The article deals with the peculiarities of constitutional and legal regulation of ownership relations in the Republic of Belarus at the present stage, the process of implementation of state policy in respect of denationalization and privatization of state-owned property. The author’s definition of ownership is given. Stages of the privatization process are defined. At the first stage (1991–1993) the state pursued largely fiscal aims by receiving non-tax revenues. The second stage (1994–2008) was characterised by the country’s transition to a market economy, an increase in the share of private property, and an increase in business ownership. The third period (2008 — present) is characterised by the active development of stock market instruments, which are shares of reformed enterprises. Both positive results and problems in the reform of state ownership are highlighted.

As a result of a very little body of academic research on the influence of judicial discretion on civil justice, there is the question if judicial discretion should be an important component of civil justice reforms. The question is crucial, as there are still many forces against discretionary justice and little attention to comprehensive study the phenomenon of judicial discretion. The paper provides answers three questions: Why discretionary justice? Why the development of comparatve discretionary justice? Why through mindfulness and quantum theory? We pay attention on interconnections of problems of different branches of law and on an interdisciplinary context. This article is designed to explore the problem of discretionary justice in a new and innovative way. We intend to create a space of reflection and communication where salient questions of discretionary justice and its context(s) can be re-negotiated from a variety of disciplinary perspectives, and re-connected with other disciplins. It is designed to enhance a re-location of the essay of discretionary justice among other sciences and can thus allow to develop innovative research agendas in multidisciplinary constellations beyond just a legal focus. Here we use , inter alia, “The judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in the civil procedure of the Russian Federation” of A.R. Sultanov,“Helgoland” of Italian physicist Carlo Rovelli, coming out in September 2020

A defendant’s claim of cash on hand is commonly referred to as a cash hoard defense1. A typical cash hoard defense asserts that the defendant in earlier years received money from such sources as gifts from family members or friends, or an inheritance, which he or she then spent during the prosecution period2. George Kleinman’s trial hinged on a cash hoard. In U.S. v. Kleinman, the trial proceeded as to Count Two which charges that in 1950 Kleinman filed a false and fraudulent joint income tax return on behalf of himself and his wife for the calendar year 1949, wherein it was stated that their net income for that calendar year was $6,141.69, and that the amount of tax due thereon was $621.12, whereas the defendant knew that their net income for that calendar year was $20,225.46, upon which there was owing to the United States an income tax of $3,955.783.

The Convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms and the decisions of the European Court of human rights are an integral part of the Russian legal system and are taken into account by the legislator when regulating public relations and by law enforcement agencies when applying the relevant legal norms. The Russian Federation consists of entities where it is possible to establish their own constitutional (statutory) courts. In the Republic of Tatarstan and 14 other regions, such courts have been established. The article provides statistics on their application of the European court of human rights rulings, as well as the provisions of the European Convention, as well as the most frequently applied rulings and provisions. In addition, the article notes some decisions of the constitutional court of the Republic of Tatarstan, in which the provisions of the Convention and the practice of the European court of human rights contributed to the protection of human rights.

This article is a review of the V International Scientific and Practical Convention of Undergraduate and Graduate Students “Topical Issues of Russian Federalism: Retrospective Approach and Current State”.

The history of the event as well as individual contributions are disclosed. It also mentions the representatives of various educational institutions who attended the event and worthily presented their law schools on the platform of one of the oldest universities in Russia — Kazan University. In particular, the overview reflects the information about the winners in each section — the branch of law that took place within the framework of the conference

The article also notes that the event was timed to coincide with the 100th anniversary of the Tatar Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, whose legal successor can now be called the Republic of Tatarstan. This fact and this anniversary date determined the choice of the theme of the event and consideration of the issues of federalism.