This paper examines the provisions of Law No. 455-FZ, which was signed by the President of the Russian Federation close to New 2018 Year's Eve along with a package of amendments to the Town Planning Code. The author emphasises the relationship of the provisions governing public consultations with the concept of the ‘right to the city’ and critically assesses the traditional public hearings. It seems right to secure a balance between the “weak” citizen and the “strong” official at any stage of the discussion on urban development projects. The author considers that the electronic form of public consultations will make the procedure even more controversial, and that new progressive tools for civic participation should be implemented into Russian legislation.
For the first time, the Code of Administrative Procedure has introduced property and educational qualifications for persons who wish to challenge legal acts in court. Such decision of the legislator raises doubts from the point of view of its compliance to the Constitution. The author examines the reasons for this decision in light of the access to justice, guarantees to qualified legal aid, principle of equality of parties, and the features of judicial compliance assessment.
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.