In the context of Russia’s implementation of a renewed foreign policy, in which new legal concepts like friendly and unfriendly states have emerged, special emphasis has been placed on the development of relations with African countries. Despite active attempts by Western countries to influence our country’s relations with African partners, most countries on the continent have not changed their attitude towards Russia and continue to show considerable interest in strengthening bilateral relations, including in the area of investment with Russia. The outcome of the 2019 Russia–Africa summit showed a high level of trust and expectations of African leaders from Russia. These circumstances should give a significant impetus to the active development by of the Russian Federation of equitable and effective trade relations with African countries, which is impossible without a detailed analysis of the legal framework of the ECOWAS states governing foreign investment.
In the first part of this article (“Termination of the powers of a judge for a serious offense after the constitutional innovations of 2020 – constitutional or disciplinary liability?”) the modern problems of the mechanism of judges’ responsibility for disciplinary misconduct were considered. This second part of this article examines the current problems of the organizational and legal mechanism of disciplinary responsibility of heads (chairmen and deputy chairmen) of courts. Attention is drawn to the fact that the status of heads of courts is twofold: on the one hand, they are judges who directly administer justice, on the other hand, heads of a judicial body with powers and responsibilities to organize the work of the court (to ensure, within their powers, financial, material, resource, information and other parties), the implementation of general management of the activities of the court’s staff, and most importantly, to ensure the judicial and effective operation of the court on the principles of justice. Attention is drawn to the fact that the current legislation (and even partly the Constitution of the Russian Federation) provides for the responsibility of heads of courts for gross misconduct, which does not qualify as disciplinary, and the penalty for it is one – early termination of the powers of the head of the court, and in some cases the powers of a judge, without the possibility of applying other, less severe, penalties (penalties). It is proposed to formalize some new, real-life functions of the heads of courts with the establishment of a mechanism for their non-fulfillment. It is proposed to introduce the institution of the oath of the head of the court (separate from the oath of the judge) with the introduction of liability for violation of this oath, in particular for interference in the judicial activities of judges of the court headed by this head. Other proposals are also being made.
This article highlights the implementation of the Electronic Case Management System at the stage of conducting civil court cases, studied the experience of foreign countries on the Electronic Case Management System, and analyzed the opinion of legal scholars. The issue of filing a claim through the Electronic Court Case Management System, receiving subpoenas, improving the exchange of court documents between parties and courts is covered. The article also discusses the electronic document management system, which is one of the main aspects of the Electronic Case Management System.
The article notes, that the Civil Code of the Russian Federation does not fully reflect the constitutional provisions on forms of public ownership, on state assistance to the development of entrepreneurship. The system of legal entities is built without taking into account in their classification of state-owned legal entities, in particular, state corporations and public law companies. The attribution of the latter to non-profit organizations does not reveal their essence as powerful manufacturers of high-tech products, active participants in the implementation of state economic policy. The establishment in the laws, that state corporations and public law companies are the owners of state property assigned to them means that they have the right to exercise the right of federal state ownership within the limits established by laws and decrees of the President of the Russian Federation and decisions of the Government of the Russian Federation. This is a kind of federal state property, not an independent form of ownership. Due to the fact that the legislator did not adopt the provisions of the Concept of the Development of civil legislation on the broad interpretation of property law, including the right of ownership and various developments of Roman lawyers, given that the concept of a legal entity now does not include as a mandatory element the existence of property rights or property rights, it would be necessary to discuss the question of whether property law is.
In the article, in the paradigm of the history of the state and the theory of law, existing definitions of the phenomenon “civilization” are analyzed, an understanding of its content in various fields of knowledge is revealed, in particular, the relationship between the concepts of “faction” and “civilization” is established, their genesis is traced in the format of emergence and death. Particular attention is paid to the theoretical foundations of such concepts as “sovereignty of the state”, “Slavic-Russian civilization”, “state-civilization”, “Russian world”, “civilizational space of Russia”. In this regard, the theoretical and legal concepts reflected in the speeches of the President of the Russian Federation V. V. Putin and His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia, other participants of the XXV World Russian People’s Council are analyzed. The author’s position is presented on a number of controversial issues in the format of history and theory of law.
