Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation,Determination of October 3, 2002, No. 233-O

A group of members of the Public Chamber adopted a petition addressed to the parliament. It contains a proposal to improve the legislation in the sphere of countering extremist activity.     

Court Order No. 7, USSR Supreme Court Plenum,July 3, 1963

A decree of the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet of February 15, 1962, "On Increasing Responsibility for Attacks on the Life, Health, and Dignity of Militia and Volunteer Public-Order Personnel," established responsibility for malicious failure to obey a legal order or demand of militia and volunteer public-order personnel, for insulting them, for resistance to them, and for the use of force and threats against such persons. The decree also increased the criminal responsibility for attacks on the lives of militia and volunteer public-order personnel in conjunction with their official or volunteer duties in the maintenance of public order.     

Court Order No. 3, USSR Supreme Court Plenum,March 18, 1963

Having heard and discussed the reports of the Chairman of the RSFSR Supreme Court, Comrade L. N. Smirnov, the Chairman of the Lithuanian Supreme Court, Comrade A. L. Likas, and the Chairman of the Criminal College of the USSR Supreme Court, Comrade G. Z. Anashkin, on the fulfillment by the judiciary of the USSR Supreme Court Plenum's Order No. 6 of September 12, 1961, and having examined materials summarizing the practice of the courts in cases involving antisocial parasitic elements, the Plenum of the USSR Supreme Court takes note that the judiciary of the RSFSR, Lithuania and other union republics have recently somewhat improved their consideration of such cases, and have begun to apply more correctly the legislation on intensifying the struggle against persons refraining from socially useful labor and engaging in an antisocial and parasitic way of life.     

对最高人民法院20号指导案例的思考

最高人民法院20号指导案例打开了研究若干专利细节问题的大门:(1)当购销行为跨临时保护期时,是适用《专利法》第13条,还是适用第60条,取决于“销售”的完成时间.(2)后续实施行为是否为《专利法》允许,应考虑临时保护制度的目标宗旨.在临时保护期内许诺提供专利产品的售后服务,在专利授权后,能否继续提供售后服务,取决于售后服务是否构成再造.(3)实用新型专利权人放弃其专利权后,能否就弃权前的侵权行为主张权利,取决于主体的诉权是否仍然受保护.(4)如何界定专利善意侵权中的“善意”?在被告提交了合法来源证明并说明产品提供者的情况下,应推定为行为人不知道,除非另有证据证明.     

The Court Settles the Case!

The discussion of problems of legal defense, begun this year in the pages of LG, has produced a lively exchange of opinions and has touched on important questions of our criminal proceedings.     

海牙《选择法院协议公约》对国际商事仲裁的影响

历经十多年的艰苦努力,海牙《选择法院协议公约》终于缔结。公约的目的是制定一个公约从而使法院判决可以在全球范围内得到承认与执行,正如《纽约公约》之于国际商事仲裁一样。公约的缔结有利于该目标的实现,与此同时,该公约的缔结与生效,将会对国际商事仲裁造成相当的影响与冲击,因为该公约所产生的判决承认与执行的国际性效果,将使《纽约公约》对国际商事仲裁所形成的优势变得相当不明显。     

Judicial intervention of the DNA test (comment on decisions of the Second Chamber of the Supreme Court No. 501/2005, of April 19, 2005, and No. 1311/2005, of October 14, 2005)]

The controversy has been arisen by the Spanish Supreme Court in two recent judgments, as they clearly show the lack of a unique criterion in the Spanish jurisprudence when genetic data have to be analysed in the course of a criminal process, in order to identify a person. The DNA proof cannot be practised without judicial intervention under Spanish law.     

海牙《选择法院协议公约》之防御性机制研究

作为目标宏大的《民商事管辖权与判决公约》难产的情况下达成的最大共识的产物,《选择法院协议公约》包含了大量的排除公约适用的防御性条款,对此深入研究可以为我国批准和加入公约后更好地解决国际民事诉讼中管辖权的冲突,以及更好的保护我国的司法主权提供理论基础。     

Court Order No, 4, USSR Supreme Court Plenum,March 18, 1963

A review of the practice in recovering court expenditures [raskhody] in civil cases and court costs [izderzhki] in criminal cases has demonstrated that courts do not always observe the laws in effect with regard to this matter, that they commit significant errors. Frequently, in accepting the filing of suits and appeals in civil cases, courts do not exact payment of the state fee provided by law, or else they determine it inaccurately. They do not always take into consideration the fact that expenditures caused the court in connection with the trial and the state fee, from which a plaintiff has been exempted, are to be recovered from the respondent for the state in proportion to the satisfied portion of the claim in the suit. In violation of Article 45 of the RSFSR Code of Civil Procedure and the corresponding articles of the civil procedural codes of the other union republics, many courts do not demand that the parties make advance payment of the sums needed to meet the costs of calling witnesses and experts, as well as the expenditures involved in on-site examinations.     

Court Order No. 6 of the USSR Supreme Court Plenum,July 3, 1963 (Court Practice in Cases Involving Crimes by Minors)

The Communist Party and the Soviet government have always given major attention to the education of the rising generation for communism, and to eliminating neglect of minors and juvenile crime.     

No Judge,No Job! Court errors and the contingent labor contract

Judges are prone to error and misapprehension when they are verifying the facts of a legal case. We analyze the significance and scope of accurate court decisions and judicial error for labor contracting and identify the implications of these concepts on behavioral incentives and market outcomes. We find that imperfect judicial state verification and the diverging beliefs on a court ruling reduce the efficiency of contingent labor contracts and make them less effective in stipulating sufficient incentives for compliance. If increasing court accuracy in general is not feasible, the courts (and the legislator) should primarily mitigate type I errors. The common reversal of the burden of proof to the employer in labor laws reflects these insights. The model also indicates that the ability of judges to verify facts is a prerequisite for efficient law-making and contributes significantly to the economic role of courts.     

行政程序中间行为可诉性标准探讨——结合最高法院第69号指导案例的分析

最高法院第69号指导案例形式上提出了行政程序中间行为可诉性的新标准,但该标准并未改变行政行为成熟性的可诉性规则,秉持的仍然是行政程序中间行为原则上不可诉,只有对相对人权利义务产生实际影响的才可以纳入行政诉讼范围。实践中纷繁复杂的行政程序中间行为实践样态,需要结合个案把握该指导案例的适用标准,特别是该指导案例裁判要旨中的且字只具有强调意味,不能被其字面逻辑所迷惑,如此才能准确发挥该案例的指导价值。而且,第69号指导案例的实践意义远不仅仅在于明晰行政行为成熟性和可诉性的标准,更深远的价值在于引发诉讼类型化的进一步思考。     

Code of Administrative Court Proceedings of the Russian Federation of March 8, 2015 No. 21-FZ (as amended on July 3, 2016)

This issue contains the English-language translation of articles 208–365 (chapters 21–39) of the Code of Administrative Court Proceedings of the Russian Federation as amended on July 3, 2016.