Abstract: The subject of this research is the provisions of current environmental and civil legislation that establish the grounds, procedure and forms of compensation for damage caused to the environment. The article examines, generalizes and critically analyzes the practice of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, and arbitration courts on consideration of disputes related to the compensation for damage caused to the environment. Special attention is given to the decision of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation No.12-P of 06.02.2015 and the decree of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No.49 of 11.30.2017. The article employs the results of environmental legal and cognate scientific research. The conclusion is substantiated on the priority of the natural forms of compensation for damage caused to the environment; in the instance of full or maximum possible compensation, it requires taking prompt measures for the effective restoration of the damaged environment. The author it is substantiated that the questions of possibility for conducting recovery works, their volume and terms can be submitted to legal examination directly in the context of resolving a dispute on the compensation for damage caused to the environment (regardless of the development of recovery project at the pretrial stage). It is noted that such mechanism of proof gains special relevance in case if the time interval between the date of detection of pollution and prior to submission of a claim is insufficient for the development of recovery project through extrajudicial procedure.

Abstract: The subject of this research revolves the around the normative precepts pertaining to administrative responsibility of bankruptcy trustees (Part 2 and 3.1 of the Article 14.13 of the Code of Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation) in their systemic relation with other articles of the Code, regulatory norms of legislation on bankruptcy, as well as relevant provision of the legal doctrine. The author studies, generalizes and critically analyzes the vast case law of arbitration courts on the most important issues of administrative responsibility of bankruptcy trustees. The work employs the administrative practice of the Federal Service for State Registration, Cadastre and Cartography (Rosreestr). The conducted research allows making the following conclusions pertaining to administrative responsibility of bankruptcy trustees: 1) need for introduction of the concept of abuse of the right to initiate administrative prosecution of trustees; 2) impermissibility of the circumvention by the Rosreests authorities of the legislation on state control through the institution of administrative prosecution; 3) impermissibility of the frequently used extended interpretation of the Part 2 and 3.1 of the Article 14.13 of the Code of Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation; 4) reasonableness of clarification of the element of redundancy pertaining to the Part 3 .1 of the Article 14.13 of the Code of Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation; 5) fundamental impermissibility of the “mitigating requalification” of the act from the Part 3.1 to the Part 3 of the Article 14.13 of the Code of Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation. The conclusions are extrapolated to adjoining elements of administrative violations.  The author proposes consideration of the discovered general flaws of legal regulation in the context of work being conducted on preparation of the project of new Code of Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation.

Abstract: The subject of this research is the provisions of current legislation establishing the categories of the objects of exclusive public property and regulating their legal regime. The author explores, generalizes and critically analyzes the practice of arbitration courts on consideration of property disputes involving objects of exclusive public property. The topic in question is examined in the context of the foreign and Russian public trust doctrine. Particular attention is paid to the critical analysis of the Decree of Supreme Council of the Russian Federation of 12.27.1991 No.3020-1 and its practical implementation. The following conclusions were made: 1) the concept of exclusive property objects is similar to the category of public domains in Roman Law countries; 2) the Decree of Supreme Council of the Russian Federation of 12.27.1991 No.3020-1 cannot be used as a normative criterion for the objects of exclusive property; 3) the relevant list of categories of exclusive property objects has not yet been systematized. The author underlined the need for qualitative development and prompt passage of the federal law “On the State and Municipal Property”, which would establish the exhaustive list of the categories of objects attributed as the exclusive public property, as well as codify their legal regime, including inalienability from property of the corresponding public formation, and inapplicability of the statutes of limitation for protecting the right to property by public administration.

Abstract: The subject of the research is the provisions of the doctrine that relates to the right to public use as well as the effective Russian laws that regulate the legal regime at state and municipal units designated for public use. The author of the article examines such aspects of the public use right as: 1. development of the public use right as part of subjective public rights; 2. legal confirmation of the right by the positive law and how it is described by modern science; 3. actors; 4. contents; 5. relation to the obligations of public administration, etc. The research methods used by the author include systems analysis as a general method and special law, comparative law and historical law methods as special methods. As a result, the author concludes that the public use right is an independent and important kind of subjective public rights that have a number of legally relevant features: 1. it is unalienable; 2. it is a statutory subjective right; 3. the right covers state and municipal property that are inscribed into the public space and designated for public use; 4. the right arises when a property is prescribed for public use; 5. it is regulated mostly by the public law; 6. it has got an absolute nature; 7. the authorized person has got the plurality; 8. the content thereof is the self-action competences; 9. it is a limited proprietary right; 10. it remains effective in case of a new public owner; 11. the right is validated disregarding state registration of a property; 12. the right is intimately connected with the obligations to use the property duly; 13. the right is defended based on legal norms. 

Abstract: The subject of this research is the established doctrines of subjective public rights in its development pertaining to Russia, including stares of its formation of the corresponding teaching in the pre-revolution period, its crisis during the Soviet era, and its rebirth at the present stage. The author analyzes vast amount of literature on various branches of law, subjecting views of foreign and Russian lawyers (especially administrative law experts) to critical analysis. The author concludes that the subjective public rights represent one of the central institutions of modern public (administrative) law, which should be oriented towards the interests of private citizens and their protection within a democratic society and socially-oriented state. Further advancement of the doctrine of public subjective rights, as well as its subsequent instrumental and legal-technical level implementation into legislation and law enforcement, is held back by the so-called “administrational” approach, which continues to dominate the study of administrative law and must be overcome.

Abstract: The subject of this research is the positions of subjective public rights opposing the postulates of state administration doctrine. The authors subjects to criticism the “government-administration approach”, dominating the doctrine of administrative law starting with the Soviet era. Special attention is paid to the social legal analysis that formed within the doctrine of categorical row. In comparison to this, the author examines the concept and system of subjective public rights, in the context of which proposing a new outlook on the composition of the subject and the system of administrative law. A conclusion is made that state administration doctrine caused the most damage to the theory of subjective public rights. However, this doctrine plays a key role in the administrative law doctrine, having the potential for its development in the proper framework, since it provides not only positioning of private citizens as the central subjects in legal relations with public administration, but also the instrumental approach towards the analysis of such interaction, which is beneficial for legal practice and improvement of legislation.

Abstract: The subject of this research is the positions of subjective public rights opposing the postulates of state administration doctrine. The authors subjects to criticism the “government-administration approach”, dominating the doctrine of administrative law starting with the Soviet era. Special attention is paid to the social legal analysis that formed within the doctrine of categorical row. In comparison to this, the author examines the concept and system of subjective public rights, in the context of which proposing a new outlook on the composition of the subject and the system of administrative law. A conclusion is made that state administration doctrine caused the most damage to the theory of subjective public rights. However, this doctrine plays a key role in the administrative law doctrine, having the potential for its development in the proper framework, since it provides not only positioning of private citizens as the central subjects in legal relations with public administration, but also the instrumental approach towards the analysis of such interaction, which is beneficial for legal practice and improvement of legislation.

Abstract: The research subject is normative regulations about administrative responsibility of bankruptcy commissioners: blanket rules contained in the parts 3 and 3.1 of the article 14.13 of the Administrative Offences Code of the Russian Federation in their system interrelation with other provisions of the Code and regulative provisions of bankruptcy legislation. The author studies and generalizes legal positions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation and the vast judicial practice on the most important issues of administrative responsibility of bankruptcy commissioners. The author uses the set of methods of cognition used in the modern science, including the dialectical and materialistic method and the related general and specific scientific methods and general logical techniques (abstraction, analysis, synthesis, analogy, generalization, etc.). As a general scientific method, the author uses system analysis, as specific scientific methods – special-juridical and historical-juridical methods. The author substantiates the range of new changes in legislation on administrative responsibility of bankruptcy commissioners: 1) refusal of blanket composition of delictual rules and formalization of the system of compositions, which would properly differentiate offences and punishments for them; 2) formalization of alternative sanctions on all differentiated compositions of crimes or the possibility to impose punishments beyond the sanctions described in the provisions of the Special part of the Administrative Offences Code; 3) preservation of disqualification for gross and repeated infringements and infringements causing damage; 4) radical reduction of reasons for initiation of administrative procedures; 5) change of admissibility of cases. 

Abstract: The subject of this research is the legal standards of the Eurasian Economic Union that contain administrative requirements and procedures in different areas, as well as securing the status of authorities of the Union. The indicated provisions are examined from the perspective of correlation with the established system of the Russian administrative legislation and cooperation. Attention is given to the scientific-theoretical representations regarding the interrelation and cooperation of the international, integration and national law applicable to regulation of the administrative-legal relations. The author explores the relevant foreign experience on the example of the European Union. The following conclusions were made in the course of this research: 1) in the process of Eurasian integration, regulation of the substantial part of administrative and related public legal relations in economic sphere, including the administrative procedures of public administration and private actors, shifts from the national level towards the level of integration law; 2) the Eurasian Economic Commission has acquired the features of a distinct supranational body of public administration that enters into direct legal relations with the private actors; 3) the law of the Union observes the formation of “quasi-administrative responsibility” and “quasi-administrative justice”. The article is first to advance a hypothesis on the development of administrative law of the Eurasian Economic Union within the framework of the system of integration law.

Abstract: The article is devoted to the development of the institution of public services in the countries of the European Union and Russia. The author of the article analyzes contradictions and shortcomings of the Russian legislation in this sphere. Based on foreign experience, the author provides grounds for applying a broad approach to interpretation of public services and division of public services into economic and non-economic services. It is stated that the French concept of public services has been adopted in many continental governments. It is concluded that French and Germany have formulated alternative doctrines of mandatory public activities of their governments. The author also sresses out that state and municipal services include social services as well as administrative and legal decisions. It is noted how public units should ensure enforcement of this or that function. The author offers a broader classification and basic division of public services. At the end of the article it is concluded that public services of economic nature are provided by economic entities in a competitive environment and cover services of general effect while public services of non-economic nature cover administrative and social services.