions, also taking into account the experience of common law countries author analyzes the problems of effectiveness of enforcement of the mentioned categories of obligations in the enforcement procedure as well as application of the institute of change of means and procedure of enforcement on the enforcement stage. As the result, author takes note on the progressive exclusion of the general rule on the enforcement of obligations «in kind» due to the substantive obstacles of their enforcement in real life. It could also lead to the elimination of the procedural institutes, supporting this general rule in favor of the direct enforcement.
The present paper deals with forms of interaction between nonprofit organisations and public authorities. It begins with a short excursus to the domestic history of interaction between the state and the nonprofit sector, and then presents the analysis of theories explaining the differences in interaction between the state and nonprofit organisations. Each theory enables to explain the inclusion of the relevant provisions (for example, on the giving of tax benefits or grants to nonprofit organisations) into the foreign and Russian legislation on nonprofit organisations. The paper concludes with the analysis of specific forms of interaction between nonprofit organisations and public authorities.
The paper looks at wrongful removal and wrongful retention – two types of child abduction identified by the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction of 1980 (Russia has become its member in 2011). The author explains the difference between these concepts and the reasons why it is important to accurately fix the date of the wrongful removal (retention). The author also focuses on the major component of wrongful removal (retention), which is a consent of a person (parent) from whom the child has been presumably abducted to the child’s removal (retention). If a parent does not make any objections, neither removal nor retention can be seen as child abduction. The paper also presents a brief analysis of the Neustadt case defined by English courts as “the anatomy of an abduction”.
This paper is focused on the analysis of certain legal issues, associated with the implementation of blockchain technologiesand smart contracts. Specifically, it addresses the possibility of qualification of blockchain records as electronic documents; applicability of electronic signature legislation to transactions performed in the blockchain, as well as certain issues associated with qualification of blockchains and smart contract codes as computer programmes and liability for the quality of such code. Special attention is given to the definition of ‘smart contract’ and possibility of its qualification as civil law agreement. The paper also covers certain questions about using blockchain data as evidence in litigation. It includes the analysis of possible legitimising grounds for personal data processing in blockchains and compliance with data localisation requirements since blockchain data may be considered as personal data in some cases.
The paper is focused on the analysis of the problems that may be driven by mass tokenization of the objects of civil law, i.e. creation of a digital representation of such object in the form of a record in blockchain where the value of such object is transferred subsequently by means of disposal of such token, which is a subject of separate rights to it. There are three problems outlined in the paper: 1) a possible displacement of existing legal regimes of objects of civil rights by the legal regime of the token; 2) the problem of definition of the nature of rights to token (in rem vs. in personam) as well as remedies for their violations; and 3) privacy issues associated with the growth of metadata relating to performed transactions, and resulting from mass tokenization and blockchainization of law. Provisions of the Belarus Decree “On the development of digital economy” of 21 December 2017 were taken to Illustrate the problems.
This article offers a comparative analysis of one of the most controversial current legal issues, namely the reasonableness of legal fees recovery and similar remedies. The authors come to the conclusion that domestic courts’ approaches do not meet the standards of certainty and predictability. At the same time, other legal systems have developed original approaches to the determination of legal fees to be reimbursed by a losing party. The article gives a comparative perspective over legislation and case-law in other jurisdictions. In the United States and United Kingdom, courts have developed a detailed test to determine the reasonableness of the legal costs incurred. In Germany, the amounts to be reimbursed are established by law. The authors conclude that it is necessary to introduce a clear methodology and predictable criteria for determining the reasonableness of expenses per representative in the Russian legal system. The basic principle may be the presumption of reasonableness of expenses incurred, which is enshrined in the legislation or explanations of the higher courts.