The pre-Petrine period (10th–17th centuries) played a crucial role in the formation of the categories of the church theft and sacrilege as punishable offenses in Russian law. Incorporation of extensive normative materials both of state and canonical nature, as well as an overview of the development of the offenses under consideration over eight centuries, leads to understanding the law-maker’s rationale in regulating liability for the commission of the church theft and sacrilege. The author concludes that legal landmarks of the pre-Mongol period contain provisions concerning the church theft, though not its formal definition. Nonetheless, these texts characterize the church theft as a form of misappropriation and as a qualified theft. Another distinctive feature of the law of this period is an underdeveloped concept of res divini iuris (things of divine law), known in Roman and Byzantine law, or its analogues. Although, substantively, the protection of items comparable to those considered as res divini iuris constitutes the main object of the crime of the church theft and aims entirely at their material preservation, the law-maker failed to define the scope of these categories precisely. That tendency persisted throughout the 13th to 17th centuries as well. At the same time, during this period, the law-maker envisaged the death penalty for the church theft, whereas other forms of theft were subject to recidivism penalties. In the course of the 17th-century codification and adoption of the Sobornoye Ulozheniye, the law-maker classified the church theft as a property crime, distinguishing it from other religious offenses. Sacrilege as a punishable act first appears in the 16th-century ecclesiastical authorities’ decrees that interpreted the rules of the Holy Apostles; however, from the 10th to the 17th centuries, sacrilege was not mentioned as a crime in state law. Therefore, it can be argued that throughout the period under examination, sacrilege neither supplanted nor succeeded the church theft: for an extended time, both offenses developed in parallel and independently of one another. 

The paper examines the problem of the essence of the modern State in the context of justifying new approaches to the assessment of this category in legal science. Understanding philosophical categories of the essence and content in relation to the phenomena of the State and law was an important direction of Soviet theoretical jurisprudence. At the turn of the 20thџ21st centuries, the trend changed: dialectical-materialistic understanding of the essence of the State was actively criticized for its unambiguity, dogmatism and irrelevance for modern democratic regimes. Thus, the problem of studying the essence of the State lost its significance due to the absolute dominance of the ideology of «sociality» of the State. Nevertheless, under the influence of the international political situation against the background of a new round of competition between ideological and political-legal teachings of Russia and the West, the problem of understanding the essence of the State has again become relevant, but its understanding in the manner characteristic of the postmodern paradigm is often based not on methods of scientific knowledge, but on ethical, moral and ideology of the authors. In this regard, the author analyzes the current state of the theory of the essence of the State, gives the basic concepts of the essence of the modern State: class, general social, axiological, integrative characteristics. Based on formal logic, the author argues in favor of the failure of teachings providing for the possibility of combining the class and general social properties of the State. The author attempts to critically comprehend an integrative understanding of the essence of the State. The author examines the general philosophical meaning of the category «essence of the phenomenon», proposes a methodology for assessing the essence of the State, taking into account the dialectical development of this political and legal institution, and highlights the changes in the form and content of the State in different historical periods.

The paper is devoted to the analysis of amendments to the Constitution of the Russian Federation made in 2020 through the prism of the ideology of conservatism. The author elucidates the reasons for the consolidation of the liberal doctrine in the 1993 Constitution of the Russian Federation and its limitations in the conditions of modern Russian civilization. The Constitution of the Russian Federation of 1993 laid down a liberal project for the state and law development of Russia that was based on the postulates of freedom, without taking into account the conservative concept characteristic of our country. The paper explains the strengths and weaknesses of the ideology of conservatism and demonstrates the significance of traditional values that have been consolidated in constitutional law rules. Russian conservatism that formed as ideology at the beginning of the 19th century, was based on the ideas of continuity of the historical development of Russia as a civilization state. These ideas reflected those features of our state that made it different from Western civilization. The paper proves that these legal norms cannot be referred to the declarative norms of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, since they are included in the current legislation. Changes in the Constitution of the Russian Federation strengthened its conservative principles while maintaining its liberal model. The author concluded that liberal and conservative ideologies, despite being competing, are mutually complementary in the Constitution of the Russian Federation, since their cumulative application allows us to overcome the limitations and shortcomings of each of the models.

The paper elucidates peculiarities of enforcement of creditors’ joint claims and subsequent recourse claims arising between creditors. Based on domestic and foreign scholarship and Russian judicial practice, the paper determines two main models for the implementation of joint claims. The author concludes that the model of a single joint claim and the model of multiplicity of joint claims, except for theoretical differences, are designed to protect different legal values. These values are associated either with the interest of the debtor in achieving predictability of his legal position and debtor’s protection against increasing disputes with his participation, or with the interest of creditors in exercising their rights independently. The approach in favor of the priority of the creditor who files a claim first developed in judicial practice results in an unjustified termination of the rights of joint creditors and makes it necessary to change this situation in favor of ensuring the access of joint creditors to gaining recovery from the debtor. The relevance of the study is predetermined by insufficient regulation of relations involving joint creditors, which leads to the lack of predictable judicial practice in applying the rules and limiting the legal capabilities of participants in multiplicity of persons on the side of the creditor.

The paper examines the problems of jurisdiction of courts in administrative cases arising when legal entities carry out activities directly related to their commercial activity. The author justifies the conclusion that Article 30.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation contradicts Arts. 46, 47 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. Despite the fact that the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation made attempts to fill the gap, on the basis of specific examples the author concludes that the problem of delimitation of jurisdiction between arbitrazh courts and courts of general jurisdiction for considering claims brought by legal entities against decisions of administrative bodies still exists and an ordinary interpretation of the norms of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation in their systematic relationship with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, Administrative Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, decisions of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 24 March 2005 No. 5, the Review of Judicial Practice dated 24 December 2014 (approved by Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation) does not comply with the norms of the Constitution of the Russian Federation and fundamental international legal acts in the field of ensuring the right to judicial protection.

The paper demonstrates theoretical and practical significance of inactivity of trial participants involved in providing evidence in civil procedure. The relevance of the issue is predetermined by the fact that in the legal periodicals there is an increase in the number of proposals to impose fines on persons participating in the trial, if they demonstrate procedural inactivity in civil cases dealt with in courts of general jurisdiction, since, in their opinion, inactivity reduces the effectiveness of the trial. However, as the author shows, the problem lies in a more harmonious implementation of the principles of adversarial civil proceedings, primarily the disposition principle, in court’s practice. The paper provides judicial practice demonstrating the variety of procedural situations related to the legal consequences of the procedural inactivity of the parties. The author refers to judicial statistics, which also does not confirm the relevance of proposals for the introduction of fines for persons involved in the case. The author concludes that it is necessary to preserve the current legal regime of adversarial and dispositive civil proceedings, which allows for the procedural inactivity of the participants involved in the procedure of providing evidence.

In recent years, a traditional idea of corporate governance has undergone significant changes in Russian jurisprudence. Normative corporate governance models have lost their universal character and special regimes for the exercise of corporate rights have been formed in certain sectors of the country’s economy. The «pure» management models of business entities (American, European, Japanese, etc.) have also changed not because of an arbitrary mixture of effective elements (management tools) of individual models, but because of objective and situational factors of an economic, legal, geopolitical and other nature. The paper demonstrates the transformation of «corporate values» in the industrial entities in the field of the military-industrial complex, within the framework of which the share capital allows creating vertically and horizontally complex integrated structures, taking into account the interests and objectives of the State. The author focuses on functionality and significance of the directive model of managing business entities with the participation of public legal entities. The paper provides an overview of corporate disclosure regulations. The author highlights the impact of the change in the paradigms under consideration on judicial practice.

The author carried out a comprehensive analysis of offers made by the two largest marketplaces on the Russian market, namely, «Ozon» and «Wildberries». The relevance of the problem is due to the following factors. Currently, marketplaces act as a kind of a driver, locomotive of the development of the domestic economy, creating jobs, giving a huge number of small, medium-sized and individual enterprises an opportunity to develop. At the same time, despite a widespread and active interaction with marketplaces of tens of millions of Russian citizens, their activities remain, by and large, beyond the framework of comprehensive legal regulation, and they largely do not fall under the close attention of the Russian law and order. Interaction of sites with citizens and sellers is carried out primarily on the basis of their own agreements — offers that often provide marketplaces with a wide scope for abuse of rights and contain a number of controversial provisions. The paper discusses the key terms and conditions of contracts of «Ozon» and «Wildberries» with vendors and sellers, and evaluates them taking into account the provisions of Russian law, relevant judicial practice and the doctrine. 

Generative artificial intelligence (AI) is developing both qualitatively and quantitatively, offering new opportunities for creating various works, literary texts, images, musical compositions and even videos. Providing access to these creative tools raises new legal issues related to copyright protection of works generated by AI. Questions also arise regarding the distribution of copyright between individuals who are one way or another involved in the creation of such works, that is, in situations of co-authorship. A clear understanding of the concept of «creativity» in relation to AI-generated works is necessary, along with an analysis of the criteria for co-authorship between users and AI developers. The paper examines doctrinal and legislative approaches to the concept of «creativity» and attempts to justify the circumstances under which copyright protection should be granted to AI-generated works. The author explores different scenarios for granting copyright protection depending on the circumstances of a work’s creation. The author seeks to define what constitutes generative AI as opposed to the broader concept of artificial intelligence. In addressing this issue, the author also presents arguments against recognizing AI as an author of a work.

By virtue of the legal nature of the employment relationship, the employer possesses managerial authority, which includes the right to monitor employees’ performance of their job duties. Digitalization provides employers with new technologies for real-time monitoring (cameras, GPS trackers, biometric scanning, etc.). These technologies may lead to violations of privacy rights. Russian legislation lacks clear criteria for determining the legality of employer monitoring methods. An analysis of ECHR case law, enforcement practices and European Union legislation suggests at least the following criteria for assessing the legitimacy of employer monitoring: 1) legitimacy of the monitoring purpose; 2) suitability of the chosen means to achieve the monitoring objectives; 3) use of the least intrusive monitoring methods; 4) employee notification regarding the purposes, methods, and means of monitoring. These criteria can be applied in enforcement practice and further improvements to Russian labor legislation. 

The paper analyzes the judicial and investigative practice of applying Article 174.1, which was absent from the original version of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, as well as its prospects. Among the circumstances casting doubt on such prospects, the author highlights the very procedure of introducing Article 174.1 into the Criminal Code, which lacked any justification for its necessity in addition to Article 174, which establishes liability for the legalization (laundering) of funds or other property acquired by other persons through criminal means. The motives of the federal law drafters that supplemented the Criminal Code in 2001 with the analyzed article remain unclear, as do the goals of this addition.

The above-mentioned circumstances should include the inexplicable removal, after 12 years of practical application, of the exhaustive list of crimes from the original wording of Part 1 of Article 174.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which were not considered predicate offenses. The result of these experiments — first introducing and then repeatedly amending Article 174.1—has been its controversial or unjustified application. Despite multiple rulings by higher courts overturning unlawful verdicts of lower courts, Article 174.1 of the Criminal Code remains a kind of «club» in the hands of investigative bodies and prosecutors, and no individual who has committed a profit-driven or property-related crime is immune from its use. This conclusion is illustrated by an analysis of materials from two criminal cases for which the author provided expert opinions as a specialist.

 The author concludes that to ensure the rule of law, to prevent unjustified criminal prosecution, including of entrepreneurs, and to eliminate controversial procedural decisions by law enforcement and judicial bodies, Article 174.1 of the Criminal Code should be repealed. An alternative solution could be restoring the version of the article that was in force before 2013. 

The paper examines the challenges of ensuring the completeness of materials submitted to the court by investigative bodies in criminal proceedings, considering the competing principles of adversarial proceedings on one hand and publicity alongside investigative secrecy on the other. Problematic situations caused by imperfect legislation are revealed using examples of judicial precedents. Specific solutions to the identified problems are proposed, namely, the establishment at the legislative level of the obligation of the prosecution (the prosecutor and/or the investigative body) to provide evidence (materials) to the court specifically at the court hearing. The investigative body may provide the court with some materials in a restricted access mode, i.e., without granting access to all trial participants, including in the electronic form (via the Interdepartmental Electronic Interaction System (SIEI) for the judge’s exclusive review). This approach aligns with the evolving concept of the «electronic criminal case», long debated in legal scholarship. While this might initially appear to restrict the principles of publicity and adversarial proceedings, it would allow the court making a decision to properly assess the merits of motions, ensuring not only investigative secrecy but also the legality and validity of judicial decisions. Materials submitted confidentially could effectively supplement those presented openly. In addition, in order to study a number of issues, in particular the financial status of a participant in criminal proceedings, it would be very useful for the court to use software tools available to it, such as the software tools of the State Automated System «Justice» (PI SDP). Additionally, for certain matters, such as assessing the financial status of a trial participan, the court could leverage available digital tools, for example, State Automated System «Justice» (PI SDP), to request and obtain relevant case-related information.

Russian criminal procedure law does not explicitly require investigators to promptly disclose expert opinions to the suspect (accused) and their defense counsel upon receipt. At the same time, the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation lacks provisions allowing restrictions on the defense’s right to access such expert opinions. Both the defense and the prosecution may abuse their rights. The author argues that any restriction on the right of the accused to access an expert opinion should be permissible only by court order under Article 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. It is also necessary to provide guarantees to the defense to become familiar with the expert’s opinion as part of the preliminary investigation. The paper proposes amending Article 206 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation by introducing a new Part 3, which would permit restricting the accused and his defense attorney’s access to expert opinion solely by judicial authorization. The said court decision could set a specific timeframe for familiarization with the expert’s opinion, provided justified grounds exist.

The paper analyzes the dynamics of applying the basin approach in the Russian legal system to regulate legal relations in the field of water resource use and protection. It examines the application of the basin approach in shaping the legal regime of water bodies and the system of authorized bodies responsible for direct water management and protection. The influence of the basin principle on the structure of environmental prosecutor’s offices is also analyzed. The paper highlights the Schemes for the Integrated Use and Protection of Water Bodies (SKIOVO) as a key element of strategic planning for water management and the preservation of aquatic ecosystems. It further assesses the impact of basin councils on the development of such schemes and the water management situation in specific basins. However, the implementation of these schemes is deemed ineffective due to weak oversight mechanisms and the absence of prosecutors in basin councils. Based on the analysis of changes in the legal framework, the author concludes that the role of basin councils has weakened, their coordinating function has been effectively diminished, and SKIOVO no longer carries mandatory force. Additionally, there is no accountability for non-compliance with these schemes. Against the backdrop of declining water quality and shrinking reserves of clean freshwater, the paper emphasizes the importance of prosecutors obtaining information on the implementation of SKIOVO to take timely legal action and enforce judicial measures ensuring compliance. This includes monitoring the adoption of socioeconomic development and territorial planning documents in regions within the respective basin’s boundaries.

The article emphasizes that modern challenges require a revision of traditional approaches to the legal regulation of the technological sphere and the creation of flexible mechanisms capable of ensuring technological sovereignty without isolation from global progress. It highlights that the most important condition for achieving technological sovereignty is the training of qualified personnel capable of working in a digital economy. The transformation of the labor market, driven by automation and the emergence of new professions, necessitates a significant modernization of higher education and vocational training systems. In the legal field, this is reflected in the rise of new specializations and the need for lawyers to develop interdisciplinary competencies. The paper notes that ensuring Russia’s technological sovereignty requires a comprehensive approach to legal regulation, encompassing issues of scientific and technological development, personnel training, labor market modernization, and international cooperation.