CC BY
47
♦-
на момент исполнения сделки законодательство изменилось.
Привлечение налогоплательщика к ответственности по причине изменения законодательства является отрицательным и, конечно, спорным моментом при проведении процедуры налогового мониторинга, поскольку осуществляемая сделка может служить основанием для его корректировки. В таком случае было бы целесообразно закрепить на законодательном уровне, что в отношении сделки, по которой получено мотивированное мнение, действует законодательство на момент получения мнения налогового органа.
Подводя итог, можно сказать, что на данный момент непонятно, насколько эффективным покажет себя институт мотивированного мнения налогового органа, направляемого на запрос налогоплательщика. Компании будут обращаться с запросами только по спорным, не разрешенным судебной практикой вопросам, а налоговый орган в ситуации платить или не платить налоги в рамках конкретной хозяйственной операции, очевидно, выскажется в пользу бюджета.
В настоящее время уже несколько крупных компаний воспользовались механизмом налогового мониторинга: МТС, Мегафон, ООО «ЮНИЛЕВЕР Русь»,
-♦
ООО «Заполярнефть» (Газпром), Интер (РАО ЕЭС), ИББС. Однако вызывает сомнение возможность широкого распространения заключения соглашений о налоговом мониторинге, так как в таком случае налоговым органам придется взаимодействовать одновременно с большим количеством крупных налогоплательщиков, что может быть достаточно затруднительно в организационном и техническом плане.
В любом случае сама возможность подписания соглашений о расширенном информационном взаимодействии может рассматриваться как еще одна ступень в создании стабильной налоговой системы, установление которой невозможно без создания комфортных условий взаимодействия бизнеса и органов государственной власти.
1. Налоговый кодекс Российской Федерации (часть первая) от 31.07.1998 г. № 146-ФЗ (ред. от 30.11.2016 г.).
2. Федеральный закон от 4 ноября 2014 г. № 348-ФЭ «О внесении изменений в часть первую Налогового кодекса Российской Федерации ».
3. Федеральный закон от 1 мая 2016 г. № 130-Ф3 «О внесении изменений в часть первую Налогового кодекса Российской Федерации».
Elmira Lyapina,
PhD candidate, Public International Law, УДК 347.1 Charles University in Prague, Law Faculty
ENFORCEMENT OF THE ARBITRATION DECISIONS ON INVESTMENT DISPUTES
The article analyses application of the New York Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards through the several cases, as Sedelmayer v. Russia, in order to illustrate the difficulties in the enforcement and recognition of the arbitration awards in the international investment disputes.
Keywords: New York Convention 1958, Sedelmayer v. Russia, enforcement and recognition of arbitration awards, international investment disputes, RF EU.
Эльмира Рустамовна Ляпина,
аспирантка факультета международного публичного права,
Карлов Университет в Праге, Чехия
ИСПОЛНЕНИЕ РЕШЕНИЙ АРБИТРАЖНЫХ СУДОВ В МЕЖДУНАРОДНЫХ ИНВЕСТИЦИОННЫХ СПОРАХ
Статья посвящена вопросам применения Нью-йоркской конвенции о признании и приведении в исполнение иностранных арбитражных решений в таких делах, как Зедельмайер против России, с целью иллюстрации сложностей исполнения и признания арбитражных решений в международных инвестиционных спорах.
Ключевые слова: Нью-йоркская конвенция 1958, Зедельмайер против России, признание и исполнение арбитражных решений, международные инвестиционные споры, РФ ЕС.
Fragmentation of law, absence of the adequate normative basis between the states, leads not only to the advantages and wide range of possibilities to choose the better regime under some treaty, and at particular tribunal, but also to the problematic of res judicata, lispendens and even abus de droit. Absence of the unified judicial system in the international law, with the different approaches of
the judicial bodies brings not only positive effects of the cross-fertilization, but also antagonistic judgements, and high level of uncertainty, and thus limitates the finality of decision and its enforceability.
The legal foundation ofthe bilateral agreements consist of hundred documents from the Soviet or socialist period, including investment promotion and mutual protection
agreements, or bilateral investment treaties (BIT), mutually profitable economic cooperation, intending to create favorable conditions for the realization of investments by investors of the one contracting party in the territory of the other contracting party. The promotion and mutual protection of investments are recognized as stimulation of the commercial activity development.
Regarding the disputes arose from the bilateral treaties the issue of the enforcement of arbitral awards is relevant. The states are reluctant to pay the awards ordered by arbitration tribunals, and although in the BITs it is stated, that the arbitration decision is the final decision, the RF is nevertheless appealing to the courts of the local national judicial systems. Although, the arbitration under the UN-CITRAL rules is followed with the obligation of the party to subdue the New York Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the New York Convention) 19581.
Even though, among the 150 participants of the convention, are also Russia, and the EU member states, some academics do not recognize its universal nature2. This convention is directed to provide the performance of the award made by the arbitration tribunal.
In accordance with the New York convention, the signatory states are committed to recognize and enforce the arbitral awards, regardless the fact on which state territory the decision was taken. Thus, is enshrined the rule of the recognition and enforcement of the decision in the states participants and non-participants, but only based on reservation on the conditions of reciprocity3.
The enforcement of the arbitral awards is carried out in accordance with the procedural law of the state, in which the arbitral award recognition and enforcement is required by the parties. In accordance with the article III of the Convention, the states shall recognize arbitral awards as binding and enforce them in accordance with the procedural rules of the state, where the award was relied upon. Article IV describes the process of the requirement the recognition and enforcement of the decision4. The article V of the mentioned Convention contains the exhaustive list of the grounds to refuse the recognition and enforcement of the award. Nevertheless the article III of the subject convention reminds that all the decisions are binding for the state5.
The Convention itself is not long, and basically provides the comprehensive grounds for its application. However, there is no sole interpretation of this convention. Different
Besides this convention, the RF is participant of the European Convention on International Commercial Arbitration 1961, and the Moscow Convention on the Arbitration of civil law disputes, arising from the relations of economic and scientific and technical cooperation, 1972 (between the states of Council for Mutual Economic Assistance, COMECON or CMEA).
2 Gary B. Born, 2013, International Arbitration and Forum Selection Agreements: Drafting and Enforcing. 4th ed., p. 151.
3 Such reservation was made in the USSR, and continues to apply in the RF (as in the state-successor), so in the RF are recognized and enforced decisions only of the states-participantes of the New York Convention.
4 In the RF the application for recognition and enforcement of awards shall be made in the arbitration court of the subject of the RF, at the location or residence of the losed party, or its property location (in accordance with the RF arbitral procedural code, art. 242).
5 FG Hemisphere v. Democratic Republic of Congo.
courts in various jurisdictions come to even antagonist solutions and decisions regarding the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award. As in the case Diag Human S.E. v. Czech Republic6, where the English, French and US tribunals could not agree on the wording of the Convention "binding" regarding the "finality" of the arbitral award. Some experts even consider the possibility of the strategical approach in choosing the state of application of the Convention, and concern about political bias of the courts. As in the case of Yukos v. Rosneft in 2009, where the Amsterdam tribunal decided to recognize the finality and the binding nature of the first instance decision, ignoring the stages of appeal, which abolished the first decision and set this case aside. The tribunal reasoned its recognition by referring to the information, acquired from the mass media, stating that the Russian courts are biased7.
The other issue is that the state may refuse to pay the compensation and the award, so then will be applied the instruments of enforcement. The case Sedelmayerv. Russia illustrates the issue of the arrest of the property. In the case, was deciding the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (SCC). The claimant is the German citizen, but acting in the territory of the Russian Federation through its company Sedelmayer Group of Companies International Inc (SGC International) incorporated in the USA, and in the year 1990 together with the Russian GUVD (Main Department of Internal Affairs) of the city Leningrad (St. Petersburg) owned a joint company in Russia. In 1995 Sedelmayer was informed about the cancellation of the previous agreement, without any compensation of his loss or investment made previously. In 1996 Sedelmayer made a claim to the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce on the basis of the BIT between Germany and the USSR 1989. Although the Tribunal concluded in 1998, that the RF should pay compensation to the investor Sedelmayer, the case itself brought many issues, including identifications of the parties. The case Sedelmayer v. Russia was pending for 15 years, but the Russian side has not paid the awarded compensation in amount USD 2,350,000. The RF in addition made a counter-claim on Sedelmayer to pay the loss on tax avoidance.
This case brings also the additional matter - the mon-etization of the sale of the state property and the issue of the state immunity and jurisdiction. The claimant took measures on arresting the Russian property in the foreign countries, and with the latest decision of the Swedish Supreme Court in 20118, which confirmed the claimant's rights, on monetization of the sale of the Russian Commercial Chamber in Stockholm9. The RF claimed that act, stressing the state immunity issues, referring the New York
6 Different interpretations contained in judgements and decisions could be found at http://www.italaw.com/cases/2587, More about interpretation of this case see: Feigerlova, M., 2015, DIAG HUMAN: S case study on multi-jurisdictional enforcement of an international arbitration award, CYIL, 6 (2015), pp. 357-371.
7 See analysis of van Den Berg A.J., 2010, Enforcement Of Arbitral Awards Annulled In Russia, Case Comment On Court Of Appeal Of Amsterdam, April 28, 2009, Journal Of International Arbitration, 27 (2), pp. 179-198.
8 Decision of the Swedish Supreme Court, 1 July 2011, http:// www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0766.pdf.
9 Which was done - in auction in 201 4.
Convention's article V (2) (b) on refusal "the recognition or enforcement of the award would be contrary to the public policy of that country. However the tribunal in accordance with the UN Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States (2004)10, stated that state properly used in commercial purposes is excluded from the state immunity.
Same opportunity was attempting to use Swiss legal entity Noga11, which was operating in the Russian Federation, based on the decision of the SCC tribunal in 1997. After 10 years of unsuccessful attempts to receive an award from the lost side - Russia, Noga was trying to put an arrest on the Russian tall ship Sedov, which was tem-
10 Which is yet to come into force, text available on https:// treaties.un.org/doc/source/recenttexts/english_3_13.pdf.
11 Compagnie Noga D'importation Et D'exportation S.A. V.
The Russian Federation, 02-9237(L), 02-9272(Con), 2004.
porarily in France, however, the Paris Court of Appeal, declined such possibility for Noga12.
Miscellaneous interpretations, unreasonable approach, un-finality of the decision (see for example Diag Human case), which can be appealed, and reviewed by the different court, these all leads not to the cross-fertilization of the court, but to the legal uncertainty and unreliability of the international law function. Such un-enforcement of law have for the applicants negative consequences, thus it should be paid careful attention to this sector of the law. Although it is related to the state responsibility for its judicial system, it is affecting the science of the international law, bringing the difficulties for the future decisions.
12 https://arbitrationlaw.com/pdf/france-%D1 %83noga% D1%84-case-and-seizure-sedov-international-arbitration-court-decisions-3rd-edition, http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-cir-cuit/1241558.html.
morozova- 12@yandex.ru Юлия Вячеславовна Морозова,
кандидат экономических наук, доцент кафедры банковского дела, денег и кредита, Саратовский социально-экономический институт (филиал) УДК 336.7 РЭУ им. Г.В. Плеханова
О СПОСОБАХ РЕШЕНИЯ ПРОБЛЕМЫ ПЛОХИХ АКТИВОВ
РОССИЙСКИХ БАНКОВ
В статье рассмотрены некоторые направления урегулирования проблемных кредитов и залоговых активов банков. Акцентируется внимание на повышении роли централизованных инструментов кредитного регулирования в условиях возрастающих кредитных рисков. Обосновывается целесообразность совершенствования регистрации залога, создания Банка плохих долгов и Биржи активов.
Ключевые слова: кредитный риск, централизованное регулирование, Биржа активов, Банк плохих долгов, залог.
Yu.V. Morozova
ON THE METHODS OF SOLVING THE PROBLEM OF TOXIC ASSETS OF RUSSIAN BANKS
The article considers various ways of solving the problem of outstanding loans and collateral assets of banks. Special attention is paid to the growing role of centralized instruments of credit regulation in the face of increasing credit risks. The author stresses the urgency of improving the registration of collateral assets, creating the Bank of bad debts and Exchange of collateral assets.
Keywords: credit risk, centralized regulation, Exchange of assets, Bank of bad debts, collateral.
Одним из традиционных банковских рисков является кредитный риск. В российском банковском секторе в 2014-2016 гг. наблюдался в основном понижательный тренд качества кредитного портфеля, что выразилось в высоких кредитных рисках, росте просроченной ссудной задолженности. Просроченная задолженность по кредитам, предоставленным физическим лицам, по российскому банковскому сектору выросла с 440,3 млрд руб. (на 01.01.2014 г.) до 916,1 млрд руб. (на 01.10.2016 г.), соответственно по
кредитам юридическим лицам - с 1111,7 млрд руб. (на 01.01.2014 г.) до 2255,8 млрд руб. (на 01.07.2016 г.). Доля крупных кредитных рисков в активах российского банковского сектора увеличилась с 25,1% (на 01.01.2014 г.) до 28,3% (на 01.03.2016 г.) [5]. Такое состояние кредитного портфеля российских банков вызывает необходимость использования более совершенных способов регулирования плохих кредитных долгов, а также разумного сочетания централизованных и децентрализованных инструментов управления ими.
