Loading...
|
||
Pepeliaev Group’s delegates played an active role in the business programme of the XIII St Petersburg International Legal Forum that was held from 19 until 21 May in St Petersburg. Our firm’s experts attended 12 sessions as moderators and speakers.
Head of banking & finance practice Lidia Gorshkova spoke at the session: “Law in the age of sustainable development: the environmental transformation of business and the state”. During the session, representatives of the legal business community discussed liability for environmental damage, environmental disputes and how the goals of sustainable development and other matters on the ESG agenda are enshrined in the Russian Constitution.
Lidia spoke about how the ecological transformation of business and the government can be influenced through the financial sector of the economy and outlined the legal issues that need to be addressed to facilitate the process.
She noted that regulating ESG banking in greater detail would foster clear standards and usher in a new phase in the evolution of investment decision-making practices, where the environmental agenda would come to the fore, and business entities will have to search more actively for a reasonable balance between sustainability criteria and operational efficiency.
To watch a recording of the session, please follow the link
Senior partner Rustem Ahmetshin moderated the session: “Russia – Asia: legal tools as the driver for developing multilateral cooperation and a strategic partnership”. During a lively debate, representatives of legal business from various countries shared their hands-on experience and discussed how effective legal mechanisms are in fostering multilateral cooperation, using specific legal instruments and real case studies as examples.
This year, the now traditional “Russia - Asia Dialogue” session has been devoted to three key issues which are particularly topical today:
To watch the session recording, please follow the link
Partner Alexey Konevsky spoke at the session: “Building and maintaining real estate facilities. The conflict and the balance of interests of the parties and the boundaries of enforcing rights". Representatives of the Moscow City Government, the State Duma, the Russian Ministry of Construction, Housing and Utilities (in Russian, referred to by the acronym as ‘Minstroy’) and the business community (including Opora Russia and the Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs (in Russian, abbreviated as ‘RSPP’)) also took part.
The participants in the session discussed the following issues:
During the discussion, the participants emphasised that legislation on integrated territorial development and expropriation procedures needs to be enhanced to ensure, on the one hand, that a high-quality urban environment is developed and investment opportunities are expanded, and, on the other hand, that the constitutional rights of real estate owners are safeguarded.
To watch a recording of the session, please follow the link
Senior associate Taisiia Kubrina spoke at the session: “Law and biotechnologies: synergy in the context of developing the bio-economy”. The primary goal of the discussion was to identify key trends in the regulatory development of the biotech sector, with a particular focus on issues and areas of concern that require short- and long-term attention.
Having cited relevant case law, Taisiia illustrated significant challenges in how regulations are enforced in the field of biotech.
Those taking part in the discussion noted that the industry still has to come a long way to overcome the legal barriers within the biotech sector. However, all experts concurred that efforts must be continued to improve legislation, while comprehensive and systemic solutions are devised to address critical issues. This will bring the aspirations of science, business and the society to fruition.
To watch a recording of the session, please follow the link
Senior partner Ivan Khamenushko spoke during the session: “Energy law: from challenges to opportunities”, which was organised under the auspices of PJSC Transneft. The participants discussed whether the legal framework was ready to implement the Energy Strategy approved by the Russian Government as well as potential regulatory solutions to ensure that the fuel and energy sector remains stable.
In his speech, Ivan Khamenushko highlighted the issues concerning the fiscal regime. He reminded that the profit tax rate for business entities engaged in the transportation of oil and oil products via major pipelines had been raised to 40%. The increase of the rate diminishes the primary source of investment, i.e. profit, whereas strategic interests dictate that transport infrastructure be expanded, which in turn requires investment. It is essential to provide reasonable and good-faith investors with a mechanism to make up for this effect.
Furthermore, the expert raised the question of whether the corporate property tax should be retained within the tax system, given that it is anti-investment by its nature. Pegging the assessment of a tax base to bookkeeping standards is not always conducive to establishing an appropriate taxation framework. "A potential solution could lie in introducing a simplified fixed-asset tax accounting model, which can be digitalised by taxpayers," suggested Ivan, "with compliance procedures being automated, and/or tax being preserved only for office and commercial real estate."
To watch a recording of the session, please follow the link
Managing Partner Sergey Pepeliaev moderated the session: “Legal assistance in the BRICS Countries: legal infrastructure for mutual investments”. The Russian practice of recent years has demonstrated the vulnerability inherent in the 35-year-old regulatory framework governing the legal services market. This brings about a need for sovereign infrastructure to be established to support the Russian economy.
The experience of the BRICS member states demonstrates that it is not a viable idea to completely open the market to foreign legal consultants, particularly in the area of legal services.
During the session, representatives from the legal markets of China, India, South Africa, Uzbekistan, Vietnam and Russia shared the practices of their respective countries on the following matters:
The discussion culminated in the proposition that BRICS member states should develop their respective national markets and, based on such development, strengthen relations within the Association. Should Russia persist in maintaining a completely open market for the entry of foreign (particularly Western) law firms without appropriate regulatory oversight, there exists a tangible risk that the Russian segment may become dissociated from the system of national legal markets within BRICS.
To watch a recording of the session, please follow the link
Expert Sergey Taut spoke at the session: “Legal risks: compliance and prevention in the digital era”. Representatives from the legal business community as well as academic and expert circles discussed effective measures for mitigating the legal risks that businesses face in the current environment.
During the session, Sergey addressed the trends in anti-corruption compliance and the liability of business entities for corruption-related offences.
He noted that, given the rapid development of the practice of enterprises, shareholders and senior executives facing civil-law liability for corruption-related violations (including court rulings issued under relevant claims asserted by the Prosecutor General’s Office), it has become a matter of burning importance for the corporate sector to establish a robust compliance system. It is also advisable for existing and prospective assets to be additionally checked for corruption and re-nationalisation risks, and for criminal law compliance be incorporated into company’s practices.
To watch a recording of the session, please follow the link
Partner Alexander Kosov spoke at the session: “Taxation and administration of cross-border transactions: striking a balance between capital control and protecting businesses from sanctions”. At the session, experts discussed the problem of including dividends in the customs value of goods.
In his speech, Alexander noted that, unlike tax authorities, customs authorities do not believe it necessary to prove that there has been an abuse on the part of the declarant when certain payments are being passed off as other payments with a view to reducing the general fiscal burden. From the customs authorities’ perspective, dividends cease to be treated as such simply because the importer has paid them to a foreign seller of imported goods, and the customs value has been understated simply because dividends have not been included in it. They add dividends to the customs value, including of those goods for which the customs duty rate does not depend on the customs value. As VAT is deducted, the declarant cannot have any commercial interest in understating this value with respect to the goods in question.
Experts consider that the Russian Finance Ministry could improve the situation. Yet, the clarifications that the Ministry provided in February 2025 contain ambiguous and contradictory conclusions. Some of them are at variance with the provisions of article 39(5) of the EAEU Customs Code. Consequently, these clarifications have not yet changed the situation significantly. Experts have high expectations of the draft of the Recommendations that the Eurasian Economic Commission has prepared.
To watch a recording of the session, please follow the
link
Partner Valentina Orlova moderated the session: “Analogues, counterfeits, and reverse engineering”. The session focused on matters of compulsory licensing, parallel import, re-engineering, counteracting counterfeit products in the IT sector, patent disputes and rebranding issues in the context of foreign business leaving Russia.
Valentina conducted a discussion regarding the new challenges in battling counterfeit products. She underlined that, although the discussion has been going on for many years, the problem of counterfeits remains relevant. It is being filled with new content and is being transformed with technology and the market. Today, not only are traditional items of intellectual property under threat. So are digital assets, software and innovative developments, too. At the same time, regulation and case law are developing dynamically and forming new tools of protection.
One of the most effective ways of counteracting infringements is a deposit, which helps to secure copyrights and prevent the illegal use of intellectual property. The expert also noted that only a comprehensive approach would help businesses to safeguard their assets against the backdrop of the constantly changing economic landscape.
To watch a recording of the session, please follow the
link
Managing Partner Sergey Pepeliaev spoke at the session: “Independence of the legal profession”. Within the scope of the session, representatives of the legal profession discussed whether the exercise of the public function of legal protection depends on the guaranteed independence of lawyers and whether a violation of lawyers’ rights should be viewed as an encroachment on justice. They also speculated to what extent the violation of a defence attorney’s rights at any stage of criminal proceedings affects the legitimacy of the final court decision.
“What is the essence of the problem? Independence is not about cutting oneself off from society and the state, but about determining the rules of the game for oneself," commented Mr Pepeliaev in sharing his view. "The essence of independence is self-regulation. The Bar is a self-regulating organisation, and this is the most important thing for ensuring independence.”
He noted that self-regulation could be implemented only by combining two instruments: a code of ethics and standards for legal assistance and the legal profession. The function of the code of ethics is to purify the ranks of the profession, while the standards seek to protect the legal profession from outside encroachment. Yet, in Mr Pepeliaev's opinion, the standards of the legal profession are not properly developed at present. They are often adopted in the form of methodological recommendations or clarifications of regional Bars. There is a risk that disciplinary sanctions for a breach of such clarifications and recommendations will be challenged through court action.
To watch a recording of the session, please follow the link
Partner Yulia Litovtseva spoke at the session: “The court’s role in overseeing bankruptcy cases”. During the discussion, Yulia pointed out to representatives of higher courts that, while there is sufficient power for effective judicial overview, there is a problem with its being done in time. This problem manifests itself in two aspects.
To finish off, Yulia noted that, as foreign experience shows, the future lies in out-of-court insolvency resolution, including by forming an institution of specialists in restoring solvency without recourse to a court that is separate from bankruptcy administrators.
To watch a recording of the session, please follow the link
Managing Partner Sergey Pepeliaev spoke at the session: “Legal instruments for reducing tax conflict”. The session was dedicated to the search for legal tools to reduce conflict between taxpayers and tax authorities.
The main questions of the discussion were:
As things stand, there are no instruments of mutual settlement procedures in the Tax Code. Widely acclaimed well-grounded opinions for tax monitoring participants are a publicity stunt. From the legal perspective, this is a type of administrative warning to eliminate the causes and effects of the offence (a well-grounded opinion at the initiative of the tax authority) and a form of request for clarification modified to the needs of tax control authorities (a well-grounded opinion at the initiative of the taxpayer).
Owing to the development of digital technologies, the Russian Federal Tax Service has a huge amount of information that needs to be ‘utilised’. Hence, the summoning of taxpayers to tax commissions:
“We know something about you, adjust your tax returns and pay more taxes”.
The results of these exhortations are formalised in a protocol, which has no legal significance and does not guarantee a quiet life for the taxpayer if the latter agrees to the terms proposed by the inspectorate.
"That is why we need a tool for achieving an agreement on facts: once we have established the state of affairs and in the future we proceed only from it, we do not change how business transactions affecting taxation are classified," considers Mr Pepeliaev.
To watch a recording of the session, please follow the link
