Private and Civil Law in the

Russian Federation

Essays in Honor of

F.J.M. Feldbrugge

Edited by

William Simons

LEIDEN • BOSTON 2009

vi Private and Civil Law in the Russian Federation

Part III: Subjects of Civil Law

Chapter 11: Russian Bankruptcy Law in Practice and its Impact on the

Part IV: Special Questions

Chapter 13: Russian Civil Law Between Remnants of the Past and Flavor

Chapter 15: Liability for the Improper Performance of Work Contracts

2003

Part V: Fundamental Issues

Preface

The Institute of East European Law and Russian Studies has held three Leiden conferences devoted to the (re)birth of private law in the former USSR after the 1991 break-up of the Soviet Union. (1) “The Revival of Private Law in Central and Eastern Europe” (1993); (2) “The Impact of the Russian Civil Code on Legal Practice and its Meaning for Comparative Legal Studies” (1998); and (3) “The Public/Private Distinction: The East European Debates at the End of a Decade of Reforms” (2003). The proceedings from the 1993 conference have been published in an earlier volume in this series;1 the present collection rounds out the picture with the materials from the 1998/2003 meetings.

Regrettably, the publication of this volume has been delayed. This is a statement which no author or editor likes to make; which no reader or publisher likes to see. Delay is particularly unwelcome in legal systems.

The broad principle, reflecting this, is encapsulated in Jeremy Bentham’s words (echoing the Magna Carta): “Justice delayed is justice denied.” At the end of the 1990s, Zuckerman wrote about this old concern in modern language but the gist remains the same: “Delays can render the judicial protectionofrightsineffectual,reducethevalueofrights,adverselyaffect economic activity, and lead to economic distortions.”2

So,thefirstquestionthereadermayaskherselfreflectsthisconcern. Is legal scholarship delayed always to be equated with legal scholarship denied? It seems to me that where legal scholarship, as in the present case, deals with a subject which remains topical and is presented by au- thors who are distinguished thinkers in their field, this question should be answered in the negative.

Asecond,initialquestionwilllikelyconcernthereasonsforthedelay.

They are much the same as those cited a few years ago when a deadline had been missed for revising the US Freedom of Information Act Guide: “It was not ready to go”, “it [was] a mammoth undertaking”, “[w]e were just overly optimistic [...].”3

1George Ginsburgs, Donald Barry and William B. Simons, (eds.), The Revival of Private Law in Central and Eastern Europe: Essays in Honor of F.J.M. Feldbrugge, in F.J.M. Feldbrugge, (ed.), Law in Eastern Europe, No.46, The Hague, London, Boston 1996, xv + 667 pages.

2“Justice in Crisis: Comparative Dimensions of Civil Procedure”, in A.A.S. Zuckerman, (ed.), Civil Justice in Crisis, Oxford 1999, 12.

3RebeccaCarr,“DelaysinGuideRaiseQuestionsAboutBush’sInformationPledge”,

Cox News Service, 11 March 2007, reproduced at <http://www.coxwashington.com/ news/content/reporters/stories/2007/03/11/BC_FOIA_FAILURE_ADV11_COX.ht ml?cxtype=rss&cxsvc=7&cxcat=0>.

William B. Simons, ed.

Private and Civil Law in the Russian Federation ix-xiii © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2009