No 2 (2023)

This paper considers some issues related to the amendments made to the Constitution of the Russian Federation in 2020, in particular, the introduction of the “federal territory” structure into the text of this act and the subsequent adoption of the Federal Law “On the Federal Territory “Sirius”. The importance of the study is caused by the novelty of the concerned category for domestic legislation, as well as the debatable and even inconsistent discussion of its various aspects in the scientific literature. The federal territory “Sirius” by the very fact of its existence creates the basis for further research in the field of interaction between the elements of the system of state and municipal government, the construction and functioning of public authority. The author analyzes some issues concerning the general characteristics of the “federal territory” concept, the status of the federal territory “Sirius”, the organization of the system of public authorities within this public legal entity. The study touches on the scientific discussion regarding the assessment of the federal territory legal nature: should it be understood as an independent territorial unit, which, along with the subjects of the Russian Federation, is a part of the state, or should it be considered as an integral part of the territory of a subject of the Russian Federation? Moreover, the author pays attention to the ambiguity in determining the place of public authorities of the federal territory (in relation to the federal territory “Sirius”) in the system of authorities in the Russian Federation as a whole. It is emphasized that it is early to say how successful the new form will be, moreover, during or following the results of the transition period provided for by the Federal Law “On the Federal Territory “Sirius”, significant adjustments to the status of this territorial entity are possible.

The paper deals with the problem of qualification and artificial division of a single administrative offense related to the presence of a debt to the public utilities suppliers by a managing company amounting double average monthly accrual when implementing the entrepreneurial activities on the management of apartment buildings with a gross violation of license requirements. The paper reveals the elements of administrative offense provided by part 3 of Art. 14.1.3 of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses. The author pays the particular attention to the analysis of small, but critically important judicial practice. Often the positions of regional courts contradict the positions of the RF Supreme Court and the general principles of administrative law. A problem of artificial division of a single offense into several independent ones was identified, since the disposition of part 3 of Art. 14.1.3 of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses is formulated inaccurately. Failure to fulfill the obligation for timely mutual settlements with a resource supplying organization may be erroneously qualified as several offenses, depending on the number of suppliers to whom the debt arose, and depending on the period of occurrence of such debt. Such an approach to law enforcement is found among the prosecution and housing supervision authorities. This problem leads to the repeated application of administrative punishment, when a single offense is qualified as several. The study identified general regularities in the approaches of superior courts, starting from the cassation level. These regularities allow determining the more precise conditions for qualifying gross violations of license requirements in the sphere of housing and utilities infrastructure in accordance with part 3 of Article 14.1.3 of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses.

The object of the study is a set of legal relations arising between a consumer and an entrepreneur, within which the abuse of the right by a weaker party of such legal relations is possible. The subject of the study is the norms of civil legislation enshrining the rights of participants in legal relations in this sphere. In the context of protecting the right, the authors investigate the legal categories forming the basis of legal relations with the consumer’s participation. The ambiguity of the interpretation of civil legislation applied in practice determines the expediency of a deep comprehensive theoretical study of the ways of abuse of the right by consumers. The work indicates that, despite the fact that a consumer should not have special knowledge when purchasing a particular product or service some requirements for reasonableness and conscientiousness are still imposed on consumer behavior. The analysis of judicial practice allowed concluding that consumer’s unfair behavior can serve as a basis for refusing to protect his or her rights, which was repeatedly pointed out in court rulings. The authors identified six groups of ways of abuse of the right by a consumer and presented the ways to solve the problems caused by their spread. In particular, the authors propose to unify the legislation on the system of quality of products manufactured by entrepreneurs through the creation of a single document defining the parameters of its quality. The authors consider it necessary to bring Article 10 of the RF Civil Code in line with the current reality, as it has not been edited for more than ten years.