Moscow University Law Bulletin. 2025. 3.

The problem of the implementation of generally recognized principles of the administration of justice in the procedural law of the Eurasian Economic Union is one of the most controversial both in the science of international law and in the activities of the EAEU Court. The Court’s practice has formed certain procedural and legal approaches, in which special attention is paid to universal principles of the administration of justice, in particular, such as legal certainty, the principle of legitimate expectations, and the right to judicial protection. These procedural principles formed the basis of the Court’s activities, including the acceptance of applications submitted to the Court. Currently, the legal criteria for the admissibility of applications have been developed. Conventionally, such criteria can be divided into two groups, conceptually differing in legal significance: for «litigation» and for «clarification of law». For the first group, the Court makes a decision, and for the second, it provides an advisory opinion. It is important to note that the interpretative function of the Court, manifested in the provision of an advisory opinion, has proved to be very effective and in demand, as evidenced not only by the statistics of applications to the Court for clarification of the law, but also by the growing role of advisory opinions in the law enforcement practice of the EAEU bodies. The established practice of the Court sufficiently implements the procedural principles of the administration of justice. At the same time, it is noted the importance of continuing the development of law enforcement practice for the implementation and observance of procedural principles in the legal system of the EAEU.

In this article, the authors study current issues of international cooperation between the EAEU member states and the BRICS countries. The issues of interstate interaction and prospects for the development of integration processes between the EAEU and the BRICS countries are considered. The enormous economic potential of the EAEU and the strengthening of its role in the post-Soviet space are noted. The authors also analyze the aforementioned interstate associations and note the prospects for strengthening integration interaction between the aforementioned associations in the context of geopolitical tensions and unilateral unfriendly measures imposed by Western countries against the Russian Federation and the Republic of Belarus. The special role of the Russian Federation in deepening integration interaction between the EAEU and the BRICS countries is pointed out. The authors note certain problems that hinder the deepening of integration processes in the EAEU. The importance of single energy resource markets within the EAEU is pointed out, and the legal regulation of the three energy markets and their key contradictions are considered. The legal framework of the union states the creation of all three single markets in the short term, but there are key contradictions for each of them. The importance of creating single financial development institutions for these associations and the prospects for interstate cooperation within these associations are noted.

The heads of state and government of the countries of the Eurasian Economic Union set new strategic goals for the creation of a common scientific and educational space of the EAEU to ensure the competitiveness of national economies in the international race for innovation leadership. Achieving these goals is impossible without creating an effective legal framework that removes barriers to joint innovation projects, stimulates and ensures technological progress. Based on this, the article attempts to identify gaps in the legal regulation of the scientific and technological development of the EAEU and its member states, to formulate and substantiate specific proposals that could make the Eurasian integration processes in the field of creation, implementation, commercialization and scaling of new technologies more effective. According to the authors, in the conditions of the EAEU, clear and coordinated regulation of industrial policy is the key to realizing the innovative potential of the Union, especially in terms of scientific and technological cooperation. It will eliminate the legal barriers that hinder joint innovative projects. With its help, it will be possible to carry out the long-overdue unification of terminology in the field of science and education on the basis of national legislation, as well as a revision of the interpretation of the principles of industrial policy, including the principle of nondiscrimination, in order to prioritize support for integration projects. Improving the legal regulation of various forms of public-private partnership will turn it into a highly profitable tool for technological cooperation. The critical consideration of the European Union’s experience in this area, conducted in the study, suggests, in particular, how to systematically review the legal status of Eurasian technology platforms in order to increase their efficiency. In general, the study helps clarify the importance of a supranational approach to creating favorable conditions for improving the competitiveness of member states’ economies in the global innovation environment, and the key regulatory imperatives characteristic of it.

The issues of retroactivity of legal norms are among the most controversial issues in both international and national law. As the current practice of States shows, they are increasingly concluding international treaties and adopting domestic regulations with retroactive application, thus exercising their sovereign right to respond adequately and quickly to changing social relations and regulate their economies. The decisions of the highest (constitutional) national courts, as well as international courts and tribunals, play a significant role in shaping doctrinal and practical approaches to solving this problem. The practice of international courts such as the ECHR and the Court of Justice of the European Union, investment arbitrations and national constitutional courts of a number of countries, including the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, shows a lack of consensus on the issue of retroactivity beyond the criminal law. This indicates the absence of such a universally recognized principle of law as a general prohibition of retroactivity, if such retroactivity leads to infringement of the rights of individuals, as well as a universally recognized customary rule of international law with the same content.

Taking into account and on the basis of a doctrinal analysis of the provisions of the Russian Constitution, the article examines the problem of the correlation or supremacy of legal norms, international or domestic, in the Russian legal system. It is proved that the Constitution has primacy over all sources of law in Russia. Only the ratified international treaties of the Russian Federation have supremacy over the norms of federal legislation (i. e. they have the quality of "supra-legality", but not "supra-constitutionality"). At the same time, the generally recognized principles and norms of international law, which have the force of international custom for Russia, do not have this quality of "supra-legality", since the status of such international customs is ignored in the Constitution of the Russian Federation. Due to the formal and logical interpretation of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the norms of Russian laws prevail over international customs. The hierarchy of general principles of law in the Russian legal system is determined by their origin: they are either contained in conventional or customary norms of international law, or are fixed in the legal system of Russia in the form of legal or subordinate acts. Decisions of international organizations that are binding on Russia by virtue of ratified international treaties of the Russian Federation have "supervisory" force in the Russian Federation to the extent that they do not contradict the foundations of the constitutional system of Russia.

The execution by EAEU private and public entities of extraterritorial unilateral restrictive measures taken by third countries against other countries of the Union very often gives rise to a conflict between the execution of foreign sanctions and the obligations arising from membership in the integration organisation. In this situation, a scientific and practical problem arises related to determining to what extent the actions of member states and private entities to restrict trade in goods and services with economic entities of other EAEU member states are compatible with the law of the EAEU, if such restrictions are result of introduction the unilateral extraterritorial sanctions by third countries. This problem became the subject of legal proceedings by the EAEU court within the framework of the advisory procedure. The court came to the conclusion that it is inadmissible to worsen the conditions of trade in services, including air transport services, compared to the regime in force on the date of entry into force of the Treaty on the EAEU. However, the judicial act does not contain any conclusions regarding the legality of the introduction of flight restrictions imposed by one member state against an airline from another member state. The author believes that in most cases, restrictions on trade in goods and services caused by the implementation of foreign sanctions are incompatible with Union law, both when they are introduced by Member States and by private entities. Since in the first case, the principles of the internal market are violated, and in the second case there is violation of general rules of competition.

This article examines the fundamentals of legal regulation of air transport within the framework of Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) as well as problems of legal regulation of flight safety and air traffic management within EAEU. It is noted that taking into account long experience of economic integration in other regions of the world at certain stage of such integration the States are confronted with issues of coordination of their policies in the field of transport, including air transport, and the establishment of its legal regime at the regional level, since successful implementation of single regional market of goods, services, capital and labor is hardly possible without development of transport networks and relevant infrastructure. Despite the fact that EAEU law sets good basis for liberalization of air transport and creation of common market of air transport services within EAEU, successful achievement of these goals depends upon resolving, as soon as possible, the following problems: (a) defining the legal form for liberalization of legal regulation of air services within EAEU; (b) setting the stages of liberalization of legal regulation of air services within EAEU, including stages of expansion of market access and elimination of other restrictions for commercial activities of airlines; (c) resolving the issues of possible change of ownership and control conditions in respect of EAEU air carriers for the purpose of application of "common interest" concept allowing market access for air carries "substantially owned and effectively controlled" by any EAEU Member State, its citizens or legal entities; (d) defining the extent, to which the legal regulation of flight safety and air traffic management are legally regulated within EAEU, as well as the forms of cooperation between EAEU and Interstate Aviation Committee.

This article demonstrates the practice of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on the example of some cases considered by it, which is related to the implementation of the law of the Eurasian Economic Union. In particular, this concerns cases of administrative offenses, as well as economic disputes. The article provides interpretive explanations from resolutions of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, containing explanations on issues of implementing the law of the said Union in the sphere of domestic relations. Attention is drawn to the measures taken by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation to bring the practice of the Court of the Union to the attention of judges and court staff. The practice of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation is not presented in the article exhaustively.

The concept of the metaverse, as a strategic vision for the development prospects of cyberspace, reflects the ambitious claims of virtual communities to establish a global digital rule based order. Global Digital Compact of 2024 demonstrates the UN's commitment to overcoming digital inequality and achieving the Sustainable Development Goals by involving multiple stakeholders in Internet governance. Non-governmental organizations and virtual communities are actively implementing emergent digital solutions and putting a wide range of human rights issues on the agenda of the world community. States, in turn, seek to protect their digital sovereignty, ensure legislative recognition and judicial protection of the digital rights of citizens. Constructive human rights discourse in cyberspace is developing thanks to the interaction of states and non-governmental organizations towards the universal recognition of digital rights. Calls by virtual communities for complete freedom of the Network from state institutions have gradually given way to declarations of the need for freedom from cybercrime and freedom to exercise intellectual and digital rights. Digital freedom, as a legal condition, requires the implementation of legal guarantees of fair competition in virtual markets, which at the level of transnational law is expressed in the recognition of special principles of cyber interaction. The UN assumes that many stakeholders in the digital environment strategically manage artificial intelligence there, but from the standpoint of transnational law, the formats of interaction between states and non-governmental organizations lead to the opposite: an increase in the influence of transnational corporations and the implementation of the extraterritorial jurisdiction of developed states in cyberspace.

Since the creation of the UN and the establishment of the provisions on the dignity and value of the human personality in its Charter, the individual has been in the field of view of international law, but, according to the classical approach, he is not its subject primarily due to his lack of the right to participate in the creation of the norms of international law. Meanwhile, the doctrinal perception of the status of the person in the interstate system has evolved significantly in recent times, and the gradual recognition of the role he or she plays in international law is becoming evident. The issue of international legal personality of private persons, which should include not only individuals (natural persons), but also legal entities and any non-state formations (associations, trade unions, non-profit organizations) requires special attention, especially in the context of developing integration legal orders, in which private persons are not only "objects" of legal relationships, but also rightful subjects. This conclusion can be drawn because in the law and order of integration associations there are not only vertical relations between private persons and the state, but also horizontal relations between private persons, also regulated by the law of the integration association. In this regard, the recognition of the legal personality of private persons in the legal orders of integration associations can be justified through the introduction of the term "local legal personality" of private persons in international law, which can be viewed from different angles — as a progressive development of the international legal order with an emphasis on the increasing inclusion of humanitarian values and principles and the primacy of international law (in this case, the law of the integration association) over domestic law, as well as at a simpler level in the form of direct regulation of the rights and obligations of individuals by international law and access to justice for those individuals.

The article is devoted to identifying and assessing the main results of the last year work of the new composition of the EAEU Court, which took office on January 1, 2024, comparing with the results of the Court's activities over the past decade, as well as with the results of the work of the first composition of the Court in the first year of its functioning. The author analyzed statistical data on the activities of the Court as of December 31, 2024 (received applications, applications accepted for proceedings, cases considered, judicial acts adopted (including their different types), the range of issues that became the subject of consideration, etc.) and concluded that the new judges have a significant workload already in the first year of their work. The focus is on the legal positions of the Court, formulated in its decisions (on dispute resolution cases) and advisory opinions (on clarification cases) on the issues of general principles and rules of competition, the functioning of the customs union in the EAEU, sanitary, veterinary-sanitary and quarantine phytosanitary measures, as well as labor relations in the Union bodies. The fact that the representatives of the new composition of the Court still lack uniformity in understanding and applying the EAEU law is established, as well as problematic aspects related to the formulation of dissenting opinions by judges when adopting judicial acts are identified.

This article examines the regulation of trade in services in the EAEU, as well as the phased formation of a single services market within the framework of the Treaty on the Eurasian Economic Union. The key stages, goals, and principles of creating a single services market are analyzed, including the conditions for the supply and receipt of services between the member states of the Eurasian Economic Union. Particular attention is paid to the harmonization of legislation in transport, financial policy, and energy. Since the establishment of the Eurasian Economic Union, significant progress has been achieved in creating a single services market and common markets in strategic sectors. Such regulation will accelerate the development of value chains. Particular attention must be paid to current trends in the development of trade in services, such as digitalization.

Despite the abundance of publications devoted to the EAEU legal order, the issues related to potential for confliction between the EAEU law and other branches of international law, in particular international investment law, remain insufficiently researched in the literature. The article highlights the risks of competing interpretations of the EAEU law carried out by both the EAEU Court and arbitral tribunals that settle disputes between investors from one EAEU member State and other members of the Union on the basis of EAEU law. This problem has shifted from a theoretical to a practical plane due to the appearance of the first investment arbitration awards interpreting the rules of the EAEU Treaty. This suggests that in the foreseeable future, the EAEU Court may find itself in a situation similar to the conflict between the CJEU and investment arbitration, which recently ended with the complete elimination of the possibility for arbitration of the so-called "intra-EU" disputes in the European Union legal order.

Within the framework of the common economic space of the EAEU, the elimination of violations of competition rules is carried out by five national antimonopoly authorities, as well as the Eurasian Economic Commission (EEC). The criteria and rules for determining the competence of each of these bodies, established in the Treaty on the EAEU and in national legislation, do not allow for unambiguous, prompt and unmistakable identification of the competent antimonopoly authority before the start of the investigation. The author analyzes the shortcomings of the concept of cross-border markets, as well as special conditions differentiated by types of violations that are used to establish the competence of the EEC to conduct an investigation, and also substantiates the fundamental impracticability of the procedure for justifying its own competence by the national antimonopoly authority, since it initially requires a reliable exclusion of the fact that the case of anticompetitive behavior under consideration is within the competence of the EEC. Based on the generalization of the shortcomings of the existing system for determining the competent authority, with the involvement of the practice of the European Union, the article provides recommendations for improving the criteria and procedure for determining the competence of the EEC and national antimonopoly authorities: the need for criteria for determining the competent authority based on the signs of a possible violation, as well as from publicly available information about the potential violator and the relevant market is substantiated. In addition, instead of the existing one, a procedure for the joint establishment of competent authority is proposed, which will make it possible to avoid disputes about the competence and jurisdiction of cases. Within the framework of the common economic space of the EAEU, the elimination of violations of competition rules is carried out by five national antimonopoly authorities, as well as the Eurasian Economic Commission (EEC). The criteria and rules for determining the competence of each of these bodies, established in the Treaty on the EAEU and in national legislation, do not allow for unambiguous, prompt and unmistakable identification of the competent antimonopoly authority before the start of the investigation. The author analyzes the shortcomings of the concept of cross-border markets, as well as special conditions differentiated by types of violations that are used to establish the competence of the EEC to conduct an investigation, and also substantiates the fundamental impracticability of the procedure for justifying its own competence by the national antimonopoly authority, since it initially requires a reliable exclusion of the fact that the case of anticompetitive behavior under consideration is within the competence of the EEC. Based on the generalization of the shortcomings of the existing system for determining the competent authority, with the involvement of the practice of the European Union, the article provides recommendations for improving the criteria and procedure for determining the competence of the EEC and national antimonopoly authorities: the need for criteria for determining the competent authority based on the signs of a possible violation, as well as from publicly available information about the potential violator and the relevant market is substantiated. In addition, instead of the existing one, a procedure for the joint establishment of competent authority is proposed, which will make it possible to avoid disputes about the competence and jurisdiction of cases.

There remains a doctrinal debate about the current position of the Papacy in international law. The key issue on which scholars have not reached consensus is whether the names 'the Roman See' ('the Apostolic See', 'the Holy See') and 'the Vatican City State' ('the Vatican City') denote two distinct subjects of international law under the ruling of Supreme Pontiff, or whether they are synonymous with the same separate political entity (or denote the relationship of part and whole with respect to such the entity). As the practice of the participation of the Roman See and the Vatican City in bilateral and multilateral international treaties demonstrates, each of these entities is recognised as a separate party to the agreement, it concludes. The Apostolic See and Vatican City are separate units with international obligations and responsibilities. Both entities may sometimes be parties to the same trilateral and multilateral agreements. Since Vatican City does not have a foreign policy department for 'organisational economy reasons', in most cases, international treaties are signed 'in its name and on its behalf' by representatives of the Secretariat of State of the Roman See. Thus, the 'dualistic' concept of the international legal personality of the Apostolic See and the Vatican City State most accurately defines the state of affairs in inter-State practice.

One of the legitimate exceptions to WTO rules, which allow its members to deviate from fulfilling their WTO obligations, are security exceptions. To date, there are no unified theoretical and practical approaches to the interpretation and application of security exceptions. However, it is precisely the lack of legal certainty regarding this group of exceptions that leads to abuse by some WTO members, who broadly interpret the legal categories of "essential security interests" and "the existence of extraordinary circumstances in international relations." The approaches of the WTO LFS arbitration panel in trade disputes, in which security exceptions were considered, could be used to form a relatively uniform practice of interpreting and applying security exceptions. However, in subsequent trade disputes, the conclusions of the WTO LFS arbitration panel demonstrated the existence of legal uncertainty regarding the interpretation and application of security exceptions. Such a situation does not allow WTO members, including the Russian Federation, to predict WTO LFS decisions regarding the prospects of challenging unilateral restrictive measures imposed for reasons of national security. In this regard, the filing of a complaint by the Russian Federation to the WTO LFS will become possible after the formation of a relatively uniform practice of interpretation and application of exceptions for security reasons.

The article draws attention to the impact of changes in the size of the territory of the state and the social structure of society on the organization of state unity. It is proved that changes in the organization of the fight against local robberies occurred gradually and not simultaneously throughout the state. The restriction of the privileges of large patrimonial officials (serving princes) in the field of the court went hand in hand with the creation of local institutions for the implementation of the court for serious crimes, and the powers of this court were transferred from the breadwinners/kormlenshchiks appointed by the Grand Duke (later tsar) elected by the population. Along the way, attention is drawn to the high level of literacy of the local population of cities and municipalities, the elected ones of which conducted record-keeping on crimes, and then, from the middle of the XVI century, on fiscal matters. Attention is drawn to the fact that the combination of the central and local apparatus since the beginning of the XVII century was based not only on the sad experience of the Time of Troubles/Smutnoe vremya, but also took into account the need to change the management of places due to the sharply increased territory of the state, which objectively required increased centralization. It is emphasized that by the beginning of the XVII century a central bureaucratic management apparatus has already been formed, and during the Oprichnina and the Time of Troubles, changes took place in the nature of land ownership.

This article presents a comparative legal study of justice issues in the context of economic sanctions and global challenges to the modern legal order, analyzing the commonalities and specificities of the legislative and law enforcement practices of Russia and the Republic of Kazakhstan in addressing these issues. It explores some of the specific features of the judicial systems of these countries, as well as the main areas of judicial activity within the framework of economic constitutionalism and its fundamental principles related to the relationship between business and government and the protection of the rights of business entities. In analyzing the role of the judiciary in the market system, special attention is paid to the activities of the constitutional justice bodies of the two countries, their decisions both to protect and develop national economies, and to creating conditions for sustainable economic growth in the context of ensuring state sovereignty and investment attractiveness. In this regard, a comparative legal study of ensuring the uniformity of judicial practice in resolving economic disputes and, on this basis, the development of precedent-based principles in the legal systems of Russia and the Republic of Kazakhstan is of great importance.

The article is dedicated to the 100th anniversary of the birth of a prominent Soviet and Russian legal scholar, Doctor of Law, Professor of the Department of Theory of State and Law and Political Science of the Law Faculty, Honored Professor of Moscow State University named after M.V. Lomonosov Oleg Ernestovich Leist (1925–2003). The article shows the main stages of his scientific biography. It is noted that the work of O.E. Leist organically combines the doctrinal developments of lawyers of the pre-revolutionary school with the best that was expressed by legal scholars during the Soviet era. O.E. Leist developed a comprehensive study of law and the state. According to his estimates, on a societal scale, legal thinking cannot be formed by orders from above; it arises along with mass everyday interest in understanding social relations through specific rights and obligations of their participants, the grounds for the emergence of these rights and obligations, in connection with procedural guarantees of legal relations and responsibility for violations of rights and failure to fulfill obligations. O.E. Leist made a significant contribution to fundamental jurisprudence by developing the topic of sanctions and legal liability. His attention was focused on the analysis of the place of sanctions in the structure of a legal norm, the connection of substantive law and process with legal guarantees of members of society. The general conclusion is made that, in many ways, thanks to the works and activities of Professor Leist, the continuity of theoretical and legal science is currently ensured in Russia.