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.
This article is devoted to consideration of the last changes of Art. 222 of the Сivil code of the Russian Federation about unauthorized constructions. The authors assess the novels by analyzing such key problems of the institution of unauthorized construction as adequacy of sanctions for unauthorized construction; recognition of unauthorized construction on «formal» grounds and protection of a bona fide developer; administrative demolition of unauthorized constructions. As a result of the assessment, the authors concluded that the latest changes in the regulation of unauthorized constructions are valid; however, they do not resolve all existing problems in practice.
This article examines one of the topical issues in Russian tax law, namely the definition of forfeit under current Russian legislation on taxes and charges. It analyses a radical transformation in the legal nature of forfeit from the sanction for tax noncompliance (in the 1990s) to the means of securing payment of tax liability (upon enactment of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation in 1999). The research identifies the reasons behind this alteration and assesses their impact on balancing the public and the private interest in tax law. It reviews amended rules for forfeit calculations as applied to both companies and individuals. The new method of corporate tax arrears calculations disfavours long delays in tax payments. The changes that took place in 2017 in the system of public finance management and the creation of a single fiscal channel in Russia that combined taxes, customs payments and insurance contributions make it necessary to take a fresh look at the relationship between securing fulfilment of tax obligations and securing payment of customs duties and taxes in accordance with the customs legislation of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU). A comparative method is used to look at the means of securing payment of customs duties and approaches to defining the forfeit being charged as late payment interest on customs duties and taxes across EAEU member states.
The author offers a series of complex proposals for the development of regulation of credit rating agencies (CRA) in Russia, taking into account the high degree of monopolisation of the relevant markets, analysing relevant EU and US regulations, new Russian law as well as first Russian Central Bank’s regulations implementing the latter. The author focuses on such groups of questions as: prohibited and manageable conflicts of interest; prices oversight; permissible activities for credit rating agencies; fair competition, entry of new players into the market and the prevention of monopolisation of the market; oversight CRA and other financial markets institutions salaries; supervision fees; peculiarities of sovereign ratings; sanctions applied to the CRA. According to the author, international cooperation of the regulators of CRA markets as well as competition authorities of the BRICS countries will help to restart the CRA market in the direction of ensuring the integrity and transparency of their work.
The article deals with the current issues of ‘freedom of contract’, a fundamental private-law doctrine, which were brought into focus by the Ruling of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court #16 ‘On the freedom of contracts and its limitations’. The author argues that the S.A.C. view on the administration of this doctrine, as presented in the Ruling, is poorly compatible with some basic concepts of private-law legislature and legal text interpretation, as well as with the theory of separation of powers. It will cause a traumatic effect on sustainability of individual rights of a less powerful party, e.g. those of the customer.