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.

Keywords: separation of state property, res extra commercium, public assets, exclusive state property, public domains, public property, privatisation, public administration, public functions, property law

Abstract: The object of this research consists in the peculiarities of accounting catching of marine biological resources. Russian Federation controls the marine biological resources on the continental shelf and in the exclusive economic zone by licensing individuals and companies for usage thereof. The main issue explored here lies in the absence of legal mechanisms allowing verifiably establishing the fact, after which the catch of marine bioresources and fish or other derivative products can be considered illegally obtained (caught). The questions of improvement of legislation in the area of accounting for caught marine bioresources are justified by the growing number of violations in the area of protection of biological resources and the need for establishing active control in this sphere. The author notes that the main cause for UUU (unlawful, unreported, unregulated) fishing lies in the flaws of the normative-legislative base that would regulate the order of accounting of the catch. The existing accounting mechanisms for marine biological resources being caught does not allow timely intervention in the illegal fishing, which causes significant damages to the economic and other interests of the Russian Federation.

Keywords: state control, economic interests, damage, judicial practice, fishing, administrative offense, marine biological resources, border authorities, catch, exclusive economic zone

Abstract: The relevance of this scientific article is substantiated by the process of reform of the administrative procedural legislation of the Russian Federation. The goal of this work is to determine the place of procedure in the cases of administrative offenses within the system of administrative law. The author studies approaches towards the understanding of the system of administrative law, and explores the main perspectives on the definition of the administrative process, its structure and the place within for the procedure on cases of administrative offenses. The work also deals with the question of the correlation of administrative proceedings and procedure on cases of administrative offenses. A conclusion is made that in both the procedure on cases of administrative offenses is a part of administrative proceedings. A proposal is made on improving the administrative procedural legislation in order to ensure clarity in the question of correlation of “administrative proceedings” and “procedure in the cases of administrative offenses” by passing a codified legislation with highlighting separate chapters in the special part for judicial and non-judicial authorities with a unified common part.

Keywords: administrative jurisdiction, division of the authorities, judicial and administrative case, administrative proceedings, institute of of law, administrative process, branch of law, administrative law system, reforming of the legislation, administrative production

Abstract: The subject of this research is the earlier and currently active norms of administrative legislation regulating the concept of legal offense as well as scientific literature devoted to this topic and statistical data on administrative offenses from the Russian case law. The author analyzes the essence of the signs of administrative offenses. The importance of this topic is substantiated the fact that the concept of legal offense is one of the main categories of the administrative law of the Russian Federation. Analysis is conducted on the various approaches of scholars in administrative law towards definition of this concept. The novelty of this research is defined by the importance of clear definition of the concept of administrative offense due to introduction of the New Code on Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation into public discourse. Considering the sign of public danger of an administrative offense, the author proposes formulating Article 2.1 of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses in the following way: “Administrative offense is a committed punishable action or inaction of a private or legal entity, posing public danger, and carries administrative liability established by this Code or a law of a subject of the Russian Federation”.

Keywords: harm, public danger, crime, administrative offense, the concept of an offense, administrative legislation, signs of an administrative offense, bill, administrative responsibility, tort

Abstract: The object of this research is the legal relations emerging in the process of protection of the rights of an undetermined circle of people in a court by competent officials from the prosecutor’s office of the Russian Federation. The subject of this research is the sum of norms regulating prosecutorial participation in a civil proceeding for protection of rights of an undetermined circle of people, as well as theoretical and practical aspects of using legal means of the prosecutor in this sphere. It is determined that there are still instances in the process of prosecutorial participation in civil cases of erroneous interpretation of the “undetermined circle of people” by the subjects of law enforcement, which impedes the process of protection of the rights and freedoms of the undetermined circle of people by the Russian authorities. In the process of analyzing the rulings for 2019, the author outlines the qualifications for the undetermined circle of people, provides examples of improper interpretation of the concept of “undetermined circle of people” by the courts, and describes unequivocal typical statements of claim submitted by prosecutors in defense of undetermined circles of people, and cites mistakes made by authorized staff of the prosecutor’s office during filing.

Keywords: non-oversight of the prosecutor, civil process, statement of claim, form of participation of the prosecutor, prosecutor's office, statement of claim of the prosecutor, legal means of the prosecutor, an indefinite circle of persons, court prosecutor, administrative process