CC BY
35ив
ШОВ
East European Scientific Journal #3(67), 2021 55
ЮРИДИЧЕСКИЕ НАУКИ
Bogatyrov A.I.
doctor of Law, associate professor of the Department of state and law theory Lviv University of trade and economics ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/00000003-2707-8978
Mykhailyk O.H. doctor of law, professor of the Department of law enforcement and anti-corruption activities
Private Joint-Stock Company «Higher education institution «Interregional Academy of Personnel Management»
ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0644-1494
WORLD PRACTICE OF APPLYING PUNISHMENT IN THE FORM OF LIFE IMPRISONMENT
Богатирьов Андрш 1ванович,
доктор юридичних наук, доцент кафедри теорИ держави та права Львгвського торговельно-економгчного унгверситету ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/00000003-2707-8978 Михайлик Олександр Григорович доктор юридичних наук, професор кафедри правоохоронног та антикорупцшноi дгяльностг
ПрАТ «Вищий навчальний заклад «Мгжрегюнальна Академ1я управлтня персоналом» ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0644-1494
СВ1ТОВА ПРАКТИКА ЗАСТОСУВАННЯ ПОКАРАННЯ У ВИД1 ДОВ1ЧНОГО
ПОЗБАВЛЕННЯ ВОЛ1
Summary. The content of the punishment in the form of life imprisonment was explored in the article. International normative legal acts and agreements regulating the procedure and conditions for fulfilling and serving the punishment in the form of life imprisonment, defining the rights and freedoms of persons convicted to this type of punishment and so on were described. The practice of decision-making by the European Court of human rights regarfing convicted persons to life imprisonment in some European countries was analyzed in the article.
Анотащя. У статп розкрито змют покарання у видi довiчного позбавлення волг Дослвджено мiжнароднi нормативно-npaBOBi акти та договори, що регулюють порядок та умов виконання та ввдбування покарання у видi довiчного позбавлення вол^ визначають права та свобод оаб, засуджених до такого виду покарання тощо. Проaнaлiзовaно практику прийняття ршень £вропейським судом з прав людини стосовно засуджених до довiчного позбавлення волi низки европейських краши.
Key words: life imprisonment, punishment, international, normative legal act, decision, European Court of human rights.
Ключовi слова: довгчне позбавлення волг, покарання, м1жнародний, нормативно-правовий акт, ршення, Свропейський суд з прав людини.
Problem statement. After the adoption of independence, Ukraine chose the European path of development, which provided for the humanization of many regulatory legal acts. The criminal and penal enforcement legislation of Ukraine was no exception. In 1999, the Constitutional Court of Ukraine recognized the death penalty as capital punishment as non-constitutional. In 2001, the new Criminal Code of Ukraine established life imprisonment as the highest penalty.
Analysis of recent research and publications.
As an independent subject of consideration by scientists, the study of life imprisonment is sometimes highlighted in scientific works. Most often, this type of
punishment is considered together with imprisonment for a certain period of time and it is within the framework of criminal executive developments, and not criminal law Research. M.I. Bazhanov, I. G. Bogatyrev, S. Ya. Burda, A.M. Deinega, O. M. Juzha, V.V.Stashis, V. Ya. Tatsiy, P. S. Matyshevsky, M. I. Melnik, L. O. Mostepanyuk, B. A. Kiris, A. X. Stepanyuk, V. M. Trubnikov, M. I. Khavronyuk, O.V.Khoroshun, V. O. Chovgan, I. S. Yakovets and others were engaged in the study of this type of punishment in their scientific research. At the same time, Ukrainian scientists did not study the international experience of applying punishment in the
56 East European Scientific Journal #3(67), 2021 form of imprisonment, which was decisive when choosing the research topic.
The purpose of the article is to study international normative legal acts and agreements regulating the procedure and conditions for the execution and serving of punishment in the form of life imprisonment, determine the rights and freedoms of persons convicted to this type of punishment and analyze the practice of decision-making by the European Court of human rights in relation to convicted persons to life imprisonment in a number of European countries.
Research result. Life imprisonment as a type of criminal punishment is quite new for Ukraine, for further legislative development and expansion of the trend in the practice of its application, it is necessary to take into account the experience of foreign countries. In connection with the abolition of the death penalty, a more humane institution of life imprisonment was introduced in some states as an alternative. One of the fundamental acts which served as the basis for the introduction of this institution into the national legislation of many states was international acts of the United Nations (hereinafter referred to as the UN), the study of which gives an idea not only of global trends, but also of certain aspects of its application.
To protect the rights and freedoms of convicted persons, in 1955 the UN General Assembly adopted the minimum standard rules for the treatment of prisoners, which formulated general principles for the execution of punishment in the form of imprisonment [1]. In particular, they contain provisions that life prisoners must have the same set of rights as all convicted persons to imprisonment. Problems arising in the execution and serving of life imprisonment at the international level were first discussed by the VI Un Congress on crime prevention and treatment of offenders. The issue of the possibility of conditional early release of convicted persons to life imprisonment was discussed at the VIII UN Congress on crime prevention and treatment of offenders.
Unfortunately, today in Ukraine there is no other way for life prisoners to be released, except for act of pardon. Such process is difficult to perceive by society, and therefore, in addition to creating a mechanism for early release of life prisoners, it is worth conducting significant educational work, referring to the experience of other countries [2, p. 178].
The main international documents defining the rules for the treatment of prisoners convicted to life imprisonment are Resolution (76) 2 «On the treatment of prisoners serving long sentences» (1976); recommendation K (82) 17 «On the detention and treatment of dangerous prisoners» (1982); UN recommendations «On life imprisonment» (1995); recommendation N Rec (2003) 23 of the committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe to member states «On the implementation of the execution of the punishment of life imprisonment and other long terms of imprisonment by administrations of places of deprivation of liberty» and so on. The main idea of these documents is to treat a person convicted to life
UB
BtSSjB
imprisonment as a person, respecting his human dignity and to meet his needs for communication and socially useful contacts with the outside world.
UN Commission Resolution №1992/22 pointed out the ambiguity of the interpretation of the term «life imprisonment» in different UN member states. Thus, in some countries, it is possible to release a convicted person after the expiration of a certain period of imprisonment, in others one, a convicted person to the type of punishment under consideration cannot be released early, that is, an absolute type of life imprisonment is established. Considerable attention is paid to the condition of life convicted persons, their preparation for the procedure of liberation, return to society, conditions of serving their punishment and the interests of the victim when deciding on the conditional early release of convicted persons to life imprisonment. At the international level, conditions for the imposition of life imprisonment are established: persons over the age of 18 who have committed the most serious crimes, and if this is extremely necessary for the protection of society in countries where the death penalty has been abolished. This recommendation also contains an indication that the national authorities ensure that the possibility of conditional early release is available in their legislation [3, p. 37].
Article 9 of the Constitution of Ukraine establishes that existing international agreements, which are implemented by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, are part of the national legislation of Ukraine and signing of international agreements which contradict the Constitution of Ukraine is possible only after making appropriate amendments to the Constitution of Ukraine [4]. Part 2 of art. 19 of The law of Ukraine «On international agreements of Ukraine» defines if an international agreement of Ukraine which has entered into force in accordance with the established procedure establishes other rules than those one provided for in the relevant act of legislation of Ukraine, then the rules of the international agreement are applied [5]. So all international agreements, rules, regulating the conditions and procedure for the execution and serving a punishment in the form of life imprisonment, ratified by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, are part of the national legislation and are mandatory on the territory of Ukraine.
European convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms (hereinafter referred to as «the Convention») is the fundamental basis of the entire complex of international legal regulation in the field of human rights and freedoms, their legitimate interests and needs. The rights and freedoms provided for in the Convention cover the most important aspects of a person's life and have a civil, political, economic and social orientation. The main ones are the right to life, freedom, personal inviolability of the individual, free movement, freedom of thought, conscience, religion, expression of views, peaceful assembly and association, the right to start a family, respect for personal and family life, the right to a fair trial, the peaceful possession of property, the Prohibition of
UB
ana«
discrimination, torture, slavery and forced labor and the inadmissibility of punishment without the law.
In addition to the Convention, Protocol № 6 was adopted prohibiting the use of the death penalty [6], obliging the member states of this Convention to abolish the death penalty in their legislation. Currently, the criminal legislation of 12 of the 47 member states of the Council of Europe provides for the death penalty, but it does not apply, life imprisonment as a pardon is imposed instead it or as an independent exceptional measure of punishment.
Due to Ukraine's accession to the Council of Europe, the jurisdiction of the European Court of human rights (hereinafter referred to as the ECHR) and its case law began to extend to its territory. Thus, the extension of the jurisdiction of the ECHR to the territory of Ukraine also made it possible to check national legislation and law enforcement practice for compliance with European principles of ensuring human rights and freedoms and their protection.
The legal positions of the ECHR have significant importance and significant relevance, as in some of them, constitutionally significant provisions were reflected, as a result of which changes were made to the legislation of Ukraine.
As an example, the case «Bigun v. Ukraine» (application №c30315/10) of 21 March 2019, in which the applicant repeatedly asked the colony administration to grant them permission for long-term visits with relatives, in particular, in 2006. Their petitions were dismissed on the grounds that Article 151 of the Criminal Executive Code of Ukraine did not provide for long visits for convicted persons to life imprisonment[7]. The ECHR ruled on the violation of art. 8 of the Convention, namely the right to respect for private and family life, because public authorities cannot interfere with the exercise of this right, except in cases where the interference is carried out in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national and public security or the economic well-being of the country, for the Prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others[8]. Subsequently, in 2014, the legislator amended art. 151 Criminal Executive Code of Ukraine, allowing once a month a short-term meeting and once every three months a long-term meeting with close relatives (spouses, parents, children, adoptive parents, adopted children, siblings, grandparents, grandchildren) [9].
However, the ECHR, in its decision of June 30, 2015 in the case of «Khogoshepko v. Russia» (complaint №41418/04), explained in detail in which cases there is a violation of Article 8 of the Convention, in the legislative regulation of short-term and long-term visits of convicted persons to life imprisonment with their relatives and friends. In particular, in paragraph 124, the court noted that the state had an obligation to prevent the destruction of family relationship and to provide them with a reasonably good level of contact with families, visits organized as often as possible and in as normal an environment as possible. Any
East European Scientific Journal #3(67), 2021 57 unjustified bans on long visits were found not to strike a fair balance between the applicant's right to the protection of private and family life, on the one hand, and the aims invoked by the state, on the other hand. Establishing a limited number of visits of the convicted person with relatives is possible only if it is necessary taking into account the specifics of the crime committed, the personality of the convicted person, to ensure the safety of the Correctional Institution, to terminate the convicted person's relationship with other members of the criminal group [10].
Similar case in terms of further implementation in domestic legislation is the case «Belyaev and others v. Ukraine» (Application №34345/10 and 2 other applications)[11]. In particular, there was a violation of the Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 of the convention), because although Article 151 of the Criminal Executive Code of Ukraine established equal rights for men and women convicted to imprisonment, article 18 and 139 gave women convicted to life imprisonment additional benefits, since women sentenced to life imprisonment served their sentences in medium-security colonies, they additionally, inter alia, were entitled to one long visit every six months. The law of Ukraine «On amendments to the Criminal executive code of Ukraine concerning the adaptation of the legal status of convicted persons to European standards» introduced article 151 Criminal Executive Code of Ukraine amendments granted all convicted persons to life imprisonment the right to one short-term visit every month and one long-term visit every three months, regardless of the type of correctional colony in which they were held or the security regime that was established for them.
Today, Ukraine is experiencing a legislative reform of the imposition of punishment in the form of life imprisonment against women. This is due to socio-psychological studies which have shown that female prisoners make up a small proportion of those serving punishment around the world. The majority of women convicted to life imprisonment for serious violent crimes committed them because they were subjected to violence themselves. As a rule, specific socio-demographic, socio-psychological and psychophysical properties of women are manifested in the peculiarities of their commission of crimes. In Ukraine, 23 women are serving of punishment in the form of life imprisonment [12].
Such ideas of the subject of the legislative initiative caused a mixed reaction among lawyers and the scientific community. In their opinion, it seems unjustified to abolish life imprisonment in relation to women who, during committing particularly serious crimes, may be guided by motives similar to men. Although such women are a minority, however, this position of scientists seems quite justified to us, so modern domestic legislation should be improved in accordance with European standards. In addition, such novels, in our opinion, are discriminatory against men and violate the provisions of the law of Ukraine «On ensuring equal rights and opportunities for women and men» [13].
58 East European Scientific Journal #3(67), 2021
However, the issue of discrimination in the implementation during life imprisonment was raised not only in Ukraine, in particular the issue of excluding women from the list of persons who may be assigned to the life imprisonment. Thus, the decision of the Grand Chamber of the ECHR in the case «Khamtokhu and Aksenchik v. Russia» analyzed the provisions of criminal legislation regarding the exclusion of women from the subject composition of the life imprisonment. The above-mentioned persons considered that they had been discriminated against on the basis of age and gender in determining the penalty of life imprisonment. Based their position on the fact that the measure of punishment in question should be excluded from the legislation due to its excessive severity and gender stereotypes are outdated. The ECHR pointed out that Article 5 of the Convention does not prohibit punishment in the form of life imprisonment, when it is directly provided for by state laws and stated that there is no violation by the Russian Federation of Article 5 in relation to Article 14 of the Convention in connection with the differentiation of types of criminal punishment. The court pointed out that the impossibility of assigning life imprisonment to women, minors and men over 65 years of age reflects the evolution of society in the field of penitentiary policy. The court did not rule out the development of a policy in favor of the abolition of life imprisonment in the future [14].
Among the decisions of the ECHR, a special place is occupied by questions about the presence or absence of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention. According to Article 3 of the Convention, no one may be subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The issue of violation of Article 3 in case of life imprisonment arises when deciding on conditional early release. Thus, in Ukraine and in some other states, at the legislative level, there are requirements for reviewing the penalty in the form of deprivation of liberty after a certain period of time, if a correction of the convicted person took place, his further stay in correctional colonies does not make sense and does not meet the goals of criminal punishment. However, this does not apply to life imprisonment.
According to the legal position of the ECHR, every convicted person has the right to review the sentence, if such person follows certain conditions. At the same time, the ECHR in the concept of review includes not only conditional early release, but also the actual release of a person from places of deprivation of liberty. A violation of Article 3 of the Convention will occur if there is no mechanism in domestic legislation to review the criminal penalty of life imprisonment. By the ECHR decision in the case «T.P. and A.T. V. Hungary» found a violation of art. 3 of the Convention, despite the fact that Hungarian legislation provides for a pardon procedure after 40 years of the sentence actually served. Thus, the ECHR pointed out that 40 years is a long period of time, moreover, there are no guarantees for preserving this institution of clemency in the future, which in its totality leads to a humiliation
of the right of convicts to the prospect of release from prison [15].
In the case «Harakchev and Tolumov v. Bulgaria», one of the applicants was serving a punishment of life imprisonment without the right to conditional early release, the other with such a right. The first applicant pointed out that he was deprived of the prospect of release from the correctional facility, of the right of rehabilitation and was forced to spend his entire life in detention. The ECHR pointed out that the violation of Article 3 of the Convention exists due to the lack of clear conditions, guarantees of presidential clemency, examples in the practice of National Courts of Bulgaria of the release of convicted persons to life imprisonment without the right to conditional early release. However, the ECHR pointed to the reforms carried out in Bulgaria in 2012, which allow taking into account the applicant's punishment formally subject to review (reduction of the term) [16].
In the case "Laszlo Magyar v. Hungary" the applicant pointed out that he was deprived of the prospect of release, despite the fact that there was an institution of clemency in Hungary. The European Court of human rights ruled in this case that there is a violation of Article 3 of the Convention, because Hungarian law does not allow us to clearly determine under what conditions a convicted person will have the right to be released from prison. The ECHR called on Hungary to implement a number of reforms to streamline the legislative provisions on life imprisonment: fixing the legislative guarantee in each specific case to establish the justification, expediency of life imprisonment, as well as the right of convicts to know about the conditions, procedure for release from a correctional institution. The ECHR pointed out that within the framework of Article 3 of the Convention, in the case of reviewing a particular criminal case, criminal punishment, there is no question of automatic release of the convicted person [17].
The importance of introducing a mechanism for early liberation of convicted persons to life imprisonment is also discussed in the ECHR decision in the case «Petukhov V. Ukraine (№2)» (Application № 41216/13). Thus, the criteria and conditions for review enshrined in national law should be sufficiently clear and defined and reflect the relevant practice of the court. Certainty on this issue is not only a general requirement of the rule of law, but also underlies the rehabilitation process, which can be complicated if the procedure for reviewing the penalty and the prospects for release are unclear or uncertain. Consequently, convicts who have been sentenced to life imprisonment have the right from the very beginning to know what they must do in order for the issue of their early release to be considered and under what conditions [18].
Therefore, according to the legal position of the ECHR, in order to exclude a violation of Article 3 of the Convention, it is necessary not only to have a mechanism for reviewing punishment in domestic legislation, but also to have a real prospect of releasing a convicted person from prison under certain conditions. The form of revision of the criminal penalty
ив
BBgSB
and its conditions are within the competence of each specific state. The position of the ECHR regarding the period after which the criminal penalty is subject to review is 25 years of the punishment actually served in a correctional institution.
Currently, the Verkhovna Rada Committee on law enforcement issues has considered the draft law of Ukraine «On amendments to the Code of administrative offenses of Ukraine, the Criminal Code of Ukraine and the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine concerning the implementation of decisions of the European Court of human rights» dated September 3, 2020 №4049, which proposes to implement the decisions of the ECHR, which have entered into force and their implementation is under the control of the Council of Ministers of the Council of Europe [19].
The draft law provides for a mechanism by which a person convicted to life imprisonment, after serving it for at least 10 years, gets the right, according to the appropriate procedure provided for in the draft law, based on the conclusions and analysis of the individual, to apply for the replacement of life imprisonment with a sentence in the form of imprisonment for a certain period, namely, for a minimum of 15 years. That is, a person convicted to life imprisonment will stay in places of deprivation of liberty for at least 25 years, as well as convicts who, as a result of a pardon, are released from serving their punishment after 25 years, and there were very few of them in Ukraine during Independence (16 people).
Conclusions and prospects. In conclusion, we want to note that the institution of execution and serving a punishment in the form of life imprisonment is relatively new and, unfortunately, given its severity, is not exemplary both in terms of legislative regulation and in terms of implementation in practice. That is why, in order to further improve the outlined institution, correct existing problems, we should turn to international standards for the treatment of persons convicted to life imprisonment, create appropriate conditions and the procedure for serving it.
References:
1. Мшшальт стандартш правила поводження з в'язнями : правила, прийняп Генеральною Асамблеею ООН ввд 30 серпня 1955 р . URL: https://zakon.rada.gov.Ua/laws/show/995_212#Text (дата звернення: 25.03.2021)
2. Марчук В. Т. Проблеми кримшально-правово! регламентацп довiчного позбавлення волг Вюник Чершвецького факультету Нацюнального ушверситету «Одеська юридична академiя». Вип. № 4. 2019. 184 с.
3. Кобец П. Н. Международный опыт и практика применения пожизненного лишения свободы. Уголовно-исполнительная система: право, экономика, управление. 2008. № 5. С. 35-41.
4. Конститущя Укра!ни : Закон Укра!ни ввд 28 черв. 1996 р. № 254к/96-ВР. URL: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/254%D0%BA/96
East European Scientific Journal #3(67), 2021 59 -%D0%B2%D1%80#Text (дата звернення: 25.03.2021)
5. Про мiжнароднi договори Укра!ни : Закон Укра!ни вщ 29 черв. 2004 р. № 1906-IV. URL: https://zakon.rada.gov.Ua/laws/show/1906-15#Text (дата звернення: 25.03.2021)
6. Протокол № 6 до Конвенцп про захист прав людини i основоположних свобод, який стосуеться скасування смертно! кари : Мiжнародний документ вад 28 квгг. 1983 р. № 6. URL: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/994_802#Text (дата звернення: 25.03.2021)
7. Справа <^гун проти Укра!ни» (Заява № 30315/10) : ршення Свропейського суду з прав людини вщ 21 берез. 2019 р. URL: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/974_d50#Text (дата звернення: 25.03.2021)
8. Про захист прав людини i основоположних свобод : Конвенщя Ради Свропи ввд 4 лист. 1950 р. (ратифшовано Законом Укра!ни ввд 17 липня 1997 р. № 475/97-ВР). URL: https://zakon.rada.gov.Ua/laws/show/995_004#n54 (дата звернення: 25.03.2021)
9. Про внесення змш до Кримшально-виконавчого кодексу Укра!ни щодо адаптацii правового статусу засудженого до европейських стандарпв : Закон Укра!ни вiд 8 квгг. 2014 р. № 1186-VII. URL: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/1186-18#n203 (дата звернення: 25.03.2021)
10. The Case of Khoroshenfo v. Russia (App. № 41418/04) : decision of The European Court of Human Rights by 30 June 2015. URL: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre#{%22itemid%22:[%220 01-156006%22]} (дата звернення: 25.03.2021)
11. Справа «Беляев та iншi проти Укра!ни» (Заява № 34345/10 та 2 iншi заяви) : ршення Свропейського суду з прав людини вщ 6 черв. 2019 р. URL: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/974_d89#Text (дата звернення: 25.03.2021)
12. Про внесення змш до деяких законодавчих актiв Укра!ни (щодо скасування довiчного позбавлення волi для жшок) : проект Закону Укра!ни вiд 20 червн. 2019 р. № 10392. URL: http://w1.c1.rada.gov.ua/
pls/zweb2/webproc4_1?pf3511=66094 (дата
звернення: 25.03.2021)
13. Про забезпечення рiвних прав та можливостей жiнок i чоловiкiв : Закон Укра!ни ввд 8 верес. 2005 р. № 2866-IV. URL: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/ laws/show/2866-15#Text/ (дата звернення: 25.03.2021)
14. The Case of Khamtokhu and Aksenchik v. Russia (App. № 60367/08 and 961/11) : decision of The European Court of Human Rights by 13 May 2014. URL:
https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre#{%22itemid%22:[%220 01-144794%22]} (дата звернення: 25.03.2021)
15. The Case of T.P. and A.T. v. Hungary (App. № 37871/14 and 73986/14) : decision of The European Court of Human Rights by 4 October 2016. URL: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/rus#{%22tabview%22:[%22
60 East European Scientific Journal #3(67), 2021 document%22],%22itemid%22 :[%22001 -166491%22]} (дата звернення: 25.03.2021)
16. The Case of Harakchiev and Tolumov v. Bulgaria (App. № 15018/11 and 61199/12): decision of The European Court of Human Rights by 8 July 2014. URL:
https ://hudoc.echr. coe.int/fre#{%22itemid%22 :[%220 01-145442%22]} (дата звернення: 25.03.2021)
17. The Case of Laszlo Magyar v. Hungary (App. № 73593/10): decision of The European Court of Human Rights by 20 May 2014. URL: https ://hudoc.echr. coe.int/fre#{%22itemid%22 :[%220 01-144109%22]} (дата звернення: 25.03.2021)
УДК 34 ГРНТ 10
18. Справа «Петухов проти Украши (№ 2)» (Заява № 41216/13) : ршення £вропейського суду з прав людини вiд 12 берез. 2019 р. URL: https://zakon.rada.gov.Ua/laws/show/974_d98#Text (дата звернення: 25.03.2021)
Про внесения змш до Кодексу Украши про адмшютративш правопорушення, Кримшального кодексу Украши та Кримшального процесуального кодексу Украши щодо виконання рiшень £вропейського суду з прав людини : проект Закону Украши ввд 3 верес. 2020 р. № 4049. URL: http://w1.c1 .rada.gov.ua/pls/zweb2/webproc4_1?pf35 11=69827 (дата звернення: 25.03.2021)
Romanova I. V.
Master's student of the 2nd year of the Law Institute
Tambov
State Technical University + 7 (960) 118-11-82 Lavrik T. M.
Candidate of Law, Associate Professor, Head of the Department " Civil Law and Process»
Tambov State Technical University»
USE OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES AT THE GENERAL MEETING OF THE COMPANY'S PARTICIPANTS
Романова И.В.
магистрант 2-го курса юридического института
ФГБОУ «Тамбовский государственный технический университет»
+ 7 (960) 118-11-82 Лаврик Т.М.
к.ю.н., доцент, зав. кафедрой « Гражданское право и процесс» ФГБОУ ВО «Тамбовский государственный технический университет»
ИСПОЛЬЗОВАНИЕ ЦИФРОВЫХ ТЕХНОЛОГИЙ НА ОБЩЕМ СОБРАНИИ
УЧАСТНИКОВ ОБЩЕСТВА
Annotation. The article deals with issues related to the exercise of the right to participate in the general meeting of participants (shareholders) of business companies through the use of digital technologies, aspects of the formation of the development of digital technologies and their role in law and economics, the impact on the formation of new subjects of legal regulation, including in the field of corporate relations. The article presents the norms of the Russian corporate legislation that provide for the possibility of voting at the general meeting using electronic means.
Аннотация. В статье рассматриваются вопросы, связанные с осуществлением права на участие в общем собрании участников (акционеров) хозяйственных обществ посредством использования цифровых технологий, аспекты формирования развития цифровых технологий и их роль в юриспруденции и экономике, влияние на формирование новых субъектов правового регулирования, в том числе в сфере корпоративных отношений. Представлены нормы российского корпоративного законодательства, обеспечивающие возможность осуществления голосования на общем собрании с применением электронных средств.
Keywords: digital technologies, corporation, general meeting of participants, electronic voting.
Ключевые слова: цифровые технологии, корпорация, общее собрание участников, электронное голосование.
Цифровые технологии развиваются и общества, внося свои изменения. Все чаще стремительно входят в различные сферы жизни используются термины «цифровизация»,
