DOI: 10.33917/es-6.198.2024.56-63

The author examines peculiarities of the influence of the “regulatory guillotine” mechanism, aimed at eliminating duplicate requirements and introducing reasonable standards. The article analyzes requirements for regulatory legal acts (using regional practices as an example), the purpose of which is to reduce the excessive administrative burden on a business entity.

References:

1. Mekhanizm “regulyatornoy gil’otiny” [Mechanism of the “Regulatory Guillotine”]. Ministerstvo ekonomicheskogo razvitiya RF, available at:
https://economy.gov.ru/material/directions/gosudarstvennoe_upravlenie/mehanizm_regulyatornoy_gilotiny/

2. Federal’nyy zakon ot 31 iyulya 2020 g. N 247-FZ “Ob obyazatel’nykh trebovaniyakh v Rossiyskoy Federatsii” [Federal Law of July 31, 2020 No. 247-FZ “On Mandatory Requirements in the Russian Federation”]. Sobranie zakonodatel’stva RF, 2020, no 31.

3. Federal’nyy zakon ot 11 iyunya 2021 g. N 170-FZ “O vnesenii izmeneniy v otdel’nye zakonodatel’nye akty Rossiyskoy Federatsii v svyazi s prinyatiem Federal’nogo zakona ‘O gosudarstvennom kontrole (nadzore) i munitsipal’nom kontrole v Rossiyskoy Federatsii’” [Federal Law of June 11, 2021 No. 170-FZ “On Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation in Connection with the Adoption of the Federal Law ‘On State Control (Supervision) and Municipal Control in the Russian Federation’”]. Sobranie zakonodatel’stva RF, 2021, no 24 (Chast’ I).

4. Postanovlenie Konstitutsionnogo suda RF ot 19 aprelya 2021 g. N 14-P [Resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of April 19, 2021 No. 14-P]. Sobranie zakonodatel’stva RF, 2021, no 17.

5. Tikhomirova L. A. Reforma kontrol’no-nadzornoy deyatel’nosti (“regulyatornaya gil’otina”) v sfere promyshlennoy bezopasnosti [Reform of Control and Supervisory Activities («Regulatory Guillotine») in the Field of Industrial Safety]. SPS “Konsul’tantPlyus”, 2021.

6. Postanovlenie Arbitrazhnogo suda Vostochno-Sibirskogo okruga ot 28 marta 2023 g. po delu N A33-2059/2022 [Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the East Siberian District dated March 28, 2023 in case No. A33-2059/2022]. Dostup iz SPS “Konsul’tant Plyus”.

7. Postanovlenie Devyatogo arbitrazhnogo apellyatsionnogo suda ot 21 marta 2024 g. po delu N A40-139576/2023 [Resolution of the Ninth Arbitration Court of Appeal dated March 21, 2024 in case No. A40-139576/2023]. Dostup iz SPS “Konsul’tant Plyus”.

8. Opredelenie Verkhovnogo Suda Rossiyskoy Federatsii ot 16 sentyabrya 2020 g. N 305-ES20-4513 [Definition of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated September 16, 2020 No. 305-ES20-4513]. Dostup iz SPS “Konsul’tant Plyus”.

9. Federal’nyy zakon ot 6 dekabrya 2011 g. № 402-FZ “O Bukhgalterskom Uchete” [Federal Law No. 402-FZ of December 6, 2011 “On Accounting”]. Rossiyskaya gazeta, 2011, no 278.

10. Nalogovyy kodeks Rossiyskoy Federatsii (chast’ pervaya) ot 31 iyulya 1998 g. N 146-FZ [Tax Code of the Russian Federation (part one) of July 31, 1998 No. 146-FZ]. Sobranie zakonodatel’stva RF, 1998, no 31.

DOI: 10.33917/es-3.195.2024.44-49

The author examines the legal features of the procedure for the confiscation (expropriation) of frozen Russian assets by Western countries. The procedural aspects of the possible illegal seizure of Russian property are analyzed in the context of international law, taking into account the role of the UN Security Council.

References:

1. V MID predupredili Zapad o posledstviyakh konfiskatsii aktivov [The Foreign Ministry warned the West about the consequences of asset confiscation]. RIA Novosti, 2024, 28 yanvarya, available at: https://ria.ru/20240128/preduprezhdenie-1923932382.html

2. V MID poobeshchali dat’ adekvatnyy otvet v sluchae konfiskatsii aktivov Rossii [The Foreign Ministry promised to give an adequate response in the event of confiscation of Russian assets]. Izvestiya, 2024, 28 yanvarya, available at: https://iz.ru/1641034/2024-01-28/v-mid-rf-poobeshchali-dat-adekvatnyiotvet-v-sluchae-konfiskatcii-aktivov-rossii

3. Ustav Organizatsii Ob”edinennykh Natsiy (Prinyat v g. San-Frantsisko 26 iyunya 1945 g.) [Charter of the United Nations (Adopted in San Francisco on June 26, 1945)]. Konsul’tant Plyus, available at: https://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_121087/

4. Case concerning military and paramilitary activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America),

available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/public/files/case-related/70/070-19841126-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf

5. Legal consequences for states of the continued presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970), available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/53/053-19710621-ADV-01-00-EN.pdf

6. Venskaya Konventsiya o prave mezhdunarodnykh dogovorov (Zaklyuchena v Vene 23 maya 1969 g.) [Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (Concluded in Vienna on May 23, 1969)]. Mezhdunarodnoe publichnoe pravo: Sb. dokumentov. T. 1. Moscow, BEK, 1996, pp. 67–87.

7. Mezhdunarodnyy pakt o grazhdanskikh i politicheskikh pravakh (Prinyat 16 dekabrya 1966 g. Rezolyutsiey 2200 (XXI) na 1496-m plenarnom zasedanii General’noy Assamblei OON) [International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Adopted on December 16, 1966 by Resolution 2200 (XXI) at the 1496th

plenary meeting of the UN General Assembly)]. Byulleten’ Verkhovnogo Suda RF, 1994, no 12.

8. Yassin Abdullah Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v. Council and Commission (No. C-402/05 P, No. C-415/05 P). InfoCuria. Case-lav, available at: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=67611&text=&dir=&doclang=EN

9. Rezolyutsiya Soveta Bezopasnosti OON № 820 (1993) (Prinyata v g. N’yu-Yorke 17 aprelya 1993 g. na 3200-m zasedanii Soveta Bezopasnosti OON)

[UN Security Council Resolution No. 820 (1993) (Adopted in New York on April 17, 1993 at the 3200th meeting of the UN Security Council)]. E-Dos’e, available at: https://e-ecolog.ru/docs/hBTmnhvK14cT0aDj1-QMd?utm_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fyandex.ru%2F

DOI: 10.33917/es-5.191.2023.120-125

The article examines legal features and consequences of compiling a rating of companies. The situation may arise when a company, included in the rating, is dissatisfied with its position. The business entity believes that it was ranked lower than its competitor, which understates the professional results achieved by the company. In this case, the company may initiate legal proceedings declaring that information in the rating is untrue and discredits its business reputation. The author argues that ratings are an expression of subjective opinion of their compilers and must not impair business reputation.

References:

1. Lopatnikov L.I. Ekonomiko-matematicheskii slovar’: slovar’ sovremennoi ekonomicheskoi nauki [Economic-mathematical Dictionary: Dictionary of Modern Economic Science]. Moscow, Delo, 2003, 488 p.

2. Postanovlenie Vosemnadtsatogo arbitrazhnogo apellyatsionnogo suda ot 8 oktyabrya 2009 g. po delu N A76-2371/2009 [Resolution of the Eighteenth Arbitration Court of Appeal dated October 8, 2009 in case No. A76-2371/2009]. Access from the Consultant Plus ATP.

3. Postanovlenie Devyatogo arbitrazhnogo apellyatsionnogo suda ot 14 sentyabrya 2011 g. po delu N A40-37334/11-27-323 [Resolution of the Ninth Arbitration Court of Appeal dated September 14, 2011 in case No. A40-37334/11-27-323]. Access from the Consultant Plus ATP.

4. Grazhdanskii kodeks Rossiiskoi Federatsii (chast’ pervaya) ot 30 noyabrya 1994 g. N 51-FZ [Civil Code of the Russian Federation (Part One) No. 51-FZ of November 30, 1994]. Sobranie zakonodatel’stva RF, 1994, no 32.

5. Opredelenie Vysshego arbitrazhnogo suda RF ot 15 dekabrya 2008 g. N 16321/08 [Determination of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated December 15, 2008 No. 16321/08]. Access from the Consultant Plus ATP.

6. Postanovlenie Evropeiskogo suda po pravam cheloveka ot 8 iyulya 1986 g. po delu “Lingens protiv Avstrii” (zhaloba N 9815/82) [Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 8 July 1986 in the case of Lingens v. Austria (application no. 9815/82)]. Access from the Consultant Plus ATP.

7. Postanovlenie Evropeiskogo suda po pravam cheloveka ot 21 iyulya 2005 g. po delu “Grinberg protiv Rossiiskoi Federatsii” (zhaloba N 23472/03) [Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of July 21, 2005 in the case “Grinberg v. Russian Federation” (complaint No. 23472/03)]. Access from the Consultant Plus ATP.

8. Obzor praktiki rassmotreniya sudami del po sporam o zashchite chesti, dostoinstva i delovoi reputatsii (utv. Prezidiumom Verkhovnogo suda RF 16 marta 2016 g.) [Review of the Practice of Courts Considering Cases on Disputes Regarding the Protection of Honor, Dignity and Business reputation (approved by the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on March 16, 2016)]. Byulleten’ Verkhovnogo suda RF, 2016, no 10.

9. Postanovlenie Plenuma Verkhovnogo suda RF ot 24 fevralya 2005 g. N 3 “O sudebnoi praktike po delam o zashchite chesti i dostoinstva grazhdan, a takzhe delovoi reputatsii grazhdan i yuridicheskikh lits” [Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated February 24, 2005 No. 3 “On judicial practice in cases of protecting the honor and dignity of citizens, as well as the business reputation of citizens and legal entities”]. Byulleten’ Verkhovnogo suda RF, 2005, no 4.

DOI: 10.33917/es-2.188.2023.50-55

Examines the monetary policy features in the context of the investment agenda. Current policy of the Bank of Russia is analyzed. Business profitability accounting in the monetary policy of the financial regulator contribute to the growth of Russian companies’ investment activity.

References:

1. Lutsenko S.I. Dokhodnost’ biznesa i denezhno-kreditnaya politika [Profitability of Business and Monetary Policy]. Strategicheskie resheniya i riskmenedzhment, 2022, no 4, pp. 326–332.

2. Konstitutsiya Rossiiskoi Federatsii (prinyata vsenarodnym golosovaniem 12 dekabrya 1993 g. s izmeneniyami, odobrennymi v khode obshcherossiiskogo golosovaniya 1 iyulya 2020 g.) [The Constitution of the Russian Federation (adopted by popular vote on 12/12/1993 with amendments approved during the all-Russian vote on 07/01/2020)]. Ofitsial’nyi sait Prezidenta RF, available at: http://www.kremlin.ru/acts/constitution.

3. Opredelenie Konstitutsionnogo suda RF ot 14 dekabrya 2000 g. no 268-O [Determination of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of December 14, 2000 No. 268-O]. Vestnik Konstitutsionnogo suda RF, 2001, no 2.

4. Opredelenie Konstitutsionnogo suda RF ot 15 yanvarya 2003 g. no 45-O [Determination of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of January 15, 2003 No. 45-O]. Vestnik Konstitutsionnogo suda RF, 2003, no 3.

5. Federal’nyi zakon ot 10 iyulya 2002 g. no 86-FZ “O Tsentral’nom banke Rossiiskoi Federatsii (Banke Rossii)” [Federal Law of July 10, 2002 No. 86-FZ “On the Central Bank of the Russian Federation (Bank of Russia)”]. Sobranie zakonodatel’stva RF, 2002, no 28.

6. Osnovnye napravleniya edinoi gosudarstvennoi denezhno-kreditnoi politiki na 2023 god i period 2024 i 2025 godov (utv. Bankom Rossii) [The main directions of the unified state monetary policy for 2023 and the period of 2024 and 2025 (approved by the Bank of Russia)]. Konsul’tantPlyus, available at: https://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_430425.

7. Informatsiya Banka Rossii ot 24 maya 2019 g. “MVF nazval targetirovanie inflyatsii i gibkii obmennyi kurs odnimi iz klyuchevykh predposylok dlya povysheniya potentsiala rosta rossiiskoi ekonomiki” [Information from the Bank of Russia dated May 24, 2019 “The IMF called inflation targeting and a flexible exchange rate one of the key prerequisites for increasing the growth potential of the Russian economy”]. Vestnik Banka Rossii, 2019, no 34.

8. Informatsionnoe soobshchenie Banka Rossii ot 21 noyabrya 2019 g. “Missiya MVF zayavila o vazhnosti sokhraneniya v Rossii prochnoi makroekonomicheskoi osnovy” [Information message of the Bank of Russia dated November 21, 2019 “The IMF mission declared the importance of maintaining a solid macroeconomic foundation in Russia”]. Vestnik Banka Rossii, 2019, no 74.

9. Prikaz Minsel’khoza Rossii ot 19 marta 2014 g. no 83 “Ob utverzhdenii otraslevoi tselevoi programmy “Razvitie khlebopekarnoi promyshlennosti Rossiiskoi Federatsii na 2014–2016 gody” [Order of the Ministry of Agriculture of Russia dated March 19, 2014 no. 83 “On approval of the sectoral target program “Development of the baking industry of the Russian Federation for 2014-2016”]. Konsul’tantPlyus, available at: https://www.consultant.ru/cons/cgi/online.cgi?req=doc&base=EXP&n=582610#8c8RoZTUXZLWGs3n.

DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.33917/es-5.179.2021.110-115

The author considers the initiative from the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation about restriction of payments with cash from citizens. The argument of imposition of restrictions from the Ministry of Finance is stimulation of non-cash payments and also the method of fight against doubtful transactions. The similar initiative is contrary to peremptory rules of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the civil law of the Russian Federation, also to the consumer protection law.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.33917/es-2.176.2021.120-127

The author proves priority in company management from the owner (the participant, the shareholder). The participant has managerial powers, including concerning the choice of economic strategy of business, owing to the economic and legal nature. The right of the owner makes changes to the charter confirms its priority in company management. In competence of the owner there is development of long-term incentive system of governing body (management and board of Directors). The owner can use model of «the expected damage» (interpretation of the agreement), for decrease in the risk connected with actions of management in private interests (self-dealing) in the conditions of the incomplete contract.

DOI: 10.33917/es-6.172.2020.116-121

The author considers the mechanism of permission of the agency conflict (redistribution of cash flows) between the shareholder and management with use of model of business. In article are considered the economic interests of the company as legal abstraction behind which there are interests of shareholders. Corporate governance in modern realities has to be directed not only to rapprochement of financial interests of shareholders and the management of the company but also to creation of the social benefit.

DOI: 10.33917/es-1.167.2020.72-81

The presented clause considers features of granting of the information board of directors of the company its shareholders. The present article purpose is the finding of certain balance of interests between participants of the company (avoiding of the agency conflict), by means of development of the certain mechanism which would allow to warn drawings of a damage of the company. In particular, the regulations of activity developed by the board of directors, with a view of provision of an openness of the information. The information openness of proceedings of board of directors will promote to management transparency of the company, and also increase of its investment attraction. Besides, the openness will allow to understand the true purposes of strategic decisions of company management. Absence transparency in the information on a society, on the contrary, can prevent its successful development. Feature of the presented work is the finding of balance of interests between board of directors (management) of the company and its shareholders. The compromise will be find between granting of the information from company management (validity of granting of the information) about activity of the company and a non-admission from shareholders of abusing the right — availability of unreasonable interest in reception of the corresponding information, intended creation of objective difficulties which can negatively affect company economic activities as a whole and on interests of its shareholders. Recommendations will be made with the help which probably to improve quality of corporate governance by means of the information policy of the company. Achievement of the compromise can be reached concerning information granting (including, about proceedings of board of directors) between management of the company and hareholders by means of constructive dialogue which will allow to soften an agency problem. Besides, in the presented work it is considered necessary implementation in the national legislation of institute of authorised persons which purpose is the control of behaviour of other interested participants at fulfilment of certain transactions (including, the transactions connected with a conclusion of assets from the company) which can be directed on causing of damage of the company and also break economic interests of other shareholders

DOI: 10.33917/es-4.162.2019.126-131

The clause considers The Business Judgment Rule with which help the management can legitimize the decisions, supposing thus honest mistake. The given rule gives wide discretion at accepting the decisions by organs of government (management, board of directors). Using the given mechanism, the company management can protect itself in court from charges from shareholders. The modern Business Judgment Rule makes certain demands concerning managerial decisions and their consequences. The author considers application of the Business Judgment Rule taking into account additional criteria in the Russian realities

In the presented clause analyzes fiduciary principles which allow to soften the conflict of interests between organs of government and shareholders of the company. The author considers the institute of fiducia as one of methods of the decision of an agency problem or a problem «principal-agent». Imposing of fiduciary duties on a management (management, board of directors) allows to estimate the contribution of body of government to result of activity of the company to identify wrongful acts of management (reception of personal rents, fulfillment of obviously unprofitable transactions).