Abstract: The subject of the study are the problems of legal regulation and protection of the human right to a favourable environment. The article considers different aspects which allow to define the right to a favourable environment either as a main human right or as an interest protected by the law. In particular, the author refers to the question of whether it is possible to contest the decisions of the authorities that violate the right to a favourable environment. The article considers the position of the right to a favourable environment in the hierarchy of ecological and legal norms. The author points out considerable gaps in the existing environmental legislation, which does not contain a clear description of the content of this right, or any ways to protect it.
The study used both general and particular methods of scientific knowledge: dialectical, formal-logical, formal and legal, comparative legal.
The analysis of the content of the right to a favourable environment allows to draw the conclusion that in positive law it has a form not of a subjective right, but the one of a legally protected interest. The author draws attention to the necessity to improve the methods of legal protection of this right, as well as to enlist various authorities to participate in this process.

Abstract: New production and consumption waste regulations come into force on January 1, 2016. Among the novelties is the introduction of fees for negative environment impact caused by the disposal of solid waste of the population. This article describes the new layout of legal relations that occur between government authorities, entrepreneurs, operating companies and residents. The author shows the new position of fee payment in this chain of relations. During research, the author employed general and specific science methods, such as: dialectic, formal-logical, formal-legal and comparative-legal. The analysis performed allowed the author to reach a conclusion that the introduction of solid waste disposal fees will lead to an unreasonable increase in utility bills. The author proposes of exempting solid waste from negative environment impact fees.

Abstract: The subject of this research is the issues of improving one of the most important preventive tools in the field of the environment - Environmental impact assessment. Currently, there is a need to ratify Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment into Russian legislation. This will allow to implement into Russian legislation a positive international legal experience in this field and boost the development of national legislation. However, the implementation of international legal requirements should take into account the significant differences between the European and Russian models of environmental assessment. It is noted that the main difference between the Russian model of EIA consist in its close relationship with the ecological expertise. In fact EIA is considered by Russian law as an auxiliary procedure that precedes the ecological expertise, while the latter is given binding legal value. It is concluded that the ratification of Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context must inevitably push lawmakers to change the concept of EIA in Russia. The ratification of the Convention would bring with it a greater public participation in the environmental assessment procedures. It will also make necessary to determine what types of plans and programs can cause significant environmental consequences, which authorities are authorized to conduct a strategic assessment of plans and programs of any level - federal, regional or local - will be subject to evaluation.

Abstract: The Federal Law ¹ 219-FL "On Amendments to the Federal Law "On Environmental Protection" and some legislative acts of the Russian Federation" passed July 21, 2014 provide for a radical reform of a number of the most important institutions of environmental law including charges for negative impact on the environment. The paper analyzes new provisions of the basic environmental law. Attention is focused on such issues as changes in the list of paid negative impacts; identification of persons obliged to pay charges; regulation of payment rates; the use of multiplying coefficients; accounting for the costs of activities on the environment protection; responsibility for untimely or incomplete payment of fines. The study uses general and special research methods, namely dialectical, formal and logical, formal and legal as well as comparative legal methods. The analysis has led to the conclusion that most problems in the legal environmental regulation have been eliminated. At the same time the study reveals some gaps and inconsistencies in norms of the new law. The author raises the question of vague legislative wording, in particular regarding the identification of persons who are obliged to pay charges for the negative impact on the environment. Also, the author notes the incorrect use of the terms in the regulations of multiplying coefficients.
 
 

Abstract: The subject matter of this research is the issues related to the due identification of the payers of the water tax in case of underground water production. Currently, there ate terminological mismatches between the rules of tax law, water law and the subsurface law. The Russian Tax Code is based on the terminology of water law. At the same time, the water law does not regulate the basis and the procedure for the creation of the right to use the underground water bodies. The objective of this research is to suggest the ways to bridge the gaps in the existing tax law. In this research, the general scientific and private scientific research methods were used: dialectical, formal logic, formal legal, comparative legal methods. the article shows the taxation differentiation depending on the type of underground water (potable, technical, mineral, industrial etc.). On the basis of the interpretation of the rules of water law, mining law and tax law and practice of application thereof, it makes the conclusion concerning the existence of a legal gap in the tax law as relates to the taxation of production of potable and technical waters with water tax. It also substantiates the inconsistency of the legal position of tax authorities in relation to this matter. The author makes suggestions related to changes and additions to Chapter 26 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation “Severance Tax”.