!Учебный год 2024 / Sbornik

Актуальные проблемы международного частного права

tend to construe this term narrowly and with caution. Judge Cardozo in Loucks v. Standard Oil Co. has pointed out that public policy ground cannot be invoked «unless <…> it would violate some fundamental principle of justice, some prevalent conception of good morals, some deep-rooted tradition of the common weal»1.

The landmark case that has become frequently referenced in terms of public policy definition is Parsons&Whittemore Overseas Co. v. Societe Generale de L’Industrie du Papier (RAKTA)2. In this case, an American corporation (Overseas) entered into a contract with an Egyptian corporation (RAKTA) to construct and manage a paperboard mill in Egypt. The construction was nearly complete when the Arab-Israeli Six-Day War of 1967 broke out and the majority of the Overseas crew left Egypt. Later, the Egyptian government broke diplomatic ties with the U.S. and ordered to expel all American citizens from Egypt except those who would qualify for a special visa. Eventually, RAKTA initiated an arbitration in the ICC seeking damages for breach of contract. An arbitral tribunal issued an award in favor of RAKTA and stated, inter alia, that Overseas had made merely a perfunctory effort to obtain these visas and that its withdrawal from the project was not fully justified. Consequently, Overseas appealed the award to The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit asserting that the enforcement of the award would violate the public policy of the U.S. The court addressed this claim with the following statements: «An expansive construction of this [public policy] defense would vitiate the Convention’s basic effort to remove pre-existing obstacles to enforcement. <…> Enforcement of foreign arbitral awards may be denied on this basis only where enforcement would violate the forum state’s most basic notions of morality and justice». Also, the Court emphasized that the Convention’s utility would be undermined if this defense is used as a parochial device protective of national political interests. Evidently, even international politics and diplomacy issues do not amount to the justification of invoking public policy defense in American courts.

The spirit of how English courts conceptualized public policy is fundamentally similar to one of the U.S. The Deutsche Schachtbau-und Tiefbohrgesellschafl MB.H (D.S.T.) v. Ras Al Khaimah Nat’l Oil Co. (Rakoil) case is the closest they have come to defining the concept3. Rakoil argued before The Court of Appeal of England and Wales that it would contradict the public policy of the country to enforce an award that was rendered based on some unspecified, internationally accepted principles of law rather than the law of a particular state. However, the court stated the following: «It has to be shown that there is some element of illegality or that the enforcement of the award would be clearly injurious to the public good or, possibly, that enforcement would be wholly offensive to the ordinary reasonable and fully informed member of the public on whose behalf the powers of the state are exercised».

1Loucks v. Standard Oil Co., 224 N. Y. 99, 120 N.E. 198 (1918).

2Parsons & Whittemore Overseas Co. v. Societe Generate de L 1ndustrie du Papier (RAKTA), 508 F.2d 969 (2d Cir. 1974).

3Deutsche Schachtbau-und Tiefbohrgesellschaft MB.H (D.s.T.) v. Ras Al Khaimah Nat ‘I Oil Co. (Rakoil). 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 246, 254 (K.B.) (1987).

410

Секция 9. Private International Law English Talks

Even though the courts in the U.S. and England have not developed a unified approach to this concept and formulated the meaning of it differently, what they have in common is that they are still reluctant to apply it in every situation or whenever they run out of other reasons to refuse an enforcement of an award1. The Parsons and D.S.T. cases are in a sense the exemplary ones because they show how high the threshold is for proving the necessity of public policy usage in both of these countries.

Surely, in Russia there are a lot of cases where the courts applied this ground for refusal of enforcement appropriately. And yet there are plenty that indicate that the concept is being misleadingly exploited either due to misunderstanding of its actual purpose or some other reasons. Despite the contradictions in Russian caselaw regarding this issue, it appears necessary to learn from the aforementioned mistakes and take the existing doctrinal developments as well as correct examples of judicial practice into consideration. This is crucial for building an «arbitration-friendly» judicial system.

Popovic M.

Student Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia

Research advisor: A. M. Solntsev, PhD,

Associate Professor of Department of International Law, RUDN

TRAFFICKING OF WOMEN AND GIRLS AT

THE UNIVERSAL LEVEL UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW: PRIVATE LAW ASPECTS (ON THE EXAMPLE OF SERBIA)

Introduction

We could find that the international legal base is rich in this area, both on universal and regional level, but within the framework of this scientific work we will only list some of the most important documents combating trafficking in human beings. The contribution of the United Nations (further UN) is of huge importance. Serbia ratified the documents adopted by UN combating human trafficking, such are: Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (2000) and Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children (2000), also the main documents protecting the rights of women and children: Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women2 (1979) and Convention on the Right of the Child3 (1989). The implementation by member states of their obligations arising from the ratification of these conventions is monitored by the relevant committees — the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) and the Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC). In general, it should be noted that there are 10 such committees within the UN, functioning in the form of nine committees and one subcommittee — all together named

1 Rowley J. W. The Guide to Challenging and EnforcingArbitrationAwards. Law Business Research, 2021. P. 38. 2 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women // United Nations, 1979.

3 Convention on the Right of the Child // United Nations, 1989.

411

Актуальные проблемы международного частного права

The Human Rights Treaty Bodies. They have made an invaluable contribution to assessing progress towards the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) (2001–2015) and to giving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (2016–2030) a human rights dimension1. Serbia, also, ratified some regional documents combating human trafficking. The Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings2, which was adopted by the Council of Ministers in 2005 and entered into force on February 1, 2008, is the main instrument of the Council of Europe in the fight against trafficking in human beings, and includes assistance and protection of victims, effective investigation, and prosecution, improving international cooperation and raising the level of awareness. There is also a legal regulation at the national level: The Constitution of Serbia3 from 2006 in Article 26 prohibit human trafficking; Article 15 ensure gender equality, Article 21 prohibit discrimination in all its forms, including discrimination based on gender; the preamble contains the following wording «equality of all citizens and ethnic communities in Serbia», where we immediately notice that special attention in document is paid to equality between its citizens. Also, there are separate national laws that protect citizen against human trafficking, but also help in achieving gender equality. In the framework of this scientific work, we will try to briefly present the fight against trafficking in women and girls in Serbia through the achievement of SDG 5.

Results

The Gender Equality Strategy 2021–2030 (hereinafter GES) is a key strategic document in Republic of Serbia for achieving gender equality. In addition to the GES, the public policy framework that sets goals related to gender equality includes Strategy of Social Inclusion of Roma for the period from 2016 to 2025, Strategy for the improvement of the position of persons with disabilities (2020–2024), etc.

This GES should primarily contribute to ending all forms of discrimination against women and girls. Strategic goal 1 of GES, on changing gender patterns and promoting a culture of gender equality, aims to eliminate negative gender stereotypes and discriminatory practices towards women, as well as practices that promote and reproduce unequal power relations between women and men4. We are witnessing that stereotypes are still deeply rooted in our society and that they often become the cause of violence, physical or psychological, abuse, and even human trafficking.

On the one hand, SDG 5.2 refers to the elimination of all forms of violence against women and girls in the public and private sphere, including human trafficking, sexual and other types of exploitation. On the other, GES contributes to solving this issue by drawing attention to increasing the safety of women and girls from gender-based violence in the

1Abashidze A. H., Koneva A. E., Solntsev A. M., Mezhdunarodnaya zashchita prav cheloveka // Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia, Moscow, 2019. P. 187–237.

2Convention onAction against Trafficking in Human Beings // Council of Europe, Warsaw, 2005. URL: https:// rm.coe.int/168008371d.

3Constitution of the Republic of Serbia // Službeni glasnik RS No. 48/94 and 11/98, 2006.

4Srbija 2030 — Pripremljenost za sprovođenje agende 2030 // Belgrade Open School, Belgrade, 2020. P. 75–76.

412

Секция 9. Private International Law English Talks

family and partner relationships. Special attention is paid to reducing the sensation of violence in the media. We must admit that here violence is presented even more widely, considering that attention is not only drawn to physical violence, but also to other forms — psychological or economic1.

One of the measures to achieve special goal 2.1 of GES — equal participation of women and men in the upbringing and care of children, measure 2.1.5 — the prevention of early, underage marriages, especially in the Roma community, is directly related to SDG 5.3 — eradicate all harmful practices such as child, early and forced marriages2. Statistics confirm that young girls are often «sold» into marriage to solve the family’s financial problems, especially in poor and undeveloped countries. It is a practice that should be stopped as a matter of priority.

SDG 5.5 — ensure full and effective participation of women and equal opportunities for leadership at all levels of decision-making in political, economic, and public life we could partially find in the GES specific task 2.2 — «Women and men make equal legal decisions in public and political life»3. The economic and financial moment is an extremely important cause of human trafficking. On the one hand, for traffickers, human trafficking is an easy way to make money. On the other hand, women and girls or their families sometimes accept certain offers to alleviate or solve some of the financial problems. Therefore, supporting women and girls and enabling them to participate equally in public life and decision-making is an important step in the fight against human trafficking.

SDG 5.6 — achieve universal access to sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights we could find in the special goals of GES, related to improving women’s health and equal access to health care.

Conclusion

We notice that there is a rich legal base when it comes to the fight against gender discrimination, human trafficking, but also the protection of the rights of the most vulnerable categories of the society, such as women and girls. Documents were adopted both at global, as well as at the regional and national level. On the example of Serbia, we could find that strategies have been adopted by the state, which focus specifically on achieving the Sustainable Development Goals by 2030. However, practice confirms that all abovementioned problems still exist and have taken a global scale. I believe that people’s awareness of the existence of discrimination, sexual and other forms of violence and exploitation, human trafficking, and education on those topics in the right way could help in solving these problems. But primarily, the solution should come from the state, firstly in the form of assistance to victims, and then punishing the perpetrators. «The state as an organized association of people must

1Srbija 2030 — Pripremljenost za sprovođenje agende 2030 // Belgrade Open School, Belgrade, 2020. P. 76.

2Srbija 2030 — Pripremljenost za sprovođenje agende 2030 // Belgrade Open School, Belgrade, 2020. P. 76.

3Srbija 2030 — Pripremljenost za sprovođenje agende 2030 // Belgrade Open School, Belgrade, 2020. P. 73–83.

413

Актуальные проблемы международного частного права

serve the interests of society as a whole and of each individual separately1.» Also, with the support of international cooperation between states, private sector, NGOs, in the form of the exchange of information, experience, and the provision of financial assistance, we could make some step to combat the worst violations of basic human rights.

Tkhamokov T., Ilyushin D. D.

Students

Russian State University of Justice (RSUJ)

Scientific supervisor: Neshataeva V.

PhD in law, assistant professor

VALIDITY UNDER THE CISG: THEORETICAL ASPECTS, LEGAL GAPS, CONFLICTING MATTERS AND JURIDICAL MECHANISMS

This article explores the concept of validity under the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG), analyzing the theoretical aspects, legal gaps, conflicting matters, and juridical mechanisms related to this issue. The author delves into the complex nature of validity, highlighting the different legal systems and approaches to validity in various jurisdictions, and examining how these differences impact the interpretation and application of the CISG. Authors identify key legal gaps and conflicting matters related to validity, such as the relationship between validity and formation, and the issue of void and voidable contracts. Finally, the authors propose a number of juridical mechanisms to address these issues, including the use of international trade customs and usages, and the development of the established under CISG regime of uniform regulation.

CISG, law of contract, contractual validity, legal framework, substantive validity.

One of the main objectives of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, also commonly referred to as «CISG» or just «Convention» is to provide uniform regulation for all cross-border commerce. The mentioned goal, however, does not imply that the CISG attempts to cover every legal issue arising from international sales contracts. As it follows, if the CISG were an exhaustive body of rules, then a precise framework of its scope of application would not be necessary2. One such limitation on the scope of the Convention can be derived from Article 4(a) CISG, in which it expressly provides that the Convention is not concerned with the question of contract validity3. Thus, the present development of CISG faces sensitive a crossroad for what claims to be a uniform law. The mentioned article is a frequent issue in CISG proceedings because of

1Abashidze A. H., Mezhdunarodnaya zashchita prav cheloveka // Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia, Moscow, 2019. P. 9.

2F. Ferrari; H. Flechtner; R. A. Brand, eds., The Draft UNCITRAL Digest and Beyond: Cases, Analysis and Unresolved Issues in the U. N. Sales Convention, Sellier. European Law Publishers, Munich 2004. P. 96.

3United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, 1980, Art. 4.

414

Секция 9. Private International Law English Talks

the legal difficulties underlying its application. Recently compiled case statistics will act as an illustration of what was just said: 13.4 % of cases occurred in 2021 were concerned on sphere of application (Articles 1–6) which is significantly more in percent proportion to that of cases occurred in 2020 and in 2019 which is only 21 cases in sum1.

Therefore, the abovementioned issues are of great concern and thus there is an objective need for commencement of more in-depth research of validity and its regulation under CISG.

This number of disputes is due to the fact that Article 4(a) CISG causes certain difficulties of interpretation for arbitrators and lawyers and can often be applied incorrectly. One of the reasons for this is a misconception that, by excluding the contract validity from its scope of application, the Convention leaves this institution entirely to the applicable domestic law. Thus, there may be attempts at domestic interpretation of the contract validity. However, as Professor John Honnold, the father of the Vienna Convention, reasonably stipulates, the fact that a domestic rule is labelled as a «validity» issue does not mean that this rule is one of «validity» within the meaning of Article 4(a) CISG2. This thesis corresponds to Article 7 CISG, which points to the importance of autonomous interpretation of the Convention, therefore avoiding recourse to domestic law (except as a last resort in gap-filling method).

Therefore, the crucial question arises — what is «validity» under the CISG? Here, we cannot agree more with Professor Peter Winship, stating that «the exclusion of issues of validity is potentially the most troublesome»3. Indeed, the CISG does not provide any definition of the term «validity» in its provisions. Moreover, domestic rules on the contract validity vary widely from one legal system to another, thus making it impossible to achieve a unified approach between them, and «…simple logic suggests that where there is no consensus to unify, there is no unification»4. As one can examine through the travaux préparatoire, this fact was the underlying reason for the exclusion of contract validity issues from the scope of the Convention. The CISG drafters were not particularly substantive in discussing the exception of contract validity and barely addressed it, not to mention the lack of any definition of «contract validity»5. It was clear that attempts to unify this complex matter would lead to significant delays in the drafting process and were unlikely to be successful at all, so «validity» was left

1Yearbook of CISG cases occurred in 2019–2020 and 2021 byArticle. URL: https://iicl.law.pace.edu/cisg/page/ yearbook-cisg-cases-2019-2020; https://iicl.law.pace.edu/sites/default/files/scholarly-writings/2021statistics.pdf.

2Honnold John, Uniform Law for International Sales under the 1980 United Nations Convention, 3rd ed. Kluwer Law International (1999). P. 65.

3The Scope of the Vienna Convention on International Sales Contracts in Galston & Smit (ed), International Sales: The United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods Matthew Bender 1984. P. 1–37.

4Helen Elizabeth Hartnell, Rousing the Sleeping Dog: The Validity Exception to the Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, 18 Yale J. Int’l L. 45 (1993). P. 76.

5UN Conference on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, Official records, Documents of the Conference and Summary Records of the Plenary Meetings and of the Meetings of the Main Committees (Document A/CONF.97/SR.l), Vienna, 10 March — 11 April 1980. P. 201.

415

Актуальные проблемы международного частного права

without any interpretation provided by the drafters (i.e., to scholarly commentary and subsequent case law)1.

Based on the travaux préparatoire, many respected scholars are of the opinion that the drafters deliberately left the matter of contract validity to be resolved under the applicable domestic law2. In particular, the predominant view is that the matter should be considered as one of «validity» when it comes to domestic rules entailing a contract void, voidable or unenforceable3. Thereby, not only was the legal fate of the «validity» issue itself put outside the CISG’s scope of application, but the very question of attributing an issue to be of «validity» was also left to the applicable domestic law. However, we assume that such a concept may seem somewhat contradictory to the spirit of the CISG and the autonomous interpretation principle. Nevertheless, this approach was followed by the two US federal district courts that have expressly defined «validity» (they are the only ones available which contain such a definition), stating that «…by validity, CISG refers to any issue by which the domestic law would render the contract void, voidable, or unenforceable»4. In the first case, Geneva Pharmaceuticals Tech. Corp. v. Barr Laboratories (to which the second judgment refers) the definition provided was actually a direct quote of Emerita Professor Dr. Helen E. Hartnell’s contribution. However, in the very writing that the court cites, it was stipulated that the adjudicator must go beyond such logic and «…adopt a more balanced approach to the matter of validity in order to preserve the internationalist goals articulated in CISG, article 7(1)»5; adding that «[t]he key issue is not the label used by domestic law but the concept of displacement»6. Therefore, the main idea was not so straightforward and one-sided. Au contraire, the notion was to find a balance between the domestic rules on validity and the CISG’s international character. In fact, if we understand Article 4(a) such formalistically, we would have a rather bizarre result. For example, we can simultaneously require the seller to perform its obligations under Article 46 CISG while claiming that the

1Formation and Validity of Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, Report of the Secretary General, U. N. Doc. A/CN.9/128/Annex II (1977), reprinted in [1977] 8 UNCITRAL Y.B. 90, 91, U. N. Doc. A/CN.9/ SER.A/1977. P. 92–93.

2Peter Schlechtriem in Peter Schlechtriem and Ingeborg Schwenzer (eds), Commentary on the UN Convention on the International Sale of Goods (CISG) (2nd edn, Oxford University Press 2005), Art. 4, para. 7; Schwenzer and Hachem (n 10) para 31. Ingeborg Schwenzer and Pascal Hachem, Article 4 in Ingeborg Schwenzer (ed), Schlechtriem and Schwenzer Commentary on the UN Convention on the International Sale of Goods (CISG) (4th edn, Oxford University Press 2016), para. 31.

3Hartnell, supra note 5, at P. 51; Honnold, supra note 3, at para. 65; Ulrich G. Schroeter, Contract validity and the CISG, Uniform Law Review, Vol. 22, Iss. 1, March 2017. P. 56.

4Geneva Pharmaceuticals Technology Corp. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc., 201 F. Supp. 2d 236 (S.D.N. Y. 2002), URL: https://casetext.com/case/geneva-pharm-tech-corp-v-barr-laboratories-inc; Berry v. Ken M. Spooner Farms, Inc., Case No. C05-5538FDB (W. D. Wash. Apr. 12, 2006), URL: https://casetext.com/case/berry-v-ken- m-spooner-farms 4.

5Hartnell, supra note 5, at P. 45.

6Ibid, at P. 51.

416

Секция 9. Private International Law English Talks

contract is now invalid under domestic law. As it was stated back in the Roman law — non bis in idem (there cannot not be two sanctions for the same violation). The possibility for a party to choose a remedy and, subsequently, resort to a domestic one, rather than the conventional, would be contrary to the main idea of uniformity. In this regard, Professor John Honnold fairly states that Article 4 CISG, in leaving «validity» to domestic law, «does not open a large door for escape from the uniform rules of Convention»1, and this article «may not be read so broadly as import domestic rules that would supplant other articles of the Convention»2.

With this in mind, we are of the opinion that the above-mentioned approach, established by the two US federal district courts, should not be followed, and other precedents in defining «validity» under the CISG should take into account a more balanced approach. It is the legal reasoning and substance of the claim that one shall examine, instead of treating a matter as being of «validity» merely on the grounds that by this issue the applicable domestic law can render the contract void, voidable, or unenforceable. In this regard, we believe that Professor John Honnold established the most effective and comprehensive test to examine whether or not the raised issue can be excluded under Article 4(a) CISG as a question of validity. The essence of this approach is based on the reasonable idea that domestic law on validity cannot prevail over the CISG provisions if they are relying on the same factual basis. Doubtlessly, such a view complies with the idea of uniformity of the Convention and prevents one party from abusing its right to avoid the rules of the CISG in case of concurrent remedies, referring to more favorable domestic ones. This approach can easily be discerned in the provided formula: if one raises a legal issue and its underlying facts A + B have result X under its domestic law on validity and result Y under the CISG, then we should apply the conventional remedy without a recourse to the domestic rules on validity3. Such a simple formula seems to be the only answer to all the challenges which Article 4(a) provokes due to its ambiguous and complex nature. In other words, to understand whether or not the raised issue is of validity and it falls under Art. 4(a) CISG, we should consider whether the grounds invoking both domestic and CISG remedies are the same. If they are, they must be superseded by the CISG. This approach was applied by the Supreme Court of Israel in the case of Pamesa Ceramica v. Yisrael Mendelson Ltd4. Analyzing the raised issue of concurrent remedies under the CISG and applicable domestic law, the Supreme Court agreed that «…in so far as the elements of the claim under domestic law are closely related to the elements of the claim under the convention, the domestic law does not apply». In this particular case, the issue was resolved in favor of allowing a domestic remedy based on a tort claim to concur with the one provided by the CISG, but for the reason that the interests which Appellant was struggling to protect were not identical to those which the CISG covers. The court thoroughly examined all the facts

1Honnold, supra note 3, at para. 67.

2Ibid, at para. 234.

3Ibid, at para. 65.

4Israel March 17, 2009 Supreme Court (Pamesa Ceramica v. Yisrael Mendelson Ltd), CISG-Online No. 1980.

417

Актуальные проблемы международного частного права

of the case and the legal roots of the claims in order to examine the issue raised and, as a consequence, reasonably concluded the domestic remedies are available.

Here, we assume that this precedent should be followed and other lawyers and adjudicators should carefully consider the nature of each claim in order to resolve the raised issue. It is also worth noticing that this approach should be followed in regard to the domestic fraud remedies as well. Whilst there is a view that the CISG certainly does not deal with issues of fraud, fundamental error, mistake etc.1, we nevertheless believe that the same principle as described above should be applied here as well. The reason for that is the fact that the drafters included such issues in the term «validity» under the CISG2. Hence, one should still look not at the label but at the substance. If the domestic fraud remedies are being invoked by the same facts as the CISG remedies, e.g., for non-conformity, then application of the domestic remedies would undermine the idea of uniformity.

Finally, the issue of the contract validity under Art. 4(a) CISG is certainly one of the most unresolved and multifaceted even nowadays, due to the harmonization problems underlying it. In order to prevent such an issue, it is vital to look at the very source of the particular claim and then prevent application of domestic remedies if they are being invoked by the same facts that turn on the remedies provided in the Convention.

Yastrebova A.

Student

Kutafin Moscow State Law University (MSAL)

THE ISSUES OF PAYING WORKERS ABROAD DURING

A PERIOD OF SANCTIONED RESTRICTIONS

For more than a year, the Russian Federation’s relations with many countries have been getting more strained. Hostile states have imposed more and more sanctioned restrictions on the Russian Federation and its citizens.

Some people decide to move temporarily or permanently to other countries while retaining their job in their home country. Because of this, many workers find it difficult to obtain a salary.

The main difficulty is that under sanctions, it will not be possible to use cards from banks issued in the Russian Federation abroad. Since March 2022, Visa and Mastercard have left Russia, so cards from these companies issued by Russian banks no longer work abroad. The Mir card has also ceased to be active in many countries3.

1Schiedsgericht der Handelskammer Zurich, Switzerland, 31 May 1996 (Arbitral Award No. 273/95), URL: http://www.unilex.info/cisg/case/396; Ferrari, Flechtner, Brand, supra note 1, at P. 98; The CISG: A New Textbook for Students and Practitioners. By Peter Huber and Alastair Mullis. Munich: Sellier — European Law Publishers, 2007. Pp. xxiii, 408. P. 22, 23.

2Hartnell, supra note 5, at P. 70–72.

3How employees abroad can receive their wages // Official legal information portal // URL: https://pravo.ru/ news/244113/ 28 November 2022.

418

Секция 9. Private International Law English Talks

People are afraid that banks based in the Russian Federation will cease to be serviced abroad. A similar situation occurred in October 2022, when people who were abroad discovered that they could not use the Sberbank Online service. People who were in the Russian Federation at the time did not face this problem. The bank subsequently attributed the situation to «technical work». A similar malfunction occurred at Tinkoff Bank1.

Thus, people’s fears about receiving their wages from the Russian Federation are well founded.

The Labour Code of the Russian Federation does not provide for the possibility of concluding an employment contract on distant work with a citizen of the Russian Federation, a foreign citizen or a stateless person carrying out work outside the Russian Federation. One of the employer’s obligations under the Labour Code of the Russian Federation is to ensure safe working conditions for a distant worker. Federal laws and other regulative legal acts of the Russian Federation containing norms of labor law are effective only in the Russian Federation, it is not possible for an employer to ensure safe working conditions for remote workers working outside the Russian Federation2. It follows that concluding an employment contract with an employee who plans to work outside of Russia already entails a huge risk on the part of both the employer and the employee.

What to do with people who already have an employment contract with a Russian company and have had to or want to move to another country to work remotely and have difficulties in getting paid for their work is not stipulated by legislation.

The Agreement of 15.04.1994 «On cooperation in the field of labour migration and social protection of migrant workers» may be considered3. Article 14 of this agreement only mentions the very possibility of the function of transferring earnings from one country to another. This agreement does not deal with the protection of workers in times of political strife around the world. Perhaps lawmakers have not thought ahead to the possible complications in the mutual understanding of states.

At the moment, people who have gone abroad to work are able to receive their wages in these ways (if other usual ways are not available):

—It is possible to send money to the bank of a country with which the Russian Federation is friendly and which has access to sending the money to the country where you are (even if it is unfriendly to the Russian Federation).

—Employers can transfer the salary through an agent company, a resident of another country, which receives funds and transfers employees. For this, the company receives a certain percentage.

1Finance Abroad: How to Live on Rubles in Other Countries // Official Internet Legal Information Portal // URL: https://pravo.ru/story/243296/ 8 November 2022.

2Letter from the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection of the Russian Federation dated 16 January 2017.

№14-2/OG-245 // Normative Acts for the Accountant magazine, 23 May 2017, № 10.

3Agreement of 15.04.1994 (revised on 25.11.2005) «On Cooperation in the Field of Labour Migration and Social Protection of Migrant Workers» // Bulletin of International Treaties, № 2, February, 1997.

419