Globalisation & Russian Law

Institute staffers Kirill Molodyko and Maxim Karliuk, after a competitive selection process, on 6-7 October took part in the annual international conference "Development of Russian Law IX: Globalisation & Russian Law" in Helsinki, Finland. The conference is a joint project of the National Research University Higher School of Economics Faculty of Law, and the University of Helsinki - the leading law school of Finland.

In his report, Kirill Molodyko focused on analysis of the new Russian law regulating the activities of credit rating agencies (CRA). The study, whose results will soon be published in academic literature, showed that some new legal regulations are adapted from EU law (in some cases with variations), while some others are closer to American federal law. However, there are novel elements (e.g. full removal of fines as sanctions imposed on agencies for violating the law), which differ significantly from the existing regulation in the EU and the United States. Our speaker focused on the issues of monopolisation and diminishing market confidence. In particular, he noted the enormous level of monopolisation in the market for credit rating services. However, the market is based solely on the credibility of the ratings agencies, which has been undermined both in the West and in Russia via the setting of inadequately inflated ratings. Kirill Molodyko focused on these groups of issues: permissible and prohibited conflicts of interest, including a conflict of interests for credit analysts with their other professional activities; oversight of CRA price policies; permissible activities; and fair competition and prevention of monopolisation of the market. According to the speaker, international cooperation between regulators of credit rating services and the antitrust authorities of BRICS countries will help boost CRA activity in the direction of ensuring the integrity and transparency of their work.

 

Maxim Karliuk spoke in the section dedicated to Eurasian integration, together with representatives of the Court of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU). In his report he presented a critical analysis of the interrelation of the Russian legal system and the EAEU legal system. The essence of the problematic relation of two legal regimes is the distinction between the narratives that are constructed and promoted by the legally accountable entities at root: the Constitutional Court and the Eurasian Court. At the same time, there are no direct barriers to the mutually beneficial interplay of these legal orders. And so, Russian law recognises the priority of international treaties that become integrated into the legal system. Despite the lack of regulation at the national level, the decisions of the Eurasian Economic Commission are not under restriction except via the Constitution itself, and therefore they can be in direct accord with the EAEU. The rights of the EAEU also do not impinge on national constitutional law. The main discrepancies appear in the interpretative practices of the two courts, which arise from artificially created competition courts attempting to establish a dominant role. Via examples from judicial practice, our speaker showed that unifying these courts addresses the weakness of the argument in this aspect and testifies to the challenge of artificiality and the opportunities of resolving via dialogue the issues which, all in all, will lead to an understanding of the complementarity of the legal systems.