Until 2014, it was the Russian Academy of Justice, which was founded in 1998 after a decree from the president of the Russian Federation. The word for "justice" in its name is правосудия (pravosudiya).
This study is devoted to the analysis of topical issues related to the legal regulation of telemedicine technologies in the Russian Federation and the search for optimal approaches to stimulate the development of telemedicine, as well as the study of the essence of legal relations in the provision of medical services using telemedicine technologies. The article also examines foreign experience in the implementation of telemedicine technologies, which is compared with the experience of the Russian Federation. The relevance of the study is due to the active growth of the telemedicine services market, as well as the advantages of telemedicine for patients who are located at a distance. At the same time, legal uncertainty remains regarding the legal status of telemedicine and the procedure for providing telemedicine services. The main objective of the work is to identify problems and contradictions within the framework of existing approaches. The problems under consideration are based on the fragmentary nature of regulation, the lack of uniformity, and uncertainty in matters of civil liability when using telemedicine technologies. The methodological basis of the study consisted of general scientific (analysis, synthesis, deduction) and special legal methods of cognition (formal legal, comparative legal, and systematic analysis methods). Conclusions were drawn about the existence of an imbalance in legal regulation. On the one hand, legislators seek to minimize risks by imposing strict restrictions. At the same time, the existing fragmentation in terms of legal uncertainty in the distribution of civil liability limits the further development of telemedicine. There is a need to systematize the legal norms governing the specifics of civil liability. Experimental legal regimes can help find the most optimal approach for flexible regulation combined with consistency, which will allow the full potential of telemedicine technologies to be realized.
The genesis of the institution of confiscation has inevitably affected the fundamental principles of criminal law, particularly the principle of legality. This principle is becoming a stumbling block in further reforming law enforcement practices regarding the implementation of confiscation of property and establishing a unified approach to its application. Currently, law enforcement practice is fragmented. Some doctrinal approaches, as well as law enforcement approaches based on them, cannot guarantee the legality of the seizure of property for state benefit, and law enforcement refuses to accept the positions of the Constitutional and Supreme Courts of the Russian Federation. This demonstrates that the Russian Federation is faced with the choice of the correct direction for the development and improvement of the institution of confiscation, which requires a doctrinal assessment of possible options for such development. Otherwise, the legal system will be unable to implement new confiscation regulations, leading to significant gaps in law enforcement. The research methodology and techniques will comprise both general scientific methods (analysis, synthesis, deduction, induction, and generalization) and specific scientific research methods.
The purpose of the study is to examine the criminal law norms of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation containing the so-called mixed form of guilt within their system and to propose recommendations for their development. The study employed methods of formal logical analysis, mathematical logic, systematic and teleological interpretation of law, as well as a comparative legal analysis of sanctions. The results of the study are as follows: an alternative form of guilt is not logically derivable from Part 2 of Article 24 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Out of 1,089 norms of the Special Part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, 44 norms do not explicitly indicate the form of guilt; their classification as norms with an alternative form of guilt is the result of teleological rather than formal logical interpretation. The norms of Parts 3 and 4 of Article 263.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation contradict the institution of complicity (Chapter 7 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). In a number of norms with two forms of guilt (for example, Part 3 of Articles 131 and 132 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), a construction not provided for by the norms of the General Part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation — namely, «intent with respect to the primary act + intent with respect to the qualified consequence» (intent to primary act + intent to qualified consequence—is effectively permitted, which requires legislative regulation. The results may be used both in law enforcement and in legislative activity.
The theoretical and practical aspects of applying lexicographic sources in court proceedings have been analysed. The aim of the research is to identify the specifics of using dictionaries in the practice of judicial interpretation and to assess their efficiency through the lens of doctrine and regulatory frameworks, both domestic and foreign. It has been concluded that the presence of an open list of lexicographic sources provides judges in several English-speaking countries with broad opportunities for selecting reference materials; however, at the same time, the lack of unified approaches to ranking meanings directly in the dictionary entry can create difficulties in interpreting specific concepts. It is noted that one of the factors contributing to the increased efficiency of using dictionaries in judicial interpretation practices is multilingualism in legal proceedings, which is characteristic, for example, of the European Union and the Russian Federation.
