A Taxing Question for Human Rights: The European Court of Human Rights, the Value Added Tax, and the Russian Federation

2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vladimir Gritsenko
2021 ◽  
Vol 17 (8) ◽  
pp. 1433-1448
Author(s):  
Elena Yu. SIDOROVA ◽  
Aleksei A. ARTEM'EV

Subject. The article focuses on the value added tax in case of exports from the special economic zone in the Kaliningrad Oblast. Objectives. We study methodological aspects of VAT in case of exports from the special economic zone in the Kaliningrad Oblast. Methods. We conducted the content analysis of available sources. The comparative analysis helped confirm the reasonableness, reliability and the relevance of methodological guidelines for determining economically adequate tax implications in terms of VAT in case of exports from the special economic zone in the Kaliningrad Oblast. Results. Importing foreign goods into the special economic zone of the Kaliningrad region and letting them pass the customs procedure of free economic zones, a Kaliningrad-registered legal entity was found to exempt from customs payments, including VAT as part of customs payments under the above procedure. Being transported to elsewhere in the EAEU, any goods in the free economic zone should be treated as foreign goods, unless their status as the EAEU goods is corroborated with documents. The effective tax and customs regulations provide for VAT to be paid on imports into the Russian Federation, including as part of customs payments, and subsequently VAT on the sale of goods in the Russian Federation. VAT on imports, inter alia, as part of customs payments is subject to tax deductions as per Articles 171, 172 of the Russian Tax Code. Conclusions and Relevance. The taxation mechanism herein is identical to that applying to exports from the free economic zone to elsewhere in the customs area of the EAEU if there were not tax clauses envisaged in Federal Law № 72-ФЗ. Hence, the above clauses seem reasonable to be excluded.


2021 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. 30-34
Author(s):  
Artem R. Nobel ◽  

The presumption of innocence is defined as one of the key principles of proceedings on the cases of administrative offenses. Using the current legislation, the legal positions of the highest courts of the Russian Federation and the European Court of Human Rights, judicial practice, the author reveals the essence of the presumption of innocence by highlighting the elements of this principle and characterizing their content.


2021 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 39-42
Author(s):  
Artem R. Nobel ◽  

The essence of the principle of one-time administrative responsibility is considered, its concept and proposals for improving the provisions of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation are formulated. The conclusions are based on the provisions of the legislation on administrative offenses, the legal positions of the highest courts of the Russian Federation, the European Court of Human Rights, a comparative analysis of the current criminal and criminal procedure legislation. The operation of the principle non bis in idem in proceedings on the cases of administrative offenses is revealed by highlighting the material and procedural elements that make up its content.


Author(s):  
Butler William E

This chapter explores the role of Soviet and post-Soviet Russian courts in interpreting and applying international treaties. It is clear that Soviet courts dealt more frequently with treaties than the scanty published judicial practice of that period suggests. This early body of treaties may also have contributed to the emergence in the early 1960s of priority being accorded to Soviet treaties insofar as they contained rules providing otherwise than Soviet legislation. Whatever the volume of cases involving treaties that were considered by Soviet courts prior to 1991, the inclusion of Article 15(4) in the 1993 Russian Constitution transformed the situation. A further transformation occurred when the Russian Federation acceded to the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and began to participate in the deliberations of the European Court for Human Rights in Strasbourg.


2018 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 307
Author(s):  
Olga E. SHISHKINA ◽  
Olga V. HABIBULINA ◽  
Aleksandr F. REKHOVSKIY

Recently, there has been a substantial increase in the number of judgments delivered by the European Court of Human Rights with regard to the Russian Federation on the complaints filed by Russian citizens, including the complaints related to the liability for administrative offences. The characteristic tendency of the European Court of Human Rights to qualify administrative offences as criminal acts not only brings into focus the issue of ensuring procedural safeguards for individuals charged with administrative offences but also touches upon material aspects of the relation between criminal and administrative law-breaking in Russia as well as changes the traditional juristic view upon the essence of the legislation on administrative offence. Political and economic reforms of Perestroika and the first post-Soviet decade had a significant influence on the institution of administrative justice. Hence, on the one hand, its current state is caused by objective reasons. On the other hand, the legislator, having quite a broad discretion in determining whether to impose administrative or criminal sanctions in each particular case, has seriously blurred the material boundary between criminal and administrative offences. The problem of present-day legislation on administrative offences in Russia is a material hypertrophy of administrative liability together with continuous reduction of procedural safeguards and guarantees for individuals charged with administrative offences. The procedural norms of the existing Code of Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation cannot provide for the adversarial nature of the administrative trial due to the fact that the Code of Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation is not methodologically aimed at regulating administrative (judicial) proceedings.


2015 ◽  
Vol 10 (6) ◽  
pp. 169-174
Author(s):  
Болотин ◽  
Vladimir Bolotin ◽  
Паньков ◽  
Sergey Pankov

In the article the need of reasonable restriction of human rights and freedoms in modern conditions of increase of various threats for the constitutional system of Russia is shown; the results of modern research in this area, as well as the position of the European Court of Human Rights, the Constitutional Court of Russia, Supreme Court of the Russian Federation are revealed. Defined The system of restrictions, acting legal instrument for the protection of the constitutional order, the conditions and criteria for the limitation of rights and freedoms .


2016 ◽  
Vol 41 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 396-426
Author(s):  
Mariya Riekkinen

A series of protests across Russia, triggered by procedural violations during the 2011 parliamentary elections and results of the 2012 presidential elections, culminated on 6 May 2012 with a demonstration at Bolotnaia Square in Moscow. That demonstration led to violent clashes between protesters and the police. The dispersal of this demonstration and the subsequent criminal and administrative trials conducted against some of the protesters, as well as the controversy regarding the severity of some of the penalties imposed by the courts, became known as the Bolotnoe Affair. The Bolotnoe Affair is analyzed from the perspective of implementing the right to freedom of assembly in Russia. The main goal is to conduct a contextual legal analysis clarifying whether the right to freedom of assembly is adequately implemented in the legal order of the Russian Federation, in order to illustrate whether the protesters in the Bolotnoe Affair were able to express their opinions with regard to the procedure and results of the elections. The leading court cases relevant to the participatory rights of the protesters as exemplified by the appellate decisions of the Moscow City Court will also be examined. In particular, twelve decisions of the Moscow City Court during the period 2012–2014 (full texts of which are reproduced in publicly available legal databases) are reviewed, as well as two recent judgments in European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) cases closely related to these earlier cases. Analyzing the Moscow City Court decisions vis-à-vis the judgments of the ECtHR, the author concludes that the Moscow City Court’s rulings did not conform with the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights (echr) regarding the right to freedom of assembly and the right to liberty.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document