Pravovedenie https://pravovedenie.spbu.ru/ <p>Founded in 1957, “Pravovedenie” (until 2018 know as “Proceedings of Higher Educational Institutions. Pravovedenie”) is one of the oldest and most authoritative academic&nbsp;peer-reviewed legal journals in Russia.</p> en-US <p>Articles of "Pravovedenie" are open access distributed under the terms of the <a title="License Agreement" href="https://vestnik-journals.spbu.ru/s21/about/submissions#LicenseAgreement" target="_blank" rel="noopener">License Agreement</a> with Saint Petersburg State University, which permits to the authors unrestricted distribution and self-archiving free of charge.</p> pravovedenie@spbu.ru (Белов Сергей Александрович / Belov Sergey) pravovedenie@spbu.ru (Романовская Валерия Вадимовна / Romanovskaya Valeria) Fri, 04 Dec 2020 13:40:05 +0300 OJS 3.1.2.4 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss 60 Guest editor`s note https://pravovedenie.spbu.ru/article/view/9849 Elena V. Babkina Copyright (c) 2020 Elena V. Babkina https://pravovedenie.spbu.ru/article/view/9849 Thu, 03 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0300 Protection against competition law violations: Opportunities for compensation for damages in the Eurasian Economic Union and the European Union https://pravovedenie.spbu.ru/article/view/9851 <p>The article analyzes current legal regulations in the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) and European Union (EU) governing protection against integrated entities’ violations of their respective competition laws. The issues of the policies implemented in this area in accordance with EAEU law, the correlation of national and supranational regulation and their application (including the principle of non bis in idem), and the delimitation of the competence of national and EAEU bodies in this area are clarified in light of the provisions of the Treaty on the Eurasian Economic Union (EEC) of May 29, 2014 and advisory opinions of the Court of the Eurasian Economic Union (of April 4, 2017; of December 17, 2018; of June 18, 2019). The absence of a legal ground for “private enforcement” of the EAEU competition laws, including its most important element — compensation for losses — is noted. In this regard, the authors analyze the experience of the European Union in this sphere, which is reflected in the Directive 2014/104/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of November 26, 2014 on certain rules governing actions for damages under national law for infringements of the competition law provisions of the member states and of the European Union. Its key provisions are considered in sufficient detail. Based on the results of the research undertaken, it is concluded that it is necessary to empower the Eurasian Economic Commission in the EAEU Treaty to calculate the damages caused by the infringements of the EAEU Treaty competition rules that have or may have a negative effect on competition in cross-border markets in the territories of two or more EAEU member states. In order to implement this, it is also proposed to vest the EEC with the competence to approve the procedure of recovery and methodology of calculating these damages. According to the authors, the development of such a procedure requires the study, inter alia, of the mentioned EU experience.</p> Elena V. Babkina, Natalia G. Maskayeva Copyright (c) 2020 Elena V. Babkina, Natalia G.Maskayeva https://pravovedenie.spbu.ru/article/view/9851 Thu, 03 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0300 Implementation of acts of the Eurasian Economic Union in Belarusian legislation https://pravovedenie.spbu.ru/article/view/9852 <p>Currently, international organizations are increasingly making binding decisions on member states. At the same time, unlike the implementation of international treaties, the mechanism for implementing acts of international organizations is poorly regulated in national law, including the Republic of Belarus. The Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), established in January 2015, is empowered to adopt obligatory acts, some of which should be directly applied on the territory of EAEU member states. As a result, the traditional mechanisms for the implementation of acts of international organizations at the national level are no longer sufficient and require detailed legal regulation. The article reveals the legal basis for the implementation of acts of the Eurasian Economic Union in Belarus’ legal system. The work examines the status, types and specifics of acts adopted by the EAEU bodies, identifies the characteristic features of the implementation of these acts at the national level and specifies applicable terminology. In particular, special attention is paid to the legality of the use of terms “implementation” and “actualization” concerning the transfer of norms of the EAEU acts to the national legislation of its member states. The article considers the possibility of implementing obligatory acts of international organizations, especially those, which are supposed to be directly applied at the national level. Emphasis is placed on identifying the existence of an obligation to implement obligatory decisions of the EAEU Commission as well as their implementation in the Republic of Belarus. Based on the study, it was demonstrated that the majority of obligatory acts of the EAEU are implemented in Belarus by means of different types of references. The article also identifies the place of the<br>EAEU acts in the hierarchy of legal acts of the Republic of Belarus.</p> Alena F. Douhan Copyright (c) 2020 Alena F. Douhan https://pravovedenie.spbu.ru/article/view/9852 Thu, 03 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0300 Regulation of public procurement under the Eurasian Economic Union law and ways of convergence of national procurement legislation https://pravovedenie.spbu.ru/article/view/9853 <p>Russian procurement regulation exists not merely by itself, but also in the framework of the formation of unified approaches to procurement regulation within the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU). These approaches today are based on a common methodology, although national laws of each state demonstrate various options for implementation. The integration processes affected by the creation of the EAEU also influence public procurement. The formation of a single economic space and unified procurement market as economic bases cannot exist without bringing the national legislation of EAEU member states on public procurement to uniform standards. The trend towards unification and harmonization of procurement legislation in the EAEU member countries requires the creation of a unified market for public procurement of the EAEU to ensure unhindered access to procurements, which will make it possible to expand sales markets under economic pressure from sanctioned non-tariff barriers. This article addresses some of the issues related to public procurement in EAEU member states in light of the functioning procurement systems. The authors make an attempt to reveal some of the main features of the public procurement system based on an analysis of the main legislative acts of the EAEU member countries. The main positive trends in harmonization of the EAEU procurement legislation are described taking into account previous experience. Ways to solve problems are proposed as a result of a comparative analysis of the legislation governing the procurement process in the EAEU member countries. The study also reveals the problems of legal regulation of the supranational level of procurement legislation that impede the effective achievement of the objectives of economic integration and the formation of a unified market for public procurement. The article is an attempt to comprehensively analyze the procurement legislation of the EAEU countries, taking into account the requirements of supranational legislation that is designed to ensure uniformity of legal models for the formation of a procurement system for state customers.</p> Dmitry A. Kazantsev, Natalya А. Mikhaleva Copyright (c) 2020 Dmitry A.Kazantsev, Natalya А.Mikhaleva https://pravovedenie.spbu.ru/article/view/9853 Thu, 03 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0300 Challenging international treaties before the Court of the Eurasian Economic Union: Theoretical analysis https://pravovedenie.spbu.ru/article/view/9855 <p>The article provides a theoretical analysis of the provisions of the law of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) applicable to challenging international treaties concluded within the framework of the Union before the Court of the EAEU.The author identifies certain contradictory aspects in the law governing this category of cases that are due to the cumulative legal nature of the acts submitted for judicial review, the subject of the dispute and its disputants (parties). It is argued that the Union’s exercise of its international legal capacity to conclude treaties may give rise to several questions that require legal assessment, including whether the object and purpose of an international treaty are lawful, the expression of will by the Union is valid, and whether the observance of the conclusion procedure is complied with. In this regard, the author critically assesses the lack of competence of the EAEU Court to review international treaties made by the Union with third states, their integration associations, and international organizations. By referring to the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the author demonstrates that judicial control plays a significant role in assessing questions of competence and substance with respect to the exercise of legal capacity to conclude treaties by an integration association. The author puts forward and substantiates the proposal to reform the existing competence of the Court of the EAEU to settle disputes on the conformity of international treaties within the Union to the EAEU Treaty and replace it with the competence to carry out an optional preliminary review of international treaties within the Union and international treaties with third parties to assess their compliance with the EAEU Treaty. It is suggested that member states and bodies of the EAEU, that are engaged in concluding a treaty, should have the right to address the Court of the EAEU with a request to conduct a review. If implemented, the proposal will expand the scope of judicial control beyond international treaties within the Union to also include international treaties with third parties. This will positively impact the stability of the Eurasian legal order.</p> Denis G. Kolos Copyright (c) 2020 Denis G.Kolos https://pravovedenie.spbu.ru/article/view/9855 Thu, 03 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0300 Problems and prospects of the circulation of biomedical cell products in the Eurasian Economic Union https://pravovedenie.spbu.ru/article/view/9856 <p>Biomedicine has a great integration potential according to regulatory acts in the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU). Moreover, one of the most relevant areas in modern biomedicine is regenerative personalized medicine using biomedical cell products. The article discusses various approaches to the legal regulation of the circulation of biomedical cellular products in the EAEU — a national and integration approach. As part of the study of the national approach, the author compares the current legislation of Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Russia, while also identifying similar and different features. There is a common licensing procedure for conducting activities on the circulation of biomedical cell products, an increased degree of quality control, efficiency and safety, taking into account the ethical side of the issue, and emphasis on respect for human rights. The differences lie in the formal legal aspects, a heterogeneous understanding of the nature and content of biomedical cell products. The integration approach is illustrated by regulatory acts adopted at the EAEU level; their shortcomings are highlighted. Only import and export issues are adequately resolved from the entire life cycle of biomedical cell products at the EAEU level. However, there are no standards for a single market for cell products. For comparison, the author refers to the experience of the European Union in regulating the circulation of cell-based products and focuses on free movement, a centralized registration procedure, ethical requirements, and good clinical practice. According to the results of the article, the author identifies such basic problems of legal regulation as the lack of unification of the conceptual items, registration procedures, and procedures for applying to patients. Solving these problems will allow the market for biomedical cell products to grow rapidly and provide a qualitative breakthrough in the treatment and prevention of diseases. It is proposed to establish either a mechanism for verifying biomedical cellular products in the territory of the EAEU member countries in order to simplify registration procedures or create a unified registration procedure. The global goal is to develop a single standard for the<br>legal regulation of the circulation of not only cellular products, but also all advanced medical devices in general.</p> Evgeniya A. Sharkovskaya Copyright (c) 2020 Evgeniya A. Sharkovskaya https://pravovedenie.spbu.ru/article/view/9856 Thu, 03 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0300 Borders of states’ jurisdiction in regard to international commercial arbitration https://pravovedenie.spbu.ru/article/view/9857 <p>The article is devoted to the problem of binding the arbitral proceedings to the place’s legislation where they are held. This binding, which was justified in the doctrine through the postulates of legal positivism in the first quarter of the 20th century and implemented in the first international treaties related to international commercial arbitration, has now lost its practical significance and creates many difficulties for all participants of arbitration. For many decades, there has been a steady trend towards the separation of international commercial arbitration into a special autonomous legal order, which is expressed both in the doctrinal theory of the delocalization of international commercial arbitration and in the legislation of states pursuing a friendly policy. The author considers some of the problems that arise from the existence of binding the arbitral proceedings to the laws of the place where it is held, conducts a historical and legal analysis of the origin and development of this binding, and analyzes the existing concepts about<br>the nature of international commercial arbitration institution where the need of binding the arbitration to a particular state jurisdiction, or the absence of such a need, are substantiated. Basing on a detailed review of the individual components of the dispute procedure in international<br>commercial arbitration, the existing manifestations of its autonomy, as well as the problems of the institutions for contesting, recognizing and enforcing arbitral awards, the author draws conclusions about the possibility of refusing to bind arbitration proceedings to the jurisdiction of the place where it is held, and also suggests possible ways to implement such a refusal.</p> Evgenii E. Evseev Copyright (c) 2020 Evgenii E. Evseev https://pravovedenie.spbu.ru/article/view/9857 Thu, 03 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0300 The admissibility of improperly obtained evidence: The universality of the problem and the diversity of approaches to solving it https://pravovedenie.spbu.ru/article/view/9850 <p>The article focuses on the issue of acknowledging inadmissible evidence obtained in violation of the law. According to the authors, this issue can be encountered, in one way or another, in any procedural system (both at the national and international levels). In this regard, the authors substantiate the relevance and ambivalence of the issue for the Russian criminal proceedings. Also, the authors use the scientific works of scholars belonging to the Soviet, early post-Soviet and modern periods of the development of Russian criminal proceedings, as well as materials of judicial practice from various years in order to demonstrate the evolution of approaches to the solution of the topic. In order to demonstrate universality of the issue, the authors analyze, in a comparative legal sense, the approaches of leading foreign procedural systems. It is concluded that there is a tendency that foreign legal systems are searching for the recognition criteria of evidence obtained in violation of the law to achieve a balance between the two areas of criminal procedural policy: ‘due process of law’ and ‘crime control’. Usually, the violation of human rights committed in obtaining evidence per se does not entail the finding of such evidence as unacceptable. The authors focus on the same issue, but in the scope of international criminal justice which combines the approaches of both the investigative (inquisitorial) and the accusatory (adversary) criminal procedure traditions. It is indicated that the bodies of international criminal justice (in particular, the International Criminal Court), when forming their position on the issue under consideration, are guided in many respects by the law enforcement practices of international bodies for the protection of human rights (primarily, the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights). The authors conclude that it is possible to use the criteria for the inadmissibility of evidence specified in the Rome Statute and the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights for Russian criminal proceedings due to the transitional nature of the criteria.</p> Pavel P. Stepanov, Gleb E. Besedin Copyright (c) 2020 Pavel P. Stepanov, Gleb E. Besedin https://pravovedenie.spbu.ru/article/view/9850 Thu, 03 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0300