从苏联国有企业到俄罗斯单一企业

Eugenia Kurzynsky-Singer
{"title":"从苏联国有企业到俄罗斯单一企业","authors":"Eugenia Kurzynsky-Singer","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3394491","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In Russian law, the State enterprise is probably one of the most noteworthy examples of the continuity of legal development, showing just how much Soviet concepts still influence modern Russian law. <br><br>It is well known that the means of production could not belong to private persons under Soviet law (apart from some minor exceptions). Consequently, State enterprises built the foundation of the Soviet economy. However, the enterprises needed a legal foundation for their entrepreneurial activity. Not being the owners of the assets, they had an operative management over them. This legal construction, surprisingly, survived the collapse of the Soviet Union and the liberalization of the property regime. In the course of perestroika reform, the right of operative management was redesigned; additionally, a further right, one establishing a full economic jurisdiction, was created. These relicts of Soviet legal thinking later kept their position as a part of the modern Russian law of property. In the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the right of operative management and the right of economic jurisdiction are explicitly stated as rights in rem (Art. 216 CC). Mostly importantly, they allow the State to create the so-called unitary enterprises and institutions which conduct economic activity but do not own their assets. These assets remain State property; however, the unitary enterprises can possess and use the assets on the grounds of the right of operative management or the right of economic jurisdiction.<br><br>The paper addresses the continuity in legal developments in regard of the mentioned rights and their impact on the notion of property in modern Russia.<br>","PeriodicalId":343804,"journal":{"name":"ERN: Government Owned Firms (Topic)","volume":"3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-05-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"From Soviet State Enterprises to Russian Unitary Enterprises\",\"authors\":\"Eugenia Kurzynsky-Singer\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.3394491\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In Russian law, the State enterprise is probably one of the most noteworthy examples of the continuity of legal development, showing just how much Soviet concepts still influence modern Russian law. <br><br>It is well known that the means of production could not belong to private persons under Soviet law (apart from some minor exceptions). Consequently, State enterprises built the foundation of the Soviet economy. However, the enterprises needed a legal foundation for their entrepreneurial activity. Not being the owners of the assets, they had an operative management over them. This legal construction, surprisingly, survived the collapse of the Soviet Union and the liberalization of the property regime. In the course of perestroika reform, the right of operative management was redesigned; additionally, a further right, one establishing a full economic jurisdiction, was created. These relicts of Soviet legal thinking later kept their position as a part of the modern Russian law of property. In the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the right of operative management and the right of economic jurisdiction are explicitly stated as rights in rem (Art. 216 CC). Mostly importantly, they allow the State to create the so-called unitary enterprises and institutions which conduct economic activity but do not own their assets. These assets remain State property; however, the unitary enterprises can possess and use the assets on the grounds of the right of operative management or the right of economic jurisdiction.<br><br>The paper addresses the continuity in legal developments in regard of the mentioned rights and their impact on the notion of property in modern Russia.<br>\",\"PeriodicalId\":343804,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ERN: Government Owned Firms (Topic)\",\"volume\":\"3 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-05-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ERN: Government Owned Firms (Topic)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3394491\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ERN: Government Owned Firms (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3394491","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在俄罗斯法律中,国有企业可能是法律发展连续性的最值得注意的例子之一,表明苏联的概念仍然对现代俄罗斯法律有多大影响。众所周知,根据苏联法律,生产资料不能属于私人(除了一些轻微的例外)。因此,国有企业建立了苏联经济的基础。但是,企业的创业活动需要法律基础。由于不是资产的所有者,他们对资产进行了有效的管理。令人惊讶的是,这种法律结构在苏联解体和财产制度自由化之后依然存在。在改革过程中,对经营管理权进行了重新设计;此外,还设立了一项进一步的权利,即确立全面经济管辖权的权利。这些苏联法律思想的遗留物后来作为现代俄罗斯财产法的一部分保持了自己的地位。在《俄罗斯联邦民法典》中,经营管理权和经济管辖权明确规定为对物权利(《共同法典》第216条)。最重要的是,它们允许国家建立进行经济活动但不拥有其资产的所谓单一企业和机构。这些资产仍然是国家财产;但是,单一企业可以以经营管理权或经济管辖权为由占有和使用资产。本文论述了关于上述权利的法律发展的连续性及其对现代俄罗斯财产概念的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
From Soviet State Enterprises to Russian Unitary Enterprises
In Russian law, the State enterprise is probably one of the most noteworthy examples of the continuity of legal development, showing just how much Soviet concepts still influence modern Russian law.

It is well known that the means of production could not belong to private persons under Soviet law (apart from some minor exceptions). Consequently, State enterprises built the foundation of the Soviet economy. However, the enterprises needed a legal foundation for their entrepreneurial activity. Not being the owners of the assets, they had an operative management over them. This legal construction, surprisingly, survived the collapse of the Soviet Union and the liberalization of the property regime. In the course of perestroika reform, the right of operative management was redesigned; additionally, a further right, one establishing a full economic jurisdiction, was created. These relicts of Soviet legal thinking later kept their position as a part of the modern Russian law of property. In the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the right of operative management and the right of economic jurisdiction are explicitly stated as rights in rem (Art. 216 CC). Mostly importantly, they allow the State to create the so-called unitary enterprises and institutions which conduct economic activity but do not own their assets. These assets remain State property; however, the unitary enterprises can possess and use the assets on the grounds of the right of operative management or the right of economic jurisdiction.

The paper addresses the continuity in legal developments in regard of the mentioned rights and their impact on the notion of property in modern Russia.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信