Civil liability for violation of consumer rights in the legislation of the Russian Federation and the Republic of Belarus: on the issue of harmonization of legislation

Chagina Elizaveta Mihailovna Junior Researcher ; Department of Private Law ; Institute of Legislation and Comparative Law under the Government of the Russian Federation 31 Bolshaya Cheremushkinskaya str., Moscow, 117218, Russia chagina.elizaveta1997@mail.ru Other publications by this author

Larin Eduard Nikolaevich Lecturer; Department of Organization of activities of road safety units; Moscow Regional Branch of the Moscow University of the Ministry of Internal Affairs named after V.Ya. Kikot 117437, Russia, Moscow, Akademika Volgina str., 12 support_mosu@mvd.ru

The civil legislation of the Russian Federation and the Republic of Belarus, including legislation in the field of consumer protection, is characterized by a significant degree of similarity, due to both the course of historical development and close political and economic ties between the countries. However, we should not forget about the legal basis for such a rapprochement.

Both Russia and Belarus are members of the Eurasian Economic Union (hereinafter referred to as the EAEU), one of the goals of which, as specified in the Treaty on the Eurasian Economic Union in 2014 (hereinafter referred to as the EAEU Treaty) is to create a single market for goods and services (Article 4). One of the activities to achieve this goal is The implementation by the EAEU member states of a coordinated policy in the field of consumer protection, which should create equal conditions for citizens of the participating countries to protect their interests from unfair activities of economic entities (paragraph 1 of Article 61). The principles of conducting a coordinated policy in this area are enshrined in the Protocol on Conducting a Coordinated Policy in the field of consumer Protection (Annex No. 13 to the Treaty on the EAEU). According to this Protocol, one of the most important directions in this area is the approximation of the legislation of the member States of the Union on consumer protection (sub–item 6, paragraph 3). At the same time, the Eurasian Economic Commission (hereinafter referred to as the EEC) is empowered to develop recommendations for member states on the procedure for implementing the provisions of the Protocol (sub–item 2, paragraph 6) In essence, such recommendations set guidelines for the participating countries in improving national legislation in the field of consumer protection and protection.

In addition, in 1999, the countries concluded an Agreement on the creation of a Union State, the main objectives of which are named in the Treaty, including the construction of a single economic space and the formation of a single legal system (art. 2). Both of these goals are closely interrelated, since the construction of a single economic space requires a common legal framework for regulating economic activity, in particular In this connection, the Treaty stipulates that "unified and then unified legislation governing economic activity, including civil and tax legislation, operates in the Union State" (Article 20). One of the aspects of the formation of a general legal regulation of economic relations is the development of uniform rules for consumer protection, which is highlighted in Article 17 of the Agreement.

Thus, international treaties in which the Russian Federation and the Republic of Belarus participate form the legal basis for the harmonization and subsequent unification of consumer protection legislation. Meanwhile, this process is currently far from being completed, and the legislation of Russia and Belarus in this area is characterized by noticeable differences, which is due, among other things, to the fact that the legislation of both countries has been developing and reforming over the past years, however, in some cases such changes were of a multidirectional nature.

A comparative legal analysis of the provisions of the legislation of the Russian Federation and the Republic of Belarus establishing liability for violation of consumer rights is important for determining the best practices of legal regulation and, accordingly, further directions for the approximation of the legislation of the two states. Another important aspect of the study is to identify the role of the EAEU recommendation acts for the harmonization of legislation in Russia and Belarus.

Thus, further research is based on a comparative legal and doctrinal analysis of the provisions of the national legislation of the Russian Federation and the Republic of Belarus establishing civil liability for violation of consumer rights, including taking into account the provisions of the EAEU advisory acts.

It should be noted that in the domestic literature, not much attention is paid to the consideration of issues of harmonization of legislation on consumer protection from the point of view of integration processes. As a rule, researchers provide a general analysis of the provisions of international treaties governing the convergence of consumer legislation of countries within the framework of the EAEU or the Union State. ^{[1, pp. 347-372]} As for comparative legal studies of legislation in the field of protection and protection of consumer rights in Russia and Belarus, in the domestic literature this topic was studied, in particular, by E.G. Kornilov, who presented a detailed comparative legal analysis of the provisions of domestic and Belarusian legislation. ^[2] A more detailed analysis of the norms of Russian and Belarusian legislation establishing liability measures for violation of consumer rights, as well as regulating the procedure for consumer protection of their rights, was studied in the work of V.V. Bogdan. ^[3] Nevertheless, a significant part of the study was devoted specifically to the analysis of law enforcement practice. The legislative regulation of consumer protection in the Russian Federation and the Republic of Belarus was also studied in the work of A.V. Aghajanyan, N.P. Mayurova and O.S. Aresova, however, the researchers paid particular attention to the ways of consumer protection of civil rights. ^[4]

In the scientific literature of Belarus, a comparative legal analysis of the consumer legislation of the Russian Federation and the Republic of Belarus is presented in the works of T.A. Gorupa. ^[5] It is also impossible not to note the great contribution of the named scientist to the study of regional standards of consumer protection within the framework of integration associations that arose in the post-Soviet space, such as the Commonwealth of Independent States, the EAEU and the Union State of Russia and Belarus, as well as issues of the impact of regional integration processes on the convergence of legislation of the Republic of Belarus and the Russian Federation in the field of protection and consumer protection. ^{[6; 7]}

In both countries, the foundations of legal regulation of relations with the participation of consumers are established by special laws: in the Russian Federation – the Law of the Russian Federation dated 07.02.1992 No. 2300-1 "On Consumer Rights Protection" (hereinafter – the Law of the Russian Federation "On Consumer Rights Protection"), in the Republic of Belarus – the Law of the Republic of Belarus dated 09.01.2002 No. 90-Z "On Protection of Rights consumers" (hereinafter referred to as the Law of the Republic of Belarus "On Consumer Rights Protection"). These legislative acts establish norms governing the liability of sellers, performers and other persons for violation of consumer rights.

The legislation of these countries contains a number of general principles of civil liability for violation of consumer rights.

First of all, the principle of full compensation for losses caused to the consumer should be considered (paragraph 2 of Article 13 of the Law of the Russian Federation "On Consumer Rights Protection" and paragraph 2 of Article 15 of the Law of the Republic of Belarus "On Consumer Rights Protection"). This principle is essentially aimed at ensuring the most complete restoration of the violated interests of the consumer.

It is important to take into account that the principle of full compensation for losses means that the consumer has the right to demand compensation not only for real damage, that is, the costs of restoring his violated right, but also for lost profits – income, the opportunity to receive which the consumer was deprived of as a result of the offense. This circumstance, in particular, was drawn to the attention of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation (paragraph 31 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 06/28/2012 No. 17 "On consideration by courts of civil cases on disputes on consumer protection"). The Supreme Court of the Republic of Belarus did not provide such an explanation in the Resolution of the Plenum dated 06/24/2010 No. 4 "On the practice of applying legislation by courts when considering consumer protection cases", however, a similar conclusion follows from the provisions of paragraph 2 of Article 15 of the Law of the Republic of Belarus "On Consumer Protection" and Article 14 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Belarus.

The focus on the most complete restoration of violated consumer rights has another principle, namely, the principle of compensation for losses caused to the consumer in excess of the penalty (paragraph 2 of Article 13 of the Law of the Russian Federation "On Consumer Rights Protection", paragraph 2 of Article 15 of the Law of the Republic of Belarus "On Consumer Rights Protection"). Courts also pay attention to the inadmissibility of setting off a penalty when collecting losses caused to a consumer (paragraph 31 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 06/28/2012 No. 17 "On consideration by courts of civil cases on disputes on consumer rights protection", paragraph 22 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Belarus dated 06/24/2010 No. 4 "On the practice of applying legislation by courts in consideration of consumer protection cases"). At the same time, it is noted in the literature that the prevention of offsetting losses when determining the amount of the penalty to be paid means that the latter is punitive, punitive in nature, which should be agreed. ^{[8, p. 10]}

The following principle of civil liability for violation of consumer rights is that compensation for losses, as well as payment of a penalty, is not a basis for releasing a person from fulfilling obligations to the consumer in kind (paragraph 3 of Article 13 of the Law of the Russian Federation "On Consumer Rights Protection", paragraph 3 of Article 15 of the Law of the Republic of Belarus "On Protection of Rights consumers").

As you can see, the analysis of the above legislative norms shows that at the level of defining the general principles of liability for violation of consumer rights, the legislation of the Russian Federation and the Republic of Belarus is fully harmonized.

A similar conclusion can be drawn regarding the provisions of the legislation of the Russian Federation and the Republic of Belarus on liability for damage caused as a result of defects in goods, work or services, as well as liability for damage caused as a result of providing improper information about the product to the consumer. It should be noted that at the level of the EAEU, the harmonization of the provisions of the legislation of the participating countries establishing liability for damage caused as a result of defects in goods is not expected, remaining within the competence of the national legislator, which is rightly criticized in the literature. In particular, Belarusian legal scholars note the high importance of guaranteeing consumers full compensation for the harm caused to them in order to ensure the free movement of goods and services within the EAEU. ^{[6, p. 128]} One cannot disagree with the above statement, since building a single market in the territories of the EAEU member states inevitably implies ensuring an equal approach to protecting the rights of consumers of goods, works and services in this market. This is also the basis for the provisions of Article 61 of the Treaty on the EAEU, which provides for the implementation by the participating countries of a policy aimed at creating equal conditions for citizens of the member states to protect their interests from unfair activities of economic entities.

The peculiarity of liability for damage that has been caused to the life, health or property of a citizen due to the presence of defects in the product, work or service, as well as due to the provision of incomplete or unreliable information about the product, work or service to the consumer, is its innocent nature. ^{[9, p. 53; 10, p. 159]} It follows that the consumer does not need to prove the guilt of the seller, contractor or other person in causing harm, on the contrary, in order to be released from liability, these persons must provide evidence that the harm was caused due to force majeure or due to violation by the consumer of the established rules of use, storage or transportation of goods, work or services (paragraphs 3 of Article 12 and paragraph 5 of Article 14 of the Law of the Russian Federation "On Consumer Protection", paragraph 7 of Article 17 of the Law of the Republic of Belarus "On Consumer Protection). The fact that such damage is compensated regardless of the fault of the person liable is also noted by the courts (paragraph 35 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 06/28/2012 No. 17 "On consideration by courts of civil cases on consumer protection disputes", paragraph 30 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Belarus dated 06/24/2010 No. 4 "On practice the application of legislation by the courts in the consideration of consumer protection cases").

Another feature is that the damage caused is subject to compensation regardless of whether the consumer was in a contractual relationship with the seller or the contractor (paragraph 2 of Article 14 of the Law of the Russian Federation "On Consumer Rights Protection", paragraph 1 of Article 17 of the Law of the Republic of Belarus "On Consumer Rights Protection). These standards also serve to increase the protection of the rights of consumers who can use goods or work results without being a party to the contract with the seller or contractor.

The legislation of the Russian Federation and the Republic of Belarus also provides for the consumer's right to compensation for moral damage caused as a result of violation of his rights. Compensation for moral damage to the consumer is carried out regardless of the property damage to be reimbursed, and its amount does not depend on the size of the consumer's claims of a property nature (Articles 15 of the Law of the Russian Federation "On Consumer Rights Protection", paragraphs 2 and 3 of Articles 18 of the Law of the Republic of Belarus "On Consumer Rights Protection"). In addition, moral damage, as a general rule, is subject to compensation, provided that the causer of the harm is guilty (Article 15 of the Law of the Russian Federation "On Consumer Rights Protection", paragraph 1 of Article 18 of the Law of the Republic of Belarus "On Consumer Rights Protection"). Here it is impossible not to pay attention to the difference in interpretation of similar legislative provisions in the judicial practice of the two countries. Thus, the Supreme Court of the Republic of Belarus proceeds from the fact that when considering the issue of compensation for moral damage caused by violation of consumer rights, the fault of the harmer is presumed, and the obligation to prove its absence lies with him (paragraph 32 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Belarus dated 06/24/2010 No. 4 "On the practice of applying legislation by courts when considering cases of consumer protection"). In turn, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation proceeds from the fact that the basis for compensation for moral damage caused to the consumer is the very fact of violation of the latter's property rights (paragraph 45 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 06/28/2012 No. 17 "On consideration by courts of civil cases on disputes on consumer protection", paragraphs 3, 16, 55 Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 11/15/2022 No. 33 "On the practice of applying the rules on compensation for moral damage by courts"). In fact, Russian judicial practice proceeds from the presumption of causing moral harm to the consumer in violation of his rights, including property rights.

Speaking of liability for violation of consumer rights, it is impossible not to mention the legal penalty. There is a well–established opinion in the literature that a penalty has a dual legal nature: on the one hand, it is a means of ensuring the fulfillment of an obligation, and on the other hand, it is a measure of responsibility for its non-fulfillment or improper fulfillment. ^{[11, pp. 10-11]}However, it seems that a legal penalty, taking into account the rule on the inadmissibility of offsetting the amount of losses when determining its size, is precisely a measure of civil liability, a sanction established by the legislator for certain violations.

The penalty established by law is subject to collection from the seller (contractor) for certain violations, such as:

- violation of the deadlines for eliminating defects in the product (paragraph 1 of Article 20, paragraph 1 of Article 23 of the Law of the Russian Federation "On Consumer Rights Protection", paragraph 1 of Article 22, paragraph 1 of Article 26 of the Law of the Republic of Belarus "On Consumer Rights Protection");

- violation of the terms of replacement of goods of inadequate quality (paragraph 1st. 21, paragraph 1 of Article 23 of the Law of the Russian Federation "On Consumer Protection", paragraph 1 of Article 23, paragraph 1 of Article 26 of the Law of the Republic of Belarus "On Consumer Protection");

- violation of the deadlines for providing a similar product to the consumer for temporary use for the period of repair or replacement of goods of inadequate quality (paragraph 2 of Article 20, paragraph 1 of Article 21, paragraph 1 of Article 23 of the Law of the Russian Federation "On Consumer Rights Protection", paragraph 2 of Article 22, paragraph 2 of Article 23, paragraph 1 of Article 26 of the Law of the Republic of Belarus "On consumer protection");

- violation of the deadlines for returning prepayment for goods to the consumer and compensation for losses caused as a result of violation of the deadline for the transfer of pre-paid goods (clause 3 of Article 23.1 of the Law of the Russian Federation "On Consumer Rights Protection", clause 5 of Article 24, clause 1 of Article 26 of the Law of the Republic of Belarus "On Consumer Rights Protection");

- violation of the deadlines for satisfying the consumer's demands for a proportionate reduction in the purchase price of goods of inadequate quality, reimbursement of expenses for eliminating defects in the goods by the consumer or a third party, or for termination of the contract and refund of the amount of money paid for the goods, as well as compensation for losses caused to the consumer as a result of termination of the contract of sale (art. 2, paragraph 1 of art. 23 the Law of the Russian Federation "On Consumer Rights Protection", Article 25, paragraph 1 of Article 26 of the Law of the Republic of Belarus "On Consumer Rights Protection");

- violation of the deadlines for the return to the consumer of funds paid for goods of proper quality that were returned to them (Article 22, paragraph 1 of Article 23 of the Law of the Russian Federation "On Consumer Rights Protection", paragraph 4 of Article 28 of the Law of the Republic of Belarus "On Consumer Rights Protection");

- violation of the deadlines for the performance of work or the provision of services (paragraph 5 of Article 27 of the Law of the Russian Federation "On Consumer Rights Protection", paragraph 6 of Article 30 of the Law of the Republic of Belarus "On Consumer Rights Protection");

- violation of the deadlines for eliminating deficiencies in the work performed or the service rendered (clause 5 of Article 2, Article 30 of the Law of the Russian Federation "On Consumer Rights Protection", clause 2 of Article 32 of the Law of the Republic of Belarus "On Consumer Rights Protection");

- violation of the deadlines for satisfying the consumer's requirements for a proportionate reduction in the price for the work performed or the service rendered, for reimbursement of expenses for eliminating the shortcomings of the work performed or the service rendered on their own or by third parties, or for performing the work (rendering the service) in connection with the violation by the contractor of the terms stipulated in the contract, as well as the termination of the contract for the performance of work or provision of services and refund of the amount of money paid (clause 3 of Article 31 of the Law of the Russian Federation "On Consumer Rights Protection", clause 1 of Article 33 of the Law of the Republic of Belarus "On Consumer Rights Protection");

- violation of the deadlines for satisfying consumer requirements for the gratuitous manufacture of another thing from a homogeneous material of the same quality or for the repeated performance of work or the provision of services (paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 31 of the Law of the Russian Federation "On Consumer Rights Protection", paragraph 2 of Article 33 of the Law of the Republic of Belarus "On Consumer Rights Protection");

-violation of the deadlines for satisfying the consumer's claim for compensation for losses caused to him in connection with violation of the deadlines for the performance of work or the provision of services, or due to deficiencies in the work performed or the service rendered, or as a result of termination of the contract (paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 31 of the Law of the Russian Federation "On Consumer Protection", paragraph 3 of Article 33 of the Law of the Republic of Belarus "On consumer protection).

As you can see, Russian and Belarusian legislation contain generally similar rules that establish a legal penalty for violation of consumer rights. The differences relate only to the legislator's determination of the amount of the penalty: for example, the Law of the Russian Federation "On Consumer Rights Protection" provides for a penalty for violation of the deadlines for the performance of work or the provision of services in the amount of 3% of the price of the performance of work or the provision of services, and the Law of the Republic of Belarus "On Consumer Rights Protection" – in the amount of 1% of the contract price. Does this indicate an insufficient level of harmonization of laws and the need to establish the same amount of sanctions? It seems that a negative answer should be given to this question. The amount of sanctions is determined by the legislator, taking into account economic realities, as well as other circumstances that will differ in two different states. In this regard, we should partially agree with T.A. Gorupa's opinion that "complete harmonization" of legislation in the field of consumer protection is currently not necessary, and each country should preserve national traditions of legal regulation in the field of consumer protection. ^{[7, p. 118]} At the same time, it seems necessary to take into account that if this statement is absolutely true in relation to other EAEU member countries, then the relations between Russia and Belarus within the framework of the Union State still imply a greater degree of convergence of legislative regulation, including the unification of civil legislation, which leads to the conclusion that the harmonization of legislation on consumer protection, which also regulates civil law relations, should be carried out in a variant close to its complete unification. Differences may relate to the specific size of sanctions or other issues that require consideration of purely national specifics, however, the general level of consumer rights guarantees and the approach to legal regulation itself should be uniform.

In this regard, it should be noted that in some aspects the provisions of the legislation of the Russian Federation and the Republic of Belarus establishing liability for violation of consumer rights need further harmonization and convergence.

This applies, for example, to the rules on liability for providing consumers with false or incomplete information about a product, job or service. In addition to liability for damage caused as a result of non-fulfillment of obligations to bring information to the consumer, the seller (contractor, manufacturer, other persons) is also responsible for losses caused to the consumer as a result of evasion from concluding a contract with him or other losses caused by improper informing of the consumer (paragraph 1 of Article 12 of the Law of the Russian Federation "On Consumer Protection", paragraph 1 of Article 16 of the Law of the Republic of Belarus "On Consumer Rights Protection").

At the same time, the legislation of the Republic of Belarus does not sufficiently clearly regulate the issue of responsibility of the owner of an Internet site on which information about goods and services is posted and through which consumers have the opportunity to conclude a contract (see Resolution of the Council of Ministers of the Republic of Belarus dated 01/15/2009 No. 31 "On approval of the Rules for the Sale of goods in remote trading", hereinafter – the Rules sales of goods in the course of remote trading) if false information about the product or service is posted on such a site. Paragraph 14.3 of the Rules for the Sale of Goods in the course of remote trading imposes on the owner of the Internet site the obligation to develop rules for the provision of services on the site, including rules concerning the distribution of responsibility between the owner of the Internet site and the seller in the event of a contract with the consumer. In essence, the issue of delineating the responsibility of the seller and the owner of the Internet site for providing inappropriate information to the consumer is left to the discretion of the site itself, which may lead to a decrease in the level of consumer rights guarantees.

In turn, Russian legislation establishes the responsibility of the owner of the aggregator of information about goods and services for losses that were caused to the consumer as a result of providing him with false information about the product or services, or about the seller or performer (clause 2.1 of Article 12 of the Law of the Russian Federation "On Consumer Rights Protection"). The owner of the aggregator can be released from liability only if he does not change the information about the product or service provided by the seller (contractor). Thus, Russian legislation, unlike the legislation of the Republic of Belarus, quite clearly distinguishes the responsibility of the owner of the aggregator of information about goods and services and the seller (contractor).

At the same time, it should be noted that the legislation of Belarus, unlike the domestic one, imposes on the owner of the Internet site the obligation to ensure that sellers comply with the requirements of legislation in the field of consumer protection (clause 14.6 of the Rules for the sale of goods when conducting distance trading), including, obviously, the requirements of legislation related to ensuring consumer rights for reliable information about the product. The introduction of similar norms is seen as justified in Russian law, since the lack of obligations for the owner of the aggregator to ensure sellers and performers of consumer rights, at least in terms of ensuring the reliability of information provided to the consumer, negatively affects the level of consumer protection in electronic commerce, which is highlighted in the literature. ^{[12, pp. 12-13]}

As another example, the approaches of the Russian and Belarusian legislators to the definition of unacceptable terms of contracts involving consumers can be cited.

The legislation of the Republic of Belarus has formulated a general rule according to which the terms of contracts that restrict consumer rights are void in comparison with the Law of the Republic of Belarus "On Consumer Rights Protection" or other legislation on consumer rights protection (paragraph 1 of Article 19 of the Law of the Republic of Belarus "On Consumer Rights Protection"). The Law also specifically stipulates a ban on conditioning the purchase of certain goods, works or services by the purchase of other goods, works or services (paragraph 2 of Article 19 of the Law of the Republic of Belarus "On Consumer Rights Protection"), as well as on the provision of additional services or the performance of additional work without the consumer's request, if such are performed for a fee (Paragraph 3 of Article 19 of the Law of the Republic of Belarus "On Consumer Rights Protection"). As you can see, the provisions of the law are formulated in a general way, which, on the one hand, gives some flexibility in the application of the norm, however, on the other hand, may negatively affect the protection of consumer rights, since the vagueness of legislative formulations may make it difficult for consumers to protect their rights in a situation where the contractual condition formally complies with the law, but in fact It is excessively burdensome for the consumer and creates a clear imbalance of the rights and obligations of the parties to the contract.

At the same time, at the EAEU level, more attention is being paid to the problem of countering unfair behavior of business entities in relations with consumers, including the fight against the inclusion of conditions in consumer contracts that infringe on consumer rights. Thus, the Recommendation of the EEC Board dated 12.01.2021 No. 1 "On principles and criteria of fair business practice in relation to consumers in the retail sector" (hereinafter referred to as the Recommendation of the EEC Board dated 12.01.2021 No. 1) calls as one of the significant criteria of fair business practice the prevention of the inclusion in the contract of conditions that infringe on the rights of consumers. At the same time, the recommendation establishes an approximate list of conditions that obviously violate consumer rights. The formation of a list of contractual terms that obviously infringe on consumer rights is largely aimed at simplifying consumer protection of their rights, since it clearly indicates which provisions of the contract do not comply with the law. In addition, the consolidation of such a list contributes to the fight against the most common types of consumer rights violations. The EEC Board proceeded from this when developing the provisions of the Recommendation, pointing out that the presented list of deliberately unfair contractual terms is exemplary and can be adjusted by the national legislator taking into account law enforcement practice, as well as an analysis of the situation in the field of consumer protection.

Currently, Russian legislation contains provisions concerning liability for the inclusion of unfair conditions in a contract with a consumer, formulated in more detail. Firstly, the general criterion on the basis of which the condition of the contract with the consumer is considered null and void is the non-compliance of the condition with the requirements of both Russian legislation in the field of consumer protection and the requirements of international treaties (paragraph 1 of Article 16 of the Law of the Russian Federation "On Consumer Protection"). Secondly, the law establishes a list of conditions that are knowingly violating consumer rights, and therefore null and void (paragraph 2 of Article 16 of the Law of the Russian Federation "On Consumer Rights Protection"). This significantly facilitates the consumer's protection of violated rights, since if a contractual condition falls under any item of this list, it is automatically recognized as invalid, and therefore there is no need to establish in detail the provisions of which law, other normative legal act or international treaty this condition contradicts. At the same time, it is important to take into account that the list of unacceptable terms of the contract with the consumer is open, therefore, if a specific contractual condition does not comply with any subparagraph of paragraph 2 of Article 16 of the Law of the Russian Federation "On Consumer Rights Protection", it can still be invalidated based on the general criteria contained in the law.

In addition, the Russian law specifies the legal regulation of liability for violation of consumer rights resulting from the inclusion of unfair conditions in the contract: losses caused to the consumer by the specified violation are subject to compensation by the seller (manufacturer, contractor, other person specified in the law) in full, and the law establishes special deadlines for satisfying consumer requirements – 10 days from the date of their presentation (clause 1 of Article 16 of the Law of the Russian Federation "On Consumer Rights Protection"). The Law also establishes a ban on the refusal of the consumer to conclude a contract in connection with the indication of the consumer to an unacceptable contractual condition in order to exclude it (paragraph 3 of Article 16 of the Law of the Russian Federation "On Consumer Rights Protection"). At the same time, the deadline for satisfying the consumer's demands for the exclusion of conditions from the contract that infringe on his rights is 10 days from the date of such a demand. There are no such norms in the Law of the Republic of Belarus "On Consumer Protection". It seems that the inclusion of similar norms would contribute to the establishment of uniform approaches to consumer protection in the event of the inclusion of unacceptable conditions in the contract.

Separately, it should be noted that the legislation of the Russian Federation implements the provisions of the Recommendation of the EEC Board dated 12.01.2021 No. 1 on the inadmissibility of refusing a consumer to conclude a contract due to his refusal to provide personal data in a situation where their provision is not mandatory in accordance with the law and is not necessary for the performance of the contract (Part 4 of Article 16 of the Law of the Russian Federation "On Consumer Protection"). There are no such provisions in the Law of the Republic of Belarus "On Consumer Protection". Meanwhile, in the context of rapid digitalization and the development of electronic commerce, consumer protection from unjustified refusal to conclude a contract due to non-provision of personal data is extremely important.

Thus, to date, the legislation of the Russian Federation and the Republic of Belarus in the field of consumer protection is characterized by a fairly high degree of convergence of norms establishing civil liability for violation of consumer rights. At the same time, further integration makes it necessary to continue the process of convergence of legislation and the search for common approaches to legal regulation in those aspects in which differences currently persist. In particular, the provisions of the laws of both countries need to be harmonized, establishing the responsibility of owners of aggregators of information about goods and services (Internet sites) for providing incomplete or unreliable information to the consumer, the rules on liability for including conditions in the contract with the consumer that infringe on his rights, as well as provisions concerning the prohibition of refusal to conclude a contract with the consumer due to the failure to provide them with personal data.