Search

INTRODUCTION. This paper reflects historical overview of long-standing emergence of mechanisms of judicial protections of patent rights conferred by European patens which begun even in 1950-s and ended with start of operations of the Unified Patent Court in 2023. The paper demonstrates that the establishment of the similar mechanism within the Eurasian Patent Organization or Eurasian Economic Union may require different approaches because of possible centralization of industrial property protection under Eurasian Patent Organization.METHODS AND MATERIALS. The research materials for this paper are scientific works of foreign and Russian scientists and officials of the European Patent Office and the Eurasian Patent Office, legal acts of international and regional levels and drafts thereof. Methodological basis of this research are general and special scientific methods.RESEARCH RESULTS. This paper suggests periodization in emergence and evolution of dispute resolution mechanisms for European patents, reveals rationales for establishment of the unified patent judiciary in Europe and outlines directions for further research of prospects of creation of the similar mechanism in the Eurasian region. Some findings made in this article may facilitate the growth of such researches.DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. European Union (EU) accumulated broad experience in establishment of the dispute resolution mechanisms for European patents. Due to uniqueness the Unified Patent Court is of great interest when researching prospect of improvements of the patent judiciary and quasi-judicial mechanisms under the Eurasian Patent Convention. However, trends of developments of the Eurasian Patent Organization and possible centralization of the regional protection of industrial property may testify that a Eurasian analogue of the Unified Patent Court would have a different institutional form.

The article touches upon some problems of legal regulation of public procurement in two organizations — the European Union (EU) and the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU). A wide EU experience in public procurement regulation could be helpful for the EAEU, as it is facing now the same problems as the EU did, for example the digitalization of public procurement.Russian researchers often refer to European experience in order to find best practices, but the European experience in the legal regulation of public procurement is poorly examined by Russian authors. The aim of the study is to compare the process of digitalization of public procurement regulation in the EU and in the EAEU, highlight the EU instruments in this sphere which could be useful for the EAEU and point some common features and differences of the digitalization process in the sphere of public procurement in these organizations.In the article the authors compare different fields of public procurement legal regulation in the EU and in the EAEU and both general and specific instruments of digitalization in the sphere of public procurement existing in the EU and in the EAEU. The study is based on the analysis of the EU law and legal precedents.As a result the authors make a conclusion that some EU instruments of public procurement legal regulation could be applied in the EAEU or its member states law considering the difference in historical development of public procurement legal regulation of the organizations and positive experience of the EAEU member states.

The subject of research is the dynamic change in the regulatory and legal framework of the EU and its Member States in the field of energy, in particular, concerning the regulation of hydrogen projects.The purpose of the study is to propose a response from the Russian side to the measures taken by Europe.Methodology. The research methods include both theoretical (analysis, synthesis, deduction, induction, analogy) and special legal methods of cognition (formal legal and comparative legal).The main results and the scope of the study. The European Union initiated a comprehensive development of the energy sector within the framework of the European Green Deal: the emphasis on certain sectors is no longer placed. At the same time, there is a growing interest in hydrogen projects, which are facing the problem of absence of large-scale regulation and the difficulty of resolving financing issues. In contrast to neighboring countries, the German experience in hydrogen regulation has proved to be successful and closest to Russian interests. New energy (primarily hydrogen) markets in the EU are awaiting supranational regulation. Germany’s technical readiness has allowed it to quickly form the rules of the game in the emerging hydrogen network market, which should suit the Russian side in terms of tariffs and access. The EU is effectively adopting new documents and acts aimed at greater integration of various energy sectors within the Union and “discarding” traditional energy and its actors. The rapid development of the law reduces the chances of successful implementation of projects with the participation of non-EU member states.Conclusions. In the near future, in particular, on the eve of the emergence of hydrogen regulation at the EU level, Russia should reconsider the approaches to organizing the national energy policy and pay more attention to integration development. The opposite will entail economic losses and deprive the Russian side of competitive advantages and leverage. The study of the material can affect the improvement of energy legislation and business processes with the participation of third countries (for example, Russia), as well as their companies, interacting with the EU: for example, “Gazprom” Group is already considering various options for realizing hydrogen projects in Europe. Moreover, the EU experience can be useful for unlocking the energy potential of the Eurasian Economic Union. Separately, countries should consider the quantitative criterion and the phenomenon of 27 EU “heads” (by the number of member states), comprehensively improving energy orders at various levels, despite sometimes arising internal contradictions.

Abstract: A lot of profound political, economic, social, cultural and legislative modifications have happened on the post-Soviet space since the disintegration of the USSR. The term “post-Soviet space” should not be considered as the geographical boundaries of the fifteen former Soviet republics. The conception of the “post-Soviet space” has a more profound meaning as it reflects the common historical and cultural heritage as well as close economic relations, moreover, friendship between the citizens of the new independent States. The most developed sphere in the interstate relations nowadays is economics. The most prime example is Eurasian Economic Union (EEU), the youngest integration institution in the world which unites five countries willing to construe their relationship on a stronger basis than the proposed format of cooperation within the Commonwealth of the Independent States. In the modern world the economic and financial interests are determining, their ensuring makes the governments change foreign and domestic policies, start and terminate trade wars, desperately fight for the respect of their legal rights or, on the contrary, voluntarily give up on some parts of their sovereignty in the framework of integration development. The experience of the European Union demonstrates that the construction of the unified internal market within which freely move persons, goods, services and capitals is a necessary but not the only attribute of a successful integration project. At a certain moment the complex of economic and financial interests should be supplied with the interests of a concrete person. A strict observation of rights and freedoms is becoming a factor that predetermines a possibility of a conversion to the higher forms of integration. In this article is analyzed the problem of human rights defense in the main organizations functioning on the post-Soviet space - Eurasian Economic Union and Commonwealth of the Independent States.

In the European Union combating insider violations and market manipulation is one of the key tasks in the domain of legal regulation of the finance market. The EU takes a systems approach to the solution of this problem, as the development of the legal regulation in this field goes the way of enhancing a respective complex of legal norms. In 7 989 the first stage of the development of the EU legal base in the area of combating insider violations was undertaken. In the mentioned year a Council Directive 89/592/EEC on insider dealing was adopted which created the basis for the legal regulation in this field. The document, despite its progressive nature for that time, soon became outdated and no longer could meet the demands of modern finance markets. In 2003 the European Union decided to enhance its legal base and adopted a new Directive 2003/6/ EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on insider dealing and market manipulation (market abuse). This secondary law act, which is still in force, has a much wider scope because its key notion "market abuse" comprises two forms of unlawful actions: insider dealing and market manipulation. In 20 7 7 drafts of new regulatory acts were elaborated - a regulation on insider dealing and market manipulation (market abuse) and a directive on criminal sanctions for insider dealing and market abuse. Should these acts be adopted, the third stage of development of the legal base in this area will begin. This article is aimed at analysing specific features of the second-stage development of the EU legal base and attempting to characterise the main directions of the upcoming reform.

Large-scale improvement is in store for the European financial regulators. Reforms are being carried out at the supranational level of the European Union whereas the national legislation of the EU member-states is being refined. Similarly, the system of financial regulation in the Russian Federation is about to change prompting creation of a mega-regulator for the financial market on the basis of the RF Central Bank to be launched in August of 2013 with the regulation and supervision shared by the RF Ministry of Finance and Central Bank respectively. As a result, the current regulator, Federal Financial Markets Service, will be abolished with its staff to be employed by the Central Bank. Whether the initiative will be successful depends on a number of factors, among them appropriate application of existing regulation models taking into account the following aspects: participation/non-participation of the market and professional community in the regulation; the subject and the field of regulation. Scrutiny of the European regulators active at the level of the European Union, as well as the national experience of the financial regulators of Luxemburg and Belgium gives a better insight into the prospects of the regulatory reform that is supposed to make the future system intelligible, lucid and self-sufficient, which should be reflected in the underlying legislation.