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.
This article deals with peculiarities of the legal regime of treas- ury shares and issues related to their legal fate. The author gives special attention to the identification and analysis of those problems that arise in connection with the realisation by a company of its shares and offers possible solutions thereof. The author comes to the conclusion that shareholders of a pub- lic company should enjoy a pre-emptive right of purchasing shares, which are realised by the public company to the public, in proportion to a number of shares of the relevant category (type) belonging to each of them. Additionally, the realisation by a public company of treasury shares should be allowed only for specified purposes and be accompanied by the disclosure of information on a transaction and its purpose. Any transac- tion involving realisation by the company of treasury shares in favour of a particular person needs preliminary consent from the company’s general meeting of shareholders.