Corporations are empowered to set the amount and the procedure for making property contributions by their members. Therefore, corporate bodies are given an opportunity to affect personal property of corporation members, which conflicts with the principles of autonomy of the will, equality, privacy and inviolability of property. To overcome this contradiction the author suggests using the methodology of the contractual theory of the corporation. Without denying corporations their rights to set the amount and the procedure for making property contributions, the author comes to a conclusion that these decisions can only be taken within a “corporate contract”. While the “corporate contract” is incomplete, a concerned participant has a right to challenge the decision in court on the grounds of inconsistency with the purpose and profile of the corporation’s activities, as well as the principles of equality, reasonableness and good faith. What is more, in case of taking a binding decision without the participant’s consent, the participant has the right to withdraw from the corporation. The obligation to pay future property contributions should cease upon termination of membership relations unless otherwise provided in the agreement between the participant and the corporation.
This article is devoted to the study of the most topical issues in the regulation of the creation and operation of international payment systems. The author analyses the monitoring procedure for international payment systems, which, as a rule, is carried out by the central bank of the country where the payment system is incorporated, paying particular attention to the life cycle of the payment in the system and the moment of fulfillment of mutual obligations by participants in the system, the payment system’s contractual framework essential for mutual rights and obligations of all participants, lien issues, as well as the correlation between the legal infrastructure of the international payment system and payment technology.
The constitutional rule of admissibility of evidence requires the establishment in the procedural law of an exclusive list (numerus clausus) of means of proof. This creates a system of rules, following which the court and other participants in the process are entitled to extract information from the source; the violation of such rules leads to a ban on using this evidence. Owing to the principle of spontaneity having the constitutional basis «other documents and materials» from which the court can't independently isolate information can't act as an independent evidentiary fact. The availability of a non-exclusive list of means of proof, and the list of means of evidence makes open the presence in it of «other documents and materials», by which you can mean anything, allows the participants in the process to submit to the court any data that destroys the system of admissibility of evidence.
The article explores how the concept of “subjective-public right”, reformulated by G. Ellinek and other distinguished scholars at the end of the 19th century, is reflected in the latest Moscow district courts’ practice, especially in the cases based on the chapter 25 “Proceedings in cases on challenging of decisions made, actions (inaction) fulfilled by state authorities” of the Civil Procedural Code of the Russian Federation. The courts are now changing under the influence of citizens being aware of their subjective-public rights and insisting the court to protect them. Author critically assesses the popular principle of the uniformity of judicial practice and alternatively proposes the doctrine of territoriality as well as “vernacular” analysis of judicial acts.