This article examines the issue of increasing local budget revenues as a necessary condition for improving the efficiency of municipalities in the Russian Federation. In most municipalities in our country, their own tax and non-tax revenues constitute a small portion of local budget revenues, which is explained by the relatively high degree of centralization of the domestic financial system. Local taxes and the standard deductions from the corresponding federal and regional taxes received by lower-level budgets cannot ensure the complete self-sufficiency of local self-government. Moreover, existing financial resources are sufficient, at best, only to "plug holes," while the issue of a development budget remains unaddressed. There is an urgent need to reformat the entire system of financial support for the competence of municipal government, which requires a fundamentally different methodological approach. The subject of this scientific study necessitated an examination of current federal legislation, as well as the practice of its application, in order to identify a set of problems in the context of the effective financial support for the implementation of local self-government powers. Furthermore, scientific works by Russian and foreign authors touching on various aspects of the problem under consideration are analyzed. The methodological basis for the study included logical, formal-legal, comparative-legal, analytical, and systemic approaches. Clearly, municipalities should have their own comprehensive tax and non-tax sources of local budget revenue. This includes increasing (or establishing) the standards for deducting certain federal taxes (personal income tax, corporate tax, etc.); making such taxes as the mineral extraction tax, etc., local. It is also necessary to develop differentiated standards and methods for calculating the amount of subsidies to equalize the budgetary capacity of municipalities, taking into account their type, population size, climate, remoteness, and transportation accessibility.

The article considers the problem of administrative responsibility of arbitration managers in the context of modern legislation of the Russian Federation. The main attention is paid to the analysis of the objective side of the corpus delicti of an administrative offense provided by parts 3 and 3.1 of article 14.13 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation. The study is conditioned by the growing number of bankruptcy cases and the increasing number of administrative offenses related to illegal actions of arbitration managers. The purpose of the article is to analyze court practice and identify typical errors and problems in law enforcement. The empirical basis of the study were the decisions of arbitration courts posted in the program complex “Electronic Justice” for the period 2014-2025. Scientific novelty lies in the comprehensive analysis of judicial practice of application of the above norms, which was not previously the subject of a detailed study. The research methodology includes analysis of normative legal acts, study of judicial practice and comparative legal method. The article considers specific court decisions revealing trends and problems in law enforcement. Special attention is paid to the analysis of the objective side of administrative offenses, which allows to reveal the specifics of qualification of wrongful acts in bankruptcy. Practical significance of the research consists in the possibility of using its results to improve law enforcement practice and development of recommendations to improve the legislation in the field of administrative responsibility of arbitration managers. The analysis of judicial practice allows to identify typical errors and gaps in law enforcement, which contributes to improving the effectiveness of control over the activities of arbitration managers and reducing the number of offenses in this area. The article also considers the principles of fairness and legality in the distribution of the debtor's property, which are an integral part of the object of administrative offense. Violation of these principles by an insolvency practitioner, resulting in the infliction of major damage, forms the corpus delicti of this offense. Judicial practice consistently applies these principles in qualifying the actions of trustees. An analysis of court decisions suggests that courts do not always take due care in making decisions on disputes under consideration. For example, in some cases courts recognize the actions of managers as unlawful on the basis of formal features, while in other cases evidence of intent or recklessness is required. This indicates the need for further improvement of legislation and law enforcement practice in this area. 

This article provides a comprehensive legal analysis of the institution of Commissioners for the Protection of Entrepreneurs’ Rights (the institution of business protection), which has been operating in the Russian Federation for more than ten years. The establishment of this institution was primarily driven by the need to support entrepreneurs who frequently encountered unjustified administrative barriers, excessive bureaucratic pressure, corrupt practices by officials, unlawful corporate raiding, and unlawful criminal prosecution. Today, this institution constitutes a fully established specialized humanrights mechanism operating at both federal and regional levels and serving as an important state guarantee of citizens’ constitutional right to freely use their abilities and property for entrepreneurial activity. Entrepreneurs may submit appeals (complaints, applications, proposals) to representatives of the business protection institution, which are promptly reviewed in accordance with Federal Law No. 78-FZ of 7 May 2013 “On Commissioners for the Protection of Entrepreneurs’ Rights in the Russian Federation.” In exercising their competence, Commissioners interact with various state authorities and local self-government bodies, as well as with plenipotentiary representatives of the President of the Russian Federation in federal districts and other officials. Practice shows that the existing legal framework governing federal and regional business ombudsmen is not yet sufficiently developed and requires certain adjustments. The author summarizes the results achieved by this human-rights institution in protecting entrepreneurs’ rights and legitimate interests, describes mechanisms for exercising ombudsmen’s powers, identifies regulatory gaps concerning their status, and formulates substantiated proposals for improving current legislation.Particular attention is paid to the legal status of the Commissioner for the Protection of Entrepreneurs’ Rights in the Omsk Region and to the individualized results of the regional institution’s activities. 

The Federal Constitutional Law of 21 July 1994 No. 1-FKZ “On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation,” while establishing the legal force of decisions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, does not provide a definitive answer to the question whether such decisions may be regarded as sources of law and, if so, to which type of sources they should be attributed. In a historical context, the article reviews the principal approaches to the legal nature of decisions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation. Using criminal procedure legislation as an example, the authors examine the role of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation in the formation of legislation. Rulings of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation that declared provisions of criminal procedure legislation unconstitutional in whole or in part are divided into two groups: (1) rulings on the basis of and in accordance with which federal laws were subsequently adopted in implementation of the instructions contained therein (the majority of rulings); and (2) rulings that operate directly because no federal laws were adopted for the purpose of their implementation (a minority of rulings). Analysis of these two groups makes it possible to reveal the dual legal nature of decisions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation and to demonstrate that acts adopted by this body cannot be attributed to any of the officially recognized “classical” sources of law. The article substantiates the conclusion that rulings of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation declaring legislative provisions unconstitutional constitute independent, unique sources of law that partially possess features characteristic of such sources of law as judicial precedent and a normative legal act. Although the study analyzes only acts of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation affecting criminal procedure relations, the conclusions reached are equally applicable to all branches of law. The study employs methods of analysis and synthesis, as well as formal-legal, comparative-legal and statistical methods. 

This article examines the legal regulation of quantum communications in the financial sector, which is viewed as a priority area for ensuring information security and the resilience of the national economy. It is noted that the rapid development of quantum computing is fundamentally altering the balance in the field of cybersecurity: in the foreseeable future, traditional cryptographic mechanisms may lose their robustness, creating risks for the functioning of the national payment system, the stability of credit and financial institutions, and public trust in financial transactions. In these circumstances, quantum key distribution (QKD) and post-quantum algorithms become key instruments capable of ensuring a fundamentally new level of information protection and of shaping a sustainable architecture of digital security. The methodological basis of the study consists of comparative legal analysis and a comparison of foreign regulatory practices (the European Union, Singapore, China and Brazil) with Russian strategic instruments and pilot initiatives. International experience shows that the implementation of quantum communications is pursued through inclusion in strategic programmes, development of standards, creation of “regulatory sandboxes,” and support for pilot projects. Particular attention is given to the need to harmonise national approaches and to develop international agreements capable of eliminating regulatory fragmentation. A domestic model of legal regulation is taking shape in Russia: concepts and roadmaps through 2030 have been approved; preliminary national standards (PNST 829–832) have been adopted; the GOST R 57580.x series is being developed; quantum cryptography tools are being certified; and pilot projects are being implemented with the participation of major financial organisations. At the same time, the study identifies barriers hindering further development—fragmentation of the regulatory framework, complex procurement procedures, and insufficient institutional coordination among the state, business and the academic community. Priority areas are proposed, including institutionalisation of experimental legal regimes, establishment of permanent expert platforms, expansion of pilot-project practice, harmonisation of national rules with international initiatives, and development of a national quantum communications infrastructure. The article concludes that consolidation of legal, organisational and technical measures will strengthen technological sovereignty and ensure long-term protection of the financial system against quantum threats. 

This article addresses problematic aspects of collective bargaining as the principal form of social partnership. It is noted that the linguistic meaning of the term, which emphasises communication between multiple actors, does not allow identification of specific characteristics that would differentiate opinion-exchange procedures either by the manner of their organisation, the specifics of the negotiation process itself, or the outcomes of such exchanges. In light of established practice of social cooperation and the variety of forms of communication between representatives of its participants, the negotiation process is considered as a procedure for exchanging views between actors expressing different interests, aimed at reaching a joint agreement regarding regulation of social and labour relations. The article emphasises the distinction between negotiations and other forms of social cooperation—namely, the initial focus on adopting a joint decision and the legal nature of the act that concludes the opinion-exchange procedure between the parties: a normative agreement referred to in international law by the general term “collective agreement.” The orientation of the negotiation process toward reaching agreement on regulating social and labour relations presupposes stricter requirements for the representativeness of persons participating in negotiations. This is expressed in rules on the priority participation of representative workers’ and employers’ organisations. This does not infringe the rights of minority trade unions, whose representatives may also participate in collective bargaining together with representatives of organisations representing the majority of workers. The view is expressed that, in modern conditions, it is reasonable to use electronic means of communication when conducting collective bargaining. At the same time, in order to protect information constituting a legally protected secret, stricter requirements are needed for ensuring the security of communications. The article also cautions against certain proposals to modify collective bargaining requirements—specifically, proposals to fix a list of possible breaches of the principle of good faith in collective bargaining, to establish a minimum set of issues that must be resolved in the course of negotiations, and to require a single annual nationwide bargaining campaign for concluding collective agreements and other agreements. 

The article advances the idea that proceedings in cases of administrative offences in courts of general jurisdiction form part of a broader procedural phenomenon that encompasses judicial authorisation of measures of administrative coercion for administrative delicts. The author proposes to designate this phenomenon as administrative delict proceedings. At present, this sphere is unjustifiably divided among three competing bodies of rules: the Code of Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation, the Code of Administrative Procedure of the Russian Federation, and the Arbitration (Commercial) Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. This situation complicates the administration of justice and creates a need for guiding clarifications for judges. The author proposes a third codification of administrative offence legislation by removing from the Code of Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation and the Arbitration (Commercial) Procedure Code of the Russian Federation the rules regulating this judicial activity and consolidating them in a standalone federal law “On Administrative Delict Proceedings.” Its subject matter should cover the following types of proceedings in courts of general jurisdiction and commercial courts: (1) cases of administrative offences; (2) resolution of certain procedural issues in administrative offence cases pending before non-judicial bodies; and (3) adoption of certain procedural response measures relating to administrative delicts outside the framework of administrative offence case proceedings. Administrative delict proceedings should be elevated to the status of a type of judicial proceedings within which administrative delict law is implemented, equivalent to the forms of justice enshrined in the Constitution of the Russian Federation. This innovation should be built on a specially developed procedural model—an administrative delict procedural form. It should envisage the court’s determination of the truth in the case under conditions of adversarial process and equality of the parties—the administrative prosecution authority and the person subject to administrative prosecution. The procedural model should also provide for an acquittal decision in an administrative offence case. 

In Russian law today, various viewpoints exist regarding the legal effect of challenging a debtor’s transactions in insolvency. According to one approach, the effect does not differ from challenging a transaction on the grounds provided by the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and is absolute, or “in rem.” According to another approach, the consequence of challenging a transaction is the debtor’s counterparty’s obligation to compensate the loss caused by the transaction to the bankruptcy estate. This position is known as the obligational theory; in Russian doctrine it is also referred to as relative contestation or relative invalidity. The article analyses problematic issues of the theory and practice of challenging a debtor’s transactions in bankruptcy through the prism of the construct of relative invalidity, drawing on comparative legal experience. In examining the theoretical foundations in the “parent” legal order—here, German law—the author notes that the so-called obligational theory lacks strict dogmatic foundations and represents a doctrinal response to practical challenges. At the same time, the theory is not without shortcomings; therefore, in recent years the liability theory has gained increasing relevance in German law, enabling avoidance of difficulties that the obligational theory addresses less successfully. When analysing practical issues in Russian law, the author concludes that paragraph 2 of Article 174.1 and paragraph 5 of Article 334 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation constitute effective tools for achieving balanced outcomes in practice, contrary to the approach taken by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. Moreover, the construct embodied in these provisions, when properly understood, reflects the German liability theory within Russian law. Given that lower courts have, in effect, already introduced the construct of relative invalidity of transactions into practice, the author proposes taking German doctrinal developments into account for the purpose of resolving practical problems in Russian law. 

This study is devoted to fundamental issues of safeguarding state sovereignty. The research addresses questions of legal regulation of the very category of “state sovereignty” and the principles of state sovereignty in a separate federal constitutional law, as well as issues of forming a reliable system for ensuring state sovereignty, which includes, as a basic element, criminal-law protection of the external security of the Russian Federation. The article examines contemporary threats to the security of the State arising from external encroachments, such as espionage, state treason, cooperation by citizens with foreign intelligence services, recruitment of stateless persons and foreign nationals present in the territory of the Russian Federation for activities directed against Russia’s security, information warfare, political pressure (including the use of economic sanctions), influence through international organisations, and the like. Attention is drawn to the implementation by foreign states of comprehensive “colour revolution” programmes in post-Soviet countries (Georgia, Ukraine, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova), as well as attempts to organise such programmes in Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan. The article emphasises a shift in the contemporary vector of interference in the internal affairs of states—from overt “colour revolutions” to more complex and covert activity by foreign agents aimed at undermining the foundations of the constitutional order and national security. Amendments to Russian criminal legislation are analysed with respect to improving certain offences (Articles 275 and 276 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) and criminalising particular socially dangerous acts (Articles 275.1, 276.1, 284.2 and 284.3 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) aimed at protecting the State from external threats. Proposals are formulated to enhance the level of criminal-law protection of the external security of the Russian State, in particular by expanding the disposition of Article 205.6 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and legislatively establishing citizens’ duty to report crimes falling under Articles 275, 275.1, 276 and 276.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. This, the authors argue, would improve the effectiveness of detecting, preventing and suppressing crimes of this category.The conclusions on the legislative consolidation of state sovereignty principles and the proposals for improving Article 205.6 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation are intended to contribute to more reliable safeguarding of the state sovereignty of the Russian Federation and its protection from external threats, including through criminal-law measures. 

Studies addressing the profile of illegal hunters were published predominantly in the first decade of the 21st century and—apart from the works of V. S. Ishigeev, A. Ya. Bondar and I. V. Lavigina—have not been associated with the study of judicial practice in the Far Eastern and Siberian Federal Districts. The subject matter of this study comprises documents containing information on the identity of an illegal hunter: statistical reports of the Judicial Department under the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation for 2011–2024; regional reports of judicial departments of certain regions of the Far Eastern and Siberian Federal Districts; and court decisions of the said federal districts in criminal cases concerning illegal hunting. The purpose of the study is to identify dominant traits characterising persons brought to criminal liability under Article 258 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in the Far Eastern and Siberian Federal Districts. The study finds that the illegal hunter in these districts is typically a male citizen of the Russian Federation permanently residing at the location of the illegal hunt or in nearby areas, aged 30 to 49, liable for military service, with secondary general or secondary vocational education, employed or having steady income, married with children, without a criminal record and not previously subject to administrative liability, not registered with psychoneurological or narcological clinics, and generally positively characterised. Certain regional differences in quantitative indicators, as compared with nationwide averages, are attributable to landscape factors (climate, terrain, vegetation, snow cover depth, etc.), demographic factors (e.g., population density), and socio-economic factors (underdeveloped infrastructure, internal migration, employment structure, etc.) of the Far East and Siberia. The profile of the illegal hunter corresponds to the profile of a person not previously brought to criminal liability in the Russian Federation. In the author’s view, this may complicate preventive efforts, since the illegal hunter does not appear to be socially deviant. 

The offence under Article 200.5 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (“Bribery of a contract service employee, contract manager, or member of a procurement commission”) is a relatively new provision of Russian criminal law. The disposition of Article 200.5 is blanket in nature; therefore, when qualifying the offence it is necessary to refer to rules of civil and budget law, which significantly complicates the process. To date, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation has not issued interpretative guidance to ensure uniform application of this provision. As a result, law-enforcement authorities encounter difficulties in qualifying acts involving bribery of contract service employees, contract managers, and members of procurement commissions. These difficulties include issues related to the scope of social relations protected by criminal law—namely, the concept of “procurement of goods, works and services for state and municipal needs,” the relationship between the contract system and corporate procurement, and procurement carried out under direct civil-law contracts. Judicial practice is also still developing. Between 2018 and 2024, 194 offences were registered; courts examined 87 criminal cases and convicted 43 persons. Examination of court decisions reveals a tendency toward an expansive interpretation of procurement procedures for state and municipal needs, which is associated with the need for criminal-law protection of the State’s interests where special subjects commit bribery in relation to various types of procurement. Based on analysis of the legislative approach to regulating the contract system in the Russian Federation in the sphere of procurement of goods, works and services for state and municipal needs, as well as corporate procurement by entities involved in implementing the interests of the Russian Federation, and based on judicial practice on imposing criminal liability for bribery by special subjects in the procurement sphere, the article proposes measures aimed at strengthening protection of the State’s interests.