Instituto de Estudios Políticos y Derecho Público "Dr. Humberto J. La Roche"
de la Facultad de Ciencias Jurídicas y Políticas de la Universidad del Zulia
Maracaibo, Venezuela
Esta publicación cientíca en formato digital es continuidad de la revista impresa
ISSN-Versión Impresa 0798-1406 / ISSN-Versión on line 2542-3185Depósito legal pp
197402ZU34
ppi 201502ZU4645
Vol.39 N° 68
Enero
Junio
2021
ISSN 0798- 1406 ~ De pó si to le gal pp 198502ZU132
Cues tio nes Po lí ti cas
La re vis ta Cues tio nes Po lí ti cas, es una pu bli ca ción aus pi cia da por el Ins ti tu to
de Es tu dios Po lí ti cos y De re cho Pú bli co “Dr. Hum ber to J. La Ro che” (IEPDP) de la Fa-
cul tad de Cien cias Ju rí di cas y Po lí ti cas de la Uni ver si dad del Zu lia.
En tre sus ob je ti vos fi gu ran: con tri buir con el pro gre so cien tí fi co de las Cien cias
Hu ma nas y So cia les, a tra vés de la di vul ga ción de los re sul ta dos lo gra dos por sus in ves-
ti ga do res; es ti mu lar la in ves ti ga ción en es tas áreas del sa ber; y pro pi ciar la pre sen ta-
ción, dis cu sión y con fron ta ción de las ideas y avan ces cien tí fi cos con com pro mi so so cial.
Cues tio nes Po lí ti cas apa re ce dos ve ces al año y pu bli ca tra ba jos ori gi na les con
avan ces o re sul ta dos de in ves ti ga ción en las áreas de Cien cia Po lí ti ca y De re cho Pú bli-
co, los cua les son so me ti dos a la con si de ra ción de ár bi tros ca li fi ca dos.
ESTA PU BLI CA CIÓN APA RE CE RE SE ÑA DA, EN TRE OTROS ÍN DI CES, EN
:
Re vicyhLUZ, In ter na tio nal Po li ti cal Scien ce Abs tracts, Re vis ta In ter ame ri ca na de
Bi blio gra fía, en el Cen tro La ti no ame ri ca no para el De sa rrol lo (CLAD), en Bi blio-
gra fía So cio Eco nó mi ca de Ve ne zue la de RE DIN SE, In ter na tio nal Bi blio graphy of
Po li ti cal Scien ce, Re vencyt, His pa nic Ame ri can Pe rio di cals In dex/HAPI), Ul ri ch’s
Pe rio di cals Di rec tory, EBS CO. Se en cuen tra acre di ta da al Re gis tro de Pu bli ca cio-
nes Cien tí fi cas y Tec no ló gi cas Ve ne zo la nas del FO NA CIT, La tin dex.
Di rec to ra
L
OIRALITH
M. C
HIRINOS
P
ORTILLO
Co mi té Edi tor
Eduviges Morales Villalobos
Fabiola Tavares Duarte
Ma ría Eu ge nia Soto Hernández
Nila Leal González
Carmen Pérez Baralt
Co mi té Ase sor
Pedro Bracho Grand
J. M. Del ga do Ocan do
José Ce rra da
Ri car do Com bel las
An gel Lom bar di
Die ter Nohlen
Al fre do Ra mos Ji mé nez
Go ran Ther born
Frie drich Welsch
Asis ten tes Ad mi nis tra ti vos
Joan López Urdaneta y Nil da Ma rín
Re vis ta Cues tio nes Po lí ti cas. Av. Gua ji ra. Uni ver si dad del Zu lia. Nú cleo Hu ma nís ti co. Fa-
cul tad de Cien cias Ju rí di cas y Po lí ti cas. Ins ti tu to de Es tu dios Po lí ti cos y De re cho Pú bli co
“Dr. Hum ber to J. La Ro che”. Ma ra cai bo, Ve ne zue la. E- mail: cues tio nes po li ti cas@gmail.
com ~ loi chi ri nos por til lo@gmail.com. Te le fax: 58- 0261- 4127018.
Vol. 39, Nº 68 (Enero - Junio) 2021, 777-786
IEPDP-Facultad de Ciencias Jurídicas y Políticas - LUZ
Recibido el 15/08/2020 Aceptado el 13/01/2021
Competition Status of a Unitary
Enterprise: Some Problems
DOI: https://doi.org/10.46398/cuestpol.3968.50
Marina.V. Telyukina *
K.B. Shukurova **
Abstract
Problems arising from the insolvency (bankruptcy)
procedures of a unitary undertaking are currently very relevant,
since, in the context of competition relations, the redistribution
of ownership may also take place outside the framework of
privatization legislation. This article is dedicated to the analysis
of both theoretical and practical problems of the competitiveness
of a unitary company. The authors of the paper point out that the
lack of a special term for the designation of unitary enterprises
on the right to economic management is one of the systemic shortcomings
of Russian doctrine of civil law. The study methodology includes a group
of general scientic methods (analysis, synthesis, deduction, induction),
as well as a group of special methods: analysis of the content of scientic
literature and analysis of the regulatory framework. It is concluded that
Russian law should create a legal model that excludes the operation of non-
proprietary entities alongside legal conditions that prevent abuse of their
competitive status, both by the arbitration administrator and by the public
legal entity that owns the debtor unitary enterprise.
Keywords: unitary enterprise; public law: bankruptcy proceedings;
privatization; competitive situation of the unitary enterprise.
* Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration, Moscow, Russia.
ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7722-7954. Email: marwict@mail.ru
** State Committee for Investment and State Property Management of the Republic of Tajikistan,
Dushanbe, Republic of Tajikistan. ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9678-4078. Email:
karminashukurova@gmail.com
778
Marina.V. Telyukina y K.B. Shukurova
Competition Status of a Unitary Enterprise: Some Problems
Competitividad de la empresa unitaria: algunos
problemas
Resumen
Los problemas derivados de los procedimientos de insolvencia (quiebra)
de una empresa unitaria son actualmente muy relevantes, ya que, en el
marco de las relaciones de competencia, la redistribución de la propiedad
también puede tener lugar fuera del marco de la legislación de privatización.
Este artículo está dedicado al análisis de problemas tanto teóricos como
prácticos de la competitividad de una empresa unitaria. Los autores del
artículo señalan que la falta de un término especial para la designación
de las empresas unitarias sobre el derecho de gestión económica es una
de las deciencias sistémicas de la doctrina rusa del derecho civil. La
metodología del estudio incluye un grupo de métodos cientícos generales
(análisis, síntesis, deducción, inducción), así como un grupo de métodos
especiales: análisis del contenido de la literatura cientíca y análisis del
marco normativo. Se concluye que la legislación rusa debe crear un modelo
jurídico que excluya el funcionamiento de las entidades no propietarias
junto a las condiciones legales que impidan el abuso de su condición
competitiva, tanto por parte del administrador del arbitraje como de la
entidad jurídica pública propietaria de la empresa unitaria deudora.
Palabras clave: empresa unitaria; derecho público: procedimiento de
quiebra; privatización; situación de competencia de la
empresa unitaria.
Introduction
The legal status is usually understood as the subject’s position in the
certain relations system determined by the presence of certain rights
and obligations (Alekseev, 1981; Arkhipov, 2004; Mikryukov, 2015).
Simultaneously, the competitive status is subject’s position in the
competitive relations system. By competitive relations we understand
the relations arising between the debtor, its creditors and third parties in
connection with the non-fulllment of rights and obligations by the debtor;
the term “competition law” was used in the pre-revolutionary doctrine
(Genkin, 1913; Golmsten, 1888; Karnushin, 2016; Popondopulo, 2001;
Telyukina, 2002; Tkachev, 2006) as well as it is widely used now.
Active and passive competitive statuses can be distinguished, meaning
the creditor’s legal status as active and the debtor’s legal status as passive.
This article is focused on the features of relations associated with the
implementation of bankruptcy case proceedings against a unitary enterprise,
in other words, on the passive competitive status of this entity. This design
779
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 39 Nº 68 (Enero - Junio 2021): 777-786
- “passive competitive status” – has been developed by the authors of this
article and is proposed for use in scientic circulation in order to optimize
the doctrine.
1. Materials and Methods
Both in theory and in practice, there are many problems, including those
which are not resolved at the legislative level (Erokhova, 2015; Sukhanov,
2014), that are solved by different scientists and courts in various ways. Let
us dwell on some of them.
It seems logically to start an analysis of the problems in the passive
competitive status of a unitary enterprise with a system-forming problem
dened by the answer for two questions:
- rstly, is it advisable to allow the inclusion of a unitary enterprise in
the subjects of competition law?
- secondly, is it generally advisable to retain the legal form of a unitary
enterprise among the subjects of civil law?
2. Results
The design of a unitary enterprise is not an immanent in market economy
because the legal form of the enterprise, as well as institutions are not
implied ownership of the property by this subject. Thus, Russian law (unlike
most legal systems) allows, although in a limited version, participation in
legal relations of entities that are not owners of the property on which they
operate. Many scientists criticize this approach (Andreev, 2005; Braginsky,
1960; Gadzhiev, 1996; Golubtsov, 2010). Through the activities of unitary
enterprises, public law object is involved in entrepreneurial relations. The
related problems are beyond the scope of this article, so we just note the
doctrinal interest in them (Istomin, 2003; Kulagin, 1987; Mochalov, 2016;
Sadrieva, 2018; Yakovlev and Talapina, 2012).
In this case, a unitary enterprise may function on the basis of economic
management or operational management. The latter has a special name
– “state-owned enterprise”. The absence of a special term for designating
unitary enterprises under the economic management right, in our opinion,
is one of the systemic shortcomings of the Russian civil law doctrine.
The institution operates on the operational management right, which
differs essentially from the operational management right of a state-owned
enterprise. In this context, there is one more defect of the Russian civilist
doctrine, which can be generically designated as naming various relations
by the same term. Thus, the operational management right of a state-owned
780
Marina.V. Telyukina y K.B. Shukurova
Competition Status of a Unitary Enterprise: Some Problems
enterprise, by no means, is not the same as the operational management
right of an institution. Nevertheless, the term “operational management” is
used to designate both structures that should be differentiated.
By virtue of the norms, clause 1 of Article 65 in the Civil Code of the
Russian Federation (Federal Law of the Russian Federation, 2002a), the
passive competitive status is used for only unitary enterprises based on the
economic management right. Using the term “competitiveness”, known in
modern doctrine (Galkin, 2016; Suvorov, 2019; Shishmareva, 2016), it can
be said that state-owned enterprises and institutions are not competitive.
The Law “On Insolvency (Bankruptcy)” does not contain a special
chapter (or other location of legal norms) for regulation of the particularities
in the case proceedings on bankruptcy of a unitary enterprise. At the same
time, the Law contains the chapter “Bankruptcy of Strategic Enterprises”,
as well as the chapters for regulation the general insolvency (bankruptcy)
procedure contain rules (mainly, which are relatively recent legislative
changes) that dene the particular status of a unitary enterprise.
From the foregoing it follows that one of the problems in Russian
competition law can be dened the correlation problem between the norms
of a special chapter for regulation the bankruptcy of strategic enterprises
and the norms, contained in the general chapters, for regulation the
position of a unitary enterprise in the tender procedures. The fact is that a
unitary enterprise may possess the characteristics of a strategic enterprise,
however, other entities (not just unitary enterprises) may be identied as
strategic. A detailed discussion of this issue is beyond the scope of this
article. Features of the competitive status of strategic organizations are
investigated in the doctrine (Chirkov, 2014).
The next problem of the competitive status of a unitary enterprise is
determined by the very possibility of applying the procedures, provided
for by the Law on Bankruptcy, to unitary enterprises under the economic
management right. In the process of bankruptcy proceedings of any
legal entity, such procedures as supervision, nancial recovery, external
management, bankruptcy proceedings may be introduced. Without
dwelling on the essence of these procedures and noting the interest on
the part of scientists (Order of the Government of the Russian Federation,
2009; The Decision of the Arbitration Court of the North-Western District,
2019; Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the Far Eastern District, 2018),
we turn directly to the problem, which is that the Law on Bankruptcy allows
the sale of debtor’s assets, including a unitary enterprise, as part of external
management and bankruptcy proceedings. As a result, the owner of the
assets of a unitary enterprise (which can be the Russian Federation itself,
the subject of the Federation and the municipality) may lose these assets,
which will be transferred to the property buyer. However, in Russian law,
the transfer of property from public law object to private individuals has
781
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 39 Nº 68 (Enero - Junio 2021): 777-786
a special name - privatization - and special legal regulation with complex
multifaceted privatization legislation (Egorov, 2019; Koraev, 2018; Lipkin
and Barsky, 2017; Miftakhutdinov, 2013; Mikryukov, 2015). Doctrinal
studies of privatization can be described as complex and multidimensional
(Olenin, 2000; Tkachev, 2006; Telyukina, 2018; Telyukina, 2001).
As a result, we can conclude that there is a parallelization of legal
norms or, in other words, there is competition for legal regulation of the
property transfer from public law education to private individuals, which,
in our opinion, is a drawback of the legal technique of Russian legislation
(Federal Law of the Russian Federation, 2002b; Federal Law of the Russian
Federation, 2001; Decree of the President of the Russian Federation, 1994;
Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation, 2009; Resolution
of the Arbitration Court of the Far Eastern District). The term “quasi-
privatization” is not commonly used; in the opinion of the authors of this
article, it must be put into scientic circulation to indicate the relations that
develop in connection with the property transfer from public ownership to
private in the process of insolvency (bankruptcy) proceedings.
3. Discussion
The problem of the implementation of quasi-privatization term is
associated with the problem of the retained competence of the property
owner in a unitary enterprise. The design of the retained competence was
introduced into the Law on Bankruptcy with the aim of protecting the
property owner of a unitary enterprise, that is, public law object, from
actions, aimed at seizing a business carried out by an arbitration manager
in the interests of invaders (raiders), are possible because all the powers of
all authority’s management of the debtor legal entity after the introduction
of external management pass to the arbitration manager.
Accordingly, before to the standards introduction on retained
competence into the competition law, the arbitration manager, having
the authority of all management bodies, could, for example, decide to sell
the debtor’s business at an unprotable price or conclude a fullment
agreement by a third party of the debtor’s obligations at non-protable
conditions for debtor. Generally, have been used various schemes of raider
seizures through bankruptcy manifest in practice (Telyukina, 2017), this
issue is also studied in the doctrine (European Court of Human Rights,
2014).
The inclusion of the retained competence design led to the arbitration
manager becoming obligated to coordinate with the property owner of
the unitary enterprise issues related to the disposal of the debtor’s assets.
In this regard, on the one hand, there are guarantees that the arbitration
manager is not able to arbitrarily perform actions aimed at implementing
quasi-privatization.
782
Marina.V. Telyukina y K.B. Shukurova
Competition Status of a Unitary Enterprise: Some Problems
However, on the other hand, the property owner of a unitary enterprise
(represented by certain ofcials of the state (municipal) body responsible for
property managing) may not agree to certain measures, the implementation
of which can restore the solvency of the debtor. This problem can be
positioned as follows - this is a problem determined by the absence in the
current legislation of mechanisms to challenge the property owner’ refusal
of the unitary enterprise to approve the actions of the arbitration manager
aimed at the property disposing of the unitary enterprise as a debtor.
A different order problem, related to the retained competence, is
determined by the fact that at the stage of bankruptcy proceedings the
governing bodies of the debtor do not retain any powers, that is, the
bankruptcy trustee can make any decisions which opens up the abuse
possibility.
Another block of problems is related to the fact that in practice
public law object often illegally disposes of the unitary enterprise’ assets,
redistributing them, despite the prohibition in both the Civil Code of the
Russian Federation and the Law on Unitary Enterprises, which often leads
to a bankruptcy of a unitary enterprise. And although there is no subsidiary
liability of public law object for the debts of a unitary enterprise, there is
a practice of the European Court of Human Rights in which the Russian
Federation is obligated to compensate citizens who have not received wages,
losses and non-pecuniary damage as a result of bankruptcy (Voevodkin,
2017; Grishchenko and Martynov, 2018; Ivanov, 2015; Demchenko, 2015;
Popondopulo, 2015); we should note doctrinal interest in this issue.
Conclusion
Summarizing what was said in this article, we note that many competitive
features of a unitary enterprise status in Russian law are determined by its
anomalous legal nature, especially the lack of ownership of the property
that this legal form owns. The strategic objective of science is to create a
legal model that excludes the functioning of non-owner entities; the tactical
task is to create legal conditions that prevent the abuse of its competitive
status by both the arbitration manager and the public legal entity-owner of
the property of the debtor-unitary enterprise.
Bibliographic References
ALEKSEEV, Sergey Sergeevich. 1981. General theory of law: In 2 vols. Legal
literature. Moscow, Russia.
ANDREEV, Yuri N. 2005. State participation in civil law relations. Yuridicheskiy
tsentr Press. St. Petersburg, Russia.
783
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 39 Nº 68 (Enero - Junio 2021): 777-786
ARKHIPOV, Sergey Ivanovich. 2004. Subject of law: theoretical study.
Yuridicheskiy tsentr Press. St. Petersburg, Russia.
BRAGINSKY, M.I. 1960. The Soviet state as a subject of civil law. In: V.A.
Ryasentsev (Ed.), Soviet Civil Law. Part 1 (p. 34). VYUZI Publication.
Moscow, Russia.
CHIRKOV, Oleg Gennadievich. 2014. “Features of bankruptcy procedures
for strategic enterprises and organizations: current issues and their
solutions” In: Judge. No. 12, pp. 50 - 56.
DECREE OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION NO.
995. (DECEMBER 10, 2009). 2009. “On the procedure and conditions
for the restructuring of debts of organizations of the military-industrial
complex - executors of the state defense order included in the list of
strategic organizations for taxes and fees charged penalties and nes
before the federal budget and write-offs of these penalties and nes” (as
amended on May 31, 2012). Available online. In: http://government.ru/
docs/all/70508/. Consultation date: 08/03/2020.
DECREE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION NO. 1535.
(JULY 22, 1994).1994. “On the Basic Provisions of the State Program
for the Privatization of State and Municipal Enterprises in the Russian
Federation after July 1, 1994” (as amended of October 22, 2014). Sobranie
Zakonodatel’stva Rossiiskoi Federatsii [SZ RF] [Collection of Legislation
of the RF] 25.07.1994, No. 13, Item 1478.
DEMCHENKO, Alena Sergeevna. 2015. “Legal methods of protection against
hostile takeovers in the Russian Federation” In: Actual problems of
Russian law. Vol. 8, No. 57, pp. 84-90.
EGOROV, A.V. 2019. “Bankruptcy proceedings: commentary on key points” In:
Civil Law Bulletin. No. 1, pp. 114-139.
EROKHOVA, M.A. 2015. “Objects taken out of circulation: the approach of
the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation: Commentary on the
Determination of the Judicial Collegium for Economic Disputes of the
RF Armed Forces of February 13, 2015 in the case N 308-ES14-5118” In:
Bulletin of the Economic Justice of the Russian Federation. No. 3, pp.
44-47.
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. (October 9, 2014). 2014. Liseytseva
and Maslov Case Nos. 39483/05 40527/10. Strasbourg, France.
FEDERAL LAW OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION NO. 127-FZ. 2002a. “On
Insolvency (Bankruptcy)” (as amended on December 27, 2018). Sobranie
Zakonodatel’stva Rossiiskoi Federatsii [SZ RF] [Collection of Legislation
of the RF] 28.10.2002, No. 43, Item 4190.
784
Marina.V. Telyukina y K.B. Shukurova
Competition Status of a Unitary Enterprise: Some Problems
FEDERAL LAW OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION NO. 161-FZ. (NOVEMBER
14, 2002). 2002b. “On State and Municipal Unitary Enterprises”(as
amended on November 28, 2018). Sobranie Zakonodatel’stva Rossiiskoi
Federatsii [SZ RF] [Collection of Legislation of the RF] 02.12.2002, No.
48, Item 4746.
FEDERAL LAW OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION NO. 178-FZ. 2001.
“On the Privatization of State and Municipal Property”(as amended
on July 3, 2016). Available online. In: http://pravo.gov.ru/proxy/
ips/?docbody=&nd=102074022. Consultation date: 08/03/2020.
GADZHIEV, Gadis Abdullaevich. 1996. Basic economic rights (comparative
study of constitutional and legal institutions of Russia and foreign
countries): Dis. Dr. jur. sciences. Institute of Legislation and Comparative
Law under the Government of Russian Federation. Moscow, Russia.
GALKIN, Sergey Sergeevich. 2016. “The doctrine of the debtor in the competition
law of Russia and the national economic policy” In: Entrepreneurial law.
No. 3, pp. 32-38.
GENKIN, Dmitry Mikhailovich. 1913. To the upcoming reform of the competition
law. Legal Bulletin. Book 1, 28. Moscow, Russia.
GOLMSTEN, A. Kh. 1888. Historical outline of the Russian competitive process.
the Printing house of V.S. Balashev. St. Petersburg, Russia.
GOLUBTSOV, Valery Gennadievich. 2010. “The state as a private legal entity:
legal nature and features” In: Journal of Russian Law. No. 10, pp. 61-77.
GRISHCHENKO, Leonid Leonidovich; MARTYNOV, Dmitry Vladimirovich.
2018. “Raiding as a modern threat to business interests” In: Business
Security. No. 3, pp. 23-29.
ISTOMIN, V.G. 2003. “Some aspects of the participation of public law entities
in civil matters. In: Actual problems of civilistic branches of law” In:
Interuniversity collection of scientic papers, Issue 3. Statut. Moscow,
Russia.
IVANOV, Anton Aleksandrovich. 2015. “The Problem of the Primitivization of
Civil Law of Russia” In: The Law. No. 5, pp. 58-64.
KARNUSHIN, V.E. 2016. “Competitive material legal relationship” In: Legal
world. Vol. 7, pp. 39-42.
KORAEV, Konstantin Borisovich. 2018. Insolvency: New Institute for Legal
Regulation of Financial Recovery and Insolvency (Bankruptcy):
Monograph. Prospect. Moscow, Russia.
785
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 39 Nº 68 (Enero - Junio 2021): 777-786
KULAGIN, Mikhail Ivanovich. 1987. State-monopoly capitalism and legal
entity. Publishing House of the Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia.
Moscow, Russia.
LIPKIN, I.B; BARSKY, I.V. 2017. “Bankruptcy Rehabilitation Procedures” In:
Arbitration Manager. No. 2, pp. 25-30.
MIFTAKHUTDINOV, R.T. 2013. The abolition of the monitoring procedure
as one of the main measures to improve domestic bankruptcy law and
its consequences de lege ferenda. In: V.A. Golubtsoa, O.A. Kyznertsova
(Eds.), 20 years of the Constitution of the Russian Federation: actual
problems of legal science and law enforcement in the context of
improving Russian legislation: Fourth Perm International Congress of
Lawyers, October 18-19, 2013, Perm, Statut. Moscow, Russia.
MIKRYUKOV, Viktor Alekseevich. 2015. “Problems of including information
on the civil status of organizations in the Unied State Register of Legal
Entities” In: Laws of Russia: experience, analysis, practice. No. 9, pp. 87-
91.
MOCHALOV, S.Yu. 2016. “Some legal problems of the participation of public
law entities in civil matters” In: Actual problems of Russian law. No. 3,
pp. 89-99.
OLENIN, A.E. 2000. “Legal basis and features of observation as a bankruptcy
procedure” In: Legislation. No. 2, pp. 37.
ORDER OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
NO.1226-R. (AUGUST 20, 2009). 2009. “On approval of the list of
strategic organizations, as well as federal executive bodies, ensuring the
implementation of a unied state policy in the sectors of the economy
in which these organizations operate”(as amended on April 11, 2019).
Sobranie Zakonodatel’stva Rossiiskoi Federatsii [SZ RF] [Collection of
Legislation of the RF] 31.08.2009, No. 35, Item 4288.
POPONDOPULO, Vladimir Fedorovich. 2001. Competition law: Legal
regulation of insolvency (bankruptcy): Textbook. Lawyer. Moscow,
Russia.
POPONDOPULO, Vladimir Fedorovich. 2015. Criteria and signs of bankruptcy
in the light of recent changes in bankruptcy law. In: S.D. Mogilevsky,
M.A. Egorova (Eds.) Collection of scientic and practical articles of the
II International scientic and practical conference “Actual problems
of business and corporate law in Russia and abroad”, April 22, 2015.
Yustitsinform. Moscow, Russia.
786
Marina.V. Telyukina y K.B. Shukurova
Competition Status of a Unitary Enterprise: Some Problems
RESOLUTION OF THE ARBITRATION COURT OF THE FAR EASTERN
DISTRICT NO. F03-5147. (DECEMBER 6, 2018). 2018. Moscow, Russia.
SADRIEVA, R.R. 2018. “Equal beginnings of the speech of the Russian
Federation with other participants in civil relations” In: Notary, No. 7,
pp. 17-20.
SHISHMAREVA, T.P. 2016. “Insolvency problems of separate property masses”
In: Entrepreneurial law, The application “Law and Business”. No. 3, pp.
50-54.
SUKHANOV, E.A. 2014. Comparative corporate law. Statute. Moscow, Russia.
SUVOROV, Evgeny Dmitrievich. 2019. Bankruptcy in the practice of the
Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and the Supreme Arbitration
Court of the Russian Federation: an encyclopedia of legal positions for
2014 - 2018. Statute. Moscow, Russia.
TELYUKINA, Marina Viktorovna. 2001. “Some issues of external management
of the debtor’s property” In: Legislation and Economics. No. 7, pp. 30-34.
TELYUKINA, Marina Viktorovna. 2002. Competition law: theory and practice
of insolvency. Delo. Moscow, Russia.
TELYUKINA, Marina Viktorovna. 2017. “Quasiprivatization and other features
of the insolvency (bankruptcy) of a unitary enterprise: Appendix to the
monthly legal scientic and practical” In: Journal Economy and Law.
No. 5, pp 3-48.
TELYUKINA, Marina Viktorovna. 2018. “System analysis of the observation
procedure and the practical problems of its implementation” In:
Economy and Law. No. 5, pp. 3-25.
THE DECISION OF THE ARBITRATION COURT OF THE NORTH-
WESTERN DISTRICT NO. Ф07-16181. (JANUARY 28, 2019). 2019.
Moscow, Russia.
TKACHEV, Valentin Nikolaevich. 2006. Competition law: legal regulation of
insolvency (bankruptcy) in Russia: Textbook. Knizhnyy mir. Moscow,
Russia.
VOEVODKIN, Aleksey Vadimovich. 2017. “Legal structure of raiding” In:
Russian investigator. No. 9, pp. 23-26.
YAKOVLEV, Veniamin Fedorovich; TALAPINA, Elvira Vladimirovna. 2012.
“The role of public and private law in the regulation of the economy” In:
Journal of Russian Law. No. 2, pp. 5-16.
www.luz.edu.ve
www.serbi.luz.edu.ve
www.produccioncienticaluz.org
Esta revista fue editada en formato digital y publicada
en enero de 2021, por el Fondo Editorial Serbiluz,
Universidad del Zulia. Maracaibo-Venezuela
Vol.39 Nº 68
