Tendintele Relatiilor Ruso-Europene

6
2005
Strategic and Practical Aspects

of the Legislation Harmonization between
Russia and the European Union
Chapter I
RECEP
The Russian-European Centre for

Economic Policy (RECEP) was established as a project in 1995, and continued under four two-year phase public
procurement contracts until 2002. In
2004, the fifth phase of the project was
launched.
RECEP is a project providing technical assistance to the Russian Federation government. It is financed by the
European Union. The Centre functions
as an independent think tank and provides economic and legal studies and
policy advice, with team supported by
highly qualified EU RF experts and
advisors.
The objectives of RECEP are to support socio-economic reforms in Russia
and to promote an EU RF dialogue in
such priority areas as the implementation of the Partnership and Cooperation
Agreement and the creation of the
Common European Economic Space.
RECEP's activity also aims at eliminating obstacles in mutual development
of trade and investments. Issues
researched by the socio-economic
reforms group, and the EU RF relations group are in the forefront of the
Centre's work.
One of the project's strategic plans is
to make the Centre a highly recognized
source of information and policy advice.
Research performed by the Centre is
demand driven, and hence conducted
on the basis of requests from presidential, governmental and parliamentary
institutions.
- 1995 2002 .
2004 ,
.
, . ,

.

- , - ,

. .
, -

.

. , ,

.
Igor Kossikov
Publications Director Key Information &
Communication Expert, RECEP
The current paper by S. Ju. Kashkin, Head of the Chair of the European Union Law at the Moscow
State Legal Academy, Doctor of Legal Science, professor, is using the documents, materials, translations, findings and concepts obtained as a result of the collective efforts by MSLA Chair of EU
Law. The author expresses his sincere gratitude to his colleagues from the Chair, and especially to
P.A. Kalinichenko, Candidate of Legal Science, whose fruitful cooperation was indispensable in
drafting this paper.
, , ..., .. , , , ,
. , ... .. ,
.
About the author
Sergey Kashkin
RECEP Expert
Sergey Kashkin is the Chief of the Chair of

European Union Law at the Moscow State
Academy of Law. He is a highly qualified
lawyer in the field of Constitutional law,
International Law, Law of the European
Union. Mr. Kashkin lectured in English on
problems of Constitutional Law and Russian
legal development in some universities of USA,
Great Britain, India, China, the Netherlands
and Belgium.

.
, .
,
, , , .
Contents
S. Kashkin
Strategy and Mechanisms of the Legislation Harmonisation

between Russia and the European Union as Key
Components of their Effective Mutual Development
in the XXI century . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

XXI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
S. Kashkin
Strategy and Mechanisms

of the Legislation Harmonisation
between Russia and the European
Union as Key Components of their
Effective Mutual Development
in the XXI century
Contents
Introduction: Russia in the context of a Wider Europe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

I. Harmonisation of legislation as the key issue in the development of
mutual relations between Russia and the EU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1. Objective need for advancement of cooperation between the European Union and the Russian
Federation in legislative sphere . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2. PCA as the basic document in the mutual relations between the Russian Federation
and the European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3. Harmonisation of legislation from the point of view of PCA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4. Definition of harmonisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5. Harmonisation of the legislation concerning Common European Economic Space . . . . . . . . . . . 13
II. Corpus Juris for the United Europe: shaping of the Common Economic Space
and recognition of the legal standards of the European Union in Russia . . . . . . . . . . 14
1. Social angle of Russias inclusion in the process of European integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2. Common Economic Space as an element of the common European space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3. Reception of legal standards of the European Union as a necessary precondition
for the participation of Russia in integration processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4. Development scenarios of legal integration in Russia and the European Union. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
III. Common European Law Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

1. Harmonisation of the Russian law in the context of legal reform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2. Legislative harmonisation from the point of view of competency delimitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3. Comparative analysis of the provisions of Article 55 of the PCA with Russia, Article 51
of the PCA with Ukraine and Article 50 of the PCA with Moldova . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
4. The agreement on application of the PCA Article 55 and establishment of the Common
European Law Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
IV. Creation of the institutional and legal mechanism of legislative harmonisation . . . . 25

1. The basic mechanisms of legislative harmonisation in Europe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
2. Mechanisms of legislative harmonisation in Member States of the European Union . . . . . . . . . . 25
3. Mechanisms of legislative harmonisation in accession countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
4. The mechanism of legislative harmonisation in Switzerland. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
5. Mechanism of legislative harmonisation in the framework of the European economic space. . . . 27
6. Comparative analysis of the EEA and PCA institutional mechanisms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
7. The phenomenon of dual obligation and the role of other regional unions in harmonisation
of the legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
8. The harmonisation mechanism of the legislation in other European PCA partner states . . . . . . . 31
9. Mechanism of legislative harmonisation for Russia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Conclusions and proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
-6-
Introduction: Russia in the context

of a Wider Europe
Approximation of the Russian legal space to the European one is too diverse and difficult an
issue to be described in complete details in a small position paper such as this. Therefore,
only the basic views tentatively laid down herein will inevitability comprise some reticence
and a few rather rough sketches, which may stir discussion but should help to finally develop a long-term strategy for the basic approach to the solution for this vital and forward-looking issue.
Relations between Russia and the European Union should be looked upon, first of all,
through a prism of the concept of A Wider Europe which increasingly becomes a reality
both in economic and in political and legal sense.
The concept of a Wider Europe is still in the development stage and has not finally
evolved.
Some Member States of the Union see it as the German-French locomotive to which less
active, especially the new members are attached.
Others like, for example, M. Emerson, Head of the Centre for European Political
Studies, in his recently released book specially devoted to this question, envisages Wider
Europe united with Wider Middle East including North Africa and Near East rich in oil1.
A number of scientists support the idea of a Wider Europe with changeable border
geometry depending on the arrangement of interests and dialogue of geopolitical forces.
The EU Commission proceeds from a more balanced assumption and, by issuing from
geographical and civilisation criteria, regards the present Member States of the Council of
Europe as the most likely participants of a Wider Europe.
However, regardless of the approach to a Wider Europe, it is impossible to imagine it
without Russia, the biggest European state occupying a good one third of its territory. It is
impossible to tear off enormous resource opportunities, scientific, intellectual, cultural and
human potential of Russia from Europe. Without Russia there cannot be full-fledged Wider
Europe.
While analysing the problem of harmonisation of Russian and EU legislation, we proceed from a number of key assumptions:
such a process should be viewed through a prism of and in parallel with difficult and
long-term shaping process of a Wider Europe, which is natural and inevitable;
it is designed for the elimination of dividing lines in Europe and facilitation of stability and sustainable development on the continent as a whole. Hence, non-participation in
shaping of a Wider Europe for Russia can only lead to its isolation and render it incapable
of influencing such development;
Wider Europe does not suggest immediate full membership of all its participants in the
European Union. Rather, it is a system for creating advanced neighbourly relations between
the Union and non-member countries. Therefore, the criteria of integrated construction of the
Wider Europe should not be based on strict EU membership regulations arising from Article
-7-
Strategic and Practical Aspects of the Legislation Harmonization between Russia

and the European Union. Chapter I
49 of the EU Treaty, but, in the first place, a basic minimum including economic prosperity,
political stability along with effective and fully democratic management of internal affairs.
Very important here are sufficiently effective interface between the state bodies, smooth
functioning of the legal system and independent judiciary capable of protecting property
rights2;
on such minimum required basis, participants of the Wider Europe could begin the
construction of the relationship of close interaction, peace and cooperation. To encourage
this process the Union, also on the basis of the Constitution of Europe, can give the neighbour countries various privileges and advantages while acting within various common
spaces allowing to group and to a certain extent systematise the similarities between various groups of interests of the European Union Member States and neighbour countries;
consequently, cooperation within the framework of a Wider Europe should not be
designed up to any uniform standard for both the accession states and neighbouring countries. It can only follow the already practically tested diversified process with distinctions
depending on the fitness of the economy and the willingness of the governments in different
countries;
this process should develop according to mutually agreed parameters, milestones and
phases, while achievement thereof should be continuously monitored. Thus, it is very important to keep the sequence and schedule of transition from one form of relations or stage to
another. So, first of all, it is necessary to fully implement the provisions of already existing
Partnership and Cooperation Agreements with Russia and the CIS states;
as the process develops further, it would probably be feasible to further develop the
Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (taking into account its shortcomings identified in
the course of practical work) to achieve a new higher legal level (of an agreement on good
neighbourhood and single spaces) with the simultaneous extension of its scope and coverage
and strengthening the control of the execution of mutually assumed obligations.
Furthermore, the significance of comprehensive monitoring of these processes should grow
steadily while the degree of interdependence should be reinforced;
expansion of the legal basis could provide for the coverage of a Wider Europe with the
four freedoms (movement of goods, capitals, labour and services) along with more precise
and strict regulation of the four Common European Spaces. Expansion of the scope should
take place by sector through more profound cooperation in specific spheres of the economy
and social development (ecology, power sector, transport, law and order, healthcare, etc.). In
the document by the European Commission these basic spheres are listed in sufficient detail:
preferential trade treatment, mutual opening of markets, regulated migration, cooperation in
countering common security challenges, management of crisis situations, human rights, cultural and educational cooperation, R&D, transport, power sector, telecommunications,
mobilisation of new funding sources, assistance to innovations and protection of the intellectual property rights3;
of special significance could be the various kinds of time exceptions applied in a differentiated mode on an individual basis, protective clauses or transitive provisions allowing
to create optimum conditions for the cooperation between the EU and each specific country
and especially with Russia with its multiple particulars;
furthermore, relations with Russia are to be based not only and not so much upon the
adaptation of the Russian legislation to the European standards as on the basis of mutual
search for optimum standards acceptable for both parties. Such approach would be to the
advantage not only for Russia, but also for the European Union.
It appears that the position of the European Union on the problem of a Wider Europe
should be transferred from the expert to fully official category, that is, the European Union
-8-
S. Kashkin. Strategy and Mechanisms of the Legislation Harmonisation between Russia and the European
Union as Key Components of their Effective Mutual Development in the XXI century
should produce the relevant Green or White Book more specifically dealing with the
strategy of actions towards a Wider Europe.
Carefully thought-over financing process of construction of a Wider Europe and, whenever possible, its translation from a publicly funded to a commercial basis is necessary. In
particular, the European Investment Bank and the European Investment Fund of the EU
could engage into that.
It is also important to create an institutional body to monitor the process for shaping the
Wider Europe. Perhaps there are reasons to create for these purposes a special body such as
the European Convent with democratic participation of all stakeholders. Separate advisory
and expert functions could be commissioned by the UN Economic Commission for Europe,
the Council of Europe and some European international NGOs, and the community associations capable of promoting the emergence the civil society foundations in Wider Europe
capable of balancing increasing supranational statehood tendencies.
I. Harmonisation of legislation as the key

issue in the development of mutual
relations between Russia and the EU
1. Objective need for advancement of cooperation

between the European Union and the Russian
Federation in the legislative sphere
Already for a few centuries our home country has been the largest state in Europe. Peoples
of Russia and Europe are united by a common history, common traditions and common spiritual and cultural values. Russia is an integral part of western civilisation occupying in it a
specific and original position of the multinational country situated on two continents and
impersonating dozens of different cultures.
Perestroika and the end of Cold War caused Russias renewal in the early 1990s and the
onset of a democratic political regime with steady orientation. Emergence of the new
democratic Russia has coincided in time with the advent of the European Union.
The Russian Federation is not a member of the European Union; however, this does not
by far belittle the significance of the developing relations between the European Union and
Russia for both the two of them and for the entire region and the world as a whole.
For Russia, the EU is the main trading partner, with the Member States of the Union
accounting for nearly 55 % of Russias foreign trade turnover. In turn, in the foreign trade
turnover of the Union, Russia occupies the 5th place (22 %), but even more importantly, in
such an area as energy supply it is first and uncontested.
Besides the existing economic preconditions, establishment of closer mutual relations is
necessary also because after the accession of Finland into the European Union in 1994,
Russia and the Union became neighbours with a common border of 1313 km in length.
After the latest EU enlargement in 2004 our common border has increased up to 2200 km.
The common border always means common cross-border problems that have to be resolved,
probably, only by common efforts.
But most importantly, the thing that determines development and expansion of ties
between the Russian Federation and the Union, is the dependence on the substance and
nature of the relations of stability and safety in Europe, i.e. the new Europe free of dividing lines, ideological confrontation, but still not free from the armed aggression, acts from
international terrorism, human rights infringements, economic uncertainty, rampant crime
and other problems.
Obviously, the indicated conditions dictate the vital need of developing mutual relations
between Russia and the Union on a broad range of issues.
- 10 -
2. PCA as the basic document in the mutual relations

between the Russian Federation and the European
Union
The contemporary legal basis for the above-mentioned relations is established by the
Partnership and Cooperation Agreement underpinning the partnership between the Russian
Federation on one hand, and the European Communities and their Member States, on the
other hand, signed on June, 24, 1994 on the island of Corfu, Greece4. The Federal Assembly
of the Russian Federation ratified the Agreement on November, 19965. The agreement took
effect as of December 1, 1997, after its ratification by the European Parliament and all of the
national parliaments of the Union Member States and Communities (Germany was the last
one to ratify the agreement).
The Agreement belongs to the category of international treaties of the Union made jointly by the Communities and Member States. It has been concluded for the period of 10 years
with the subsequent annual tacit extension of the Agreement if neither party declares its
denouncement. The Agreement contains a preamble, 112 articles, ten annexes, two protocols, some joint and unilateral statements and correspondence.
Partnership and cooperation agreements have also been signed by the European Union
with 10 former republics of the Soviet Union (all CIS countries except for Tajikistan). The
contents and the text of such agreements coincide almost completely and therefore the
Partnership and Cooperation Agreement can be referred to as a kind of model agreement.
However this fact does not challenge the significance which has the Agreement between
Russia and the Union for the development of mutual relations and for maintaining of the stability in the European region as a whole, as well as for the creation of favourable conditions
for Russias economic integration process within the European nations.
The PCA is a framework agreement. The Partnership and Cooperation Agreement
between Russia and the European Union of 1994 has laid strong foundations for the development of dialogue between the parties on political, economic and cultural issues in the
beginning of the XXI century. The 1994 Agreement has a basic nature and contains general
provisions on cooperation between the European Union and Russia. The PCA has a framework nature because many of its positions require further development and specific definitions within the framework of special bilateral agreements on individual issues. Some PCA
articles stipulate not simply an opportunity, and even necessity of the conclusion of such
agreements (for example, articles 2122).
The important feature of PCA is that it is future-oriented. From the outset, the
Agreement has been adjusted to operating in the conditions of free-market economy in
Russia where there will be a market economy, and Russia will enter the WTO. One more
important factor that underscores the prospective nature of the PCA is its final orientation to
the establishment of a free trade area between the Union and Russia (Article 1, PCA).
3. Harmonisation of legislation from the point

of view of PCA
Consistent implementation of the Agreements provisions leads to the deeper integration
between the Parties. Partnership and Cooperation Agreement outlines in its provisions an
entire set of means aimed at the enhancement of such an integration. One of the most impor- 11 -

tant and effective means is the harmonisation (i.e. approximation) between the legislations
of Russia and the European Union.
Article 55 of the PCA contains provisions for legislative approximation between the
Parties as an important condition for furthering and strengthening of the economic relations
between Russia and the Community. As it is specified in the above-mentioned Article,
Russia aspires to the gradual achievement of compatibility of the legislation with the one of
the Community. The process of law harmonisation envisaged by the Parties will be carried
out in various branches of law. In particular, the Agreement provides for legislation approximation on the issues of company law, banking law, company accounts and taxes, protection
of workers at the workplace, financial services, rules on competition, public procurement,
protection of health and life of humans, animals and plants, the environment, consumer protection, indirect taxation, customs law, technical rules and standards, nuclear laws and regulations and transport.
This tool is important and effective because:
firstly, it provides for the reception by Russia where the market economy is so far just
being re-established of the available and tested legal regulation mechanisms of market and
closely related relations;
secondly, the EU standards in many respects repeat the standards of the WTO, and therefore the reception of the EU law promotes the accession of our country in the World Trade
Organisation;
thirdly, harmonisation of legislation is capable of creating a strong legal basis for the
enhanced partnership and its evolution into a stable neighbourhood based on the common
market between Russia and the EU.
Without doubt, the priority in cooperation between the Russian Federation and the
European Union in the long-term prospect belongs to the building of closer economic relations. However, among the purposes of the PCA listed in Article 1 we find the provision for
an appropriate framework for political dialogue between the Parties, encouragement for sustainable development, strengthening of political and economic freedom, support of Russian
efforts to consolidate its democracy, providing a basis for social and cultural cooperation,
and encouragement of the activities of mutual interest. Hence, the Partnership and
Cooperation Agreement is a document of complex nature aimed at the development of mutual relations between the Parties in various walks of life.
4. Definition of harmonisation
Harmonisation, alongside with unification, is one of the methods of legal integration consisting essentially in the conversion of legal rules by their reduction to the same denominator. Harmonisation is a softer method of legal integration that takes place on the basis of
approximation of the internal law to a certain legislative model. Harmonisation does not
mean uniformity but is based on the legislation approximation between different states.
At the same time, it is extremely difficult to give the common definition of harmonisation as a process in the framework of legal integration in Europe. Even in the framework of
MSLA Chair of EU Law we could not come to shared opinion.
Thus, A.O. Chetverikov, Candidate of Legal Science and Assistant Professor, believes
that the method of harmonisation means the issuance by the Union of legislation fundamentals according to which Member States adjust their internal laws and subordinate legislation. By means of harmonisation the Union pulls together legal systems of the Member
States with each other, but does not introduce full homogeny.
- 12 -
In turn, P.A. Kalinichenko, Candidate of Legal Science, gives his own definition of harmonisation, according to which harmonisation is a method of legal transformation on the
basis of the model rules of conduct formulated with a view to approximation of national legal
systems without achievement of full homogeny in reception and formulation by the states of
such model rules.
Finally, Professor S.J. Kashkin, Doctor of Legal Science, believes that harmonisation
or approximation of the national law consists in the introduction of general principles of
legal regulation in specific areas of public life where the states more or less still have some
room for their own legal regulation.
5. Harmonisation of the legislation concerning Common

European Economic Space
Development of partnership and cooperation between Russia and the EU at the present stage
has taken them to the point of shaping a closer neighbourhood with some features of association. This idea is reflected today in the concept of creation of four common spaces between
Russia and the Union: Common European Economic Space, Common Space of External
Security, Common Space of Freedom, Safety and Justice, and Common Space of Science,
Education and Culture.
Those four spaces should emerge on the basis of the PCA and the instruments and mechanisms stipulated therein. In our opinion the tool of legislation approximation as stipulated
by Article 55 of the PCA should also become a reference point for their establishment.
It appears that the central part in the system of the Common Spaces will be played by
Common European Economic Space (CEES). Its concept is for the most part already elaborated (See the Report of High-Level Group of November 8, 2003). However, the fact that
legislative harmonisation should become a key element for securing both Common
European Economic Space and all four spaces together does not raise any doubt. In particular, in the above-mentioned report it is emphasised, that CEES should act as an open integrated market between Russia and the European Union, based on the common or compatible rules and systems of regulation.
Relations between Russia and EU have an extremely diverse nature and cover virtually
all areas of cooperation, but most importantly those relations have and will have direct influence on the life of common people.
II. Corpus Juris for the United Europe:

shaping of the Common Economic
Space and recognition of the legal
standards of the European Union
in Russia
1. Social angle of Russias inclusion in the process

of European integration
The common Russia-EU economic space will serve as the largest contribution to process of
the European integration and in the building of the Wider Europe in case of a success of that
project.
This landmark will simultaneously serve as a natural furtherance of the enlargement of
the contemporary European Union through accession of the Eastern European and
Mediterranean countries. The latter, quite obviously, should not lead to the emergence in
Europe of a new Iron Curtain, creation of certain sanitary cordon on the western borders
of Russia in the form of rigid frontier treatment, quotas, dumping duties and other barriers.
Such scenario, which probability cannot be dismissed, will contradict not only to basic
interests of our country, but also the purposes of the European Union!
In this connection it is necessary to remind some provisions of the basic instruments of
that organisation. In 1957, in the preamble of the Treaty establishing European community
the determination has been expressed to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among
the peoples of Europe and by common action to eliminate the barriers which divide
Europe.
In 1992, in the European Union Treaty with the historical importance of ending the
division of the European continent is once again recalled, while the Treaty itself is dubbed
as a new stage in creating an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe (Article
1). Any European state has the right to become a member of the Union provided that it is
democratic, based on the rule of law, and respects human rights and fundamental individual
freedoms.
As a whole, this is repeated also in the new Constitution of Europe of 2004, which is still
pending ratification and coming into force.
The history and geography cannot be changed by political decisions: Russia is a part
of the Western civilisation; it has appeared as such and will remain as such. Until Russia
finds its place among united European nations, the unification of Europe will not be
complete!
- 14 -
From the above one can draw a conclusion that the Union should not be considered a
kind of closed club, access to which for Russia is prohibited or impossible. More likely, the
opposite: Russia being historically a member of the family of European nations (that is once
again confirmed by acceptance of the Russian Federation in the Council of Europe in 1997),
can apply for an establishment of especially close association with the European Union, and
in due course, even on accession to the EU as a full Member State cannot be ruled out.
Moreover, Article 79 of the 1993 Constitution of the Russian Federation provides for
that. The Russian Federation Constitution refers to the concept of supranationality and
recognises an opportunity for Russias participation in supranational organisations or similar associations of states. We refer to the contents of Article 79:
Article 79
The Russian Federation can participate in interstate associations and transfer to them a
part of powers according to international treaties if this does not either entail restriction
of rights and freedoms of the individual and citizen or contradict to the foundations of
constitutional order in the Russian Federation.
Other conclusion will consist in the necessity of active steps on the part of the President
and Government of the Russian Federation with a view to launching the real process of
mutual integration both in economic and in other spheres. It should be recognised that today
the interaction of Russia and the European Union both on the level of foreign policy legitimate representative structures goes on slowly and is encumbered by excessive bureaucracy.
Russia can and should establish supranational ties with the European Union! Such
step would become a magnificent illustration of achieving the goal of building a Wider
Europe. The essence of such a mechanism should consist in preventing the emergence of
new dividing lines on the continent and facilitating Russias cooperation opportunities with
both the EU and with the countries within it.
Achieving approximately the same degree of realisation of four freedoms as what of the
EU countries is possible even without participation in the decision-making process, but with
participation in their development and naturally in the decision-making on their implementation within Russia.
A somewhat similar scheme has been already used when establishing current relations
between Russia and NATO on the basis of the Rome Declaration of 2002. In fact, Russia has
received quasi-membership in that organisation without signing any allied obligations. The
situation with the EU is more difficult if for no other the reason, than because the EU has its
own legal system which does not fit within the notion of international law.
2. Common Economic Space as an element

of the common European space
Process of mutual rapprochement of Russia and the EU is capable of developing in several
directions including in parallel to each other. Their common purpose is the creation on the
vast European space from Porto to Vladivostok covering the most different kinds of social
relations.
A. The first integration project already under development is the Common Economic
Space that will enable Russias entry into the European markets of goods, services, human
resources and capital.
- 15 -

A fundamental yet controversial question in this connection is free movement of persons. Compared to the other three economic freedoms of movement of goods, services and
capitals, the PCA does not even guarantee in any way any elementary opportunities for its
exercising. This is, undoubtedly, a gap in the PCA that requires urgent filling. It can be filled
by the conclusion of a special protocol to the PCA, devoted to free movement of persons.
In our opinion, a full-fledged economic space is impossible without free movement
of persons. The first step in this direction should be made with regard to establishment of
visa-free movement of the citizens of Russia in the territory of the EU and, accordingly, citizens of the Union in the territory of Russia. It cannot be ruled out that for this purpose,
Russias joining of the Schengen agreements may be required.
B. Currently, a huge practical interest both for Russia, and for the European Union lies
in the field of the struggle against international terrorism and other forms of criminality
along with development of cooperation between our courts and law enforcement bodies.
In this connection creation alongside with economic also of the European Space of
Freedom, Security and Justice is equally vital. In this case, the experience already accumulated in the EU in terms of the establishment of such space within its territory can serve
as the basis.
Such space should include not only participation of Russia in activities of the Unions
law enforcement bodies such as Europol, Eurojustice or the Schengen information system,
but also real mechanisms of harmonisation of the body criminal law. Among others, the provisions concerning the European arrest warrant should also cover Russia.
C. Approaches to the problem of sovereignty vary significantly today. The nature of
modern society, modern threats, their depth and, most importantly, their interdependence is
so extensive that it does not allow any country, either the USA, or Russia, or India to keep
on navigating alone in this tumultuous globalise world.
Similar conditions dictate the need for establishing the Common Space of External
Safety which could include tripartite dialogue between Russia, the EU and NATO. In any
case, the creation of such space could become a strong basis for a new system of collective
security in Europe, which has not been fully achieved ever since the end of the Cold War.
Close coordination of the actions of the military may lead to shaping of the defence
union also by means of participation of Russian armed forces in collective operations with
the EU rapid deployment forces are being currently created.
D. As it has been shown above, the European identity is an objective historical factor of
Russias development. However, the European identity in itself does not provide for the
European consciousness, but only promotes its development.
Undoubtedly, the European consciousness is a modern, different and higher level of selfidentification than national consciousness. In the Russian society and, unfortunately, in some
other European countries, likewise, national consciousness still prevails.
The nation in Russia has emerged already by the end of XVIII century and belongs to
the so-called third type of the nations, i.e. the most ancient ones. Consequently, in Russia
there are the old national traditions and well-developed sense of nationality. The nation in
Russia took shape during the times of the empire, and that is why here national ideas contain elements of national chauvinism, one of the most dangerous and self-destructive types
of nationalist ideas in our society. Official internationalism of the Soviet times has not
changed, but only has strengthened national consciousness in Russia.
The European consciousness does not preclude national consciousness at all; rather, it
advances, supplements and enriches such consciousness. It represents a new level of deveopment of national traditions, ideas and feelings.
Development of the European consciousness within the Russian society should be
backed by the creation of the Common Space of Research, Education and Culture. Such
- 16 -
space should envisage joint research projects, development of the European education in
Russia and comparability of the Russian educational standards with the European ones, programmes for studying and development of the Russian culture along with cultures and languages of other peoples without separation from each other.
Emergence of such space will promote surfacing of the new Russian mentality free from
ideological bias and image of an enemy still found in our society.
Undoubtedly, when building such space, adoption of the corresponding Russian statutory providing participation of our country in relevant initiatives and programs of the European
Union will be necessary.
E. Besides the four spaces described above, it is also possible to establish the European
environmental and humanitarian (in sphere of protection of human rights) spaces.
3. Reception of legal standards of the European Union

as a necessary precondition for the participation of
Russia in integration processes
Together with doubtless economic achievements (creation of the Common Market, common currency, high social standards, etc.) to a set of major merits of the European integration belongs shaping within the framework of the EU of a new legal system which is inherently supranational and is designed to play the role of "general law" for all peoples of
Europe.
We have got used to the fact that the term European law is understood and used in
two senses. In the modern interpretation, it is a synonym of the term the law of the
European Union. In the outdated understanding (or in a broad sense) the European law
refers to an agglomeration of rule existing in territory of the European continent, including
the common principles of law, rules within national legal systems of the European countries
(including Russia) as well as the rules of European international law.
However, during the recent years, the legislative harmonisation as a means and a method
of conversion of the regulatory framework of the Member States resulting from integrative
essence of the European Union law, and its dissemination beyond limits of the Union have
led to an interesting result.
Today, all the 25 Member States harmonise and unify their legislation according to the
one of the Union, while 3 more accession states achieve compatibility of the legal system
through the same methods since that is one of their accession criteria. In part, harmonisation
of national legislation with the EU law takes place in the EFTA countries. Within the framework of the European Economic Area and the Schengen achievements, Iceland, Norway and
Liechtenstein carry out legislative harmonisation; Switzerland has concluded special bilateral agreements envisaging measures for legislative harmonisation with the European Union.
Russia, Ukraine, Moldova and even Belarus have undertaken to harmonise their legislation
in accordance with the EU law on the basis of partnership and cooperation agreements. In
total, without counting the so-called pre-accession countries (Serbia and Montenegro) it
turns out that 36 countries out of 42 states of Europe are involved in the process of harmonisation of their internal regulatory framework with the legislation of the EU.
Hence, the process of legislative harmonisation in Europe on the basis of the EU law is
bringing the modern understanding of the European law as a synonym of the law of the EU
closer to its previous understanding as a law extending to the entire territory of Europe or
- 17 -

even going beyond its geographical limits. The European Union law becomes, thus, a
truly European law.
In this respect the legal system of the European Union is quite comparable to the Roman
law and its well-known Justinian Code (Corpus Juris) adopted in many European countries
and having affected among others the legal system of Russia.
On the basis of legal achievements of the EU the process of European integration is
under way. Any integration project of the European Union, first of all, receives legal
approval, and only then is implemented in practice.
The European Union law plays a role of the single standard determining the rules of
the game of all participants of the Common Market including both Member States, and
citizens and legal entities of the Union.
To be accepted into the Union, any accession state should adopt its legal achievements
jointly dubbed by the by French term acquis (acquis communautaire achievements of the
Community, or acquis de l'Union achievements of the Union).
In a similar way, the Russian Federation in the process of shaping the common European
space should gradually adopt the legal achievements of the European Union and thus
accomplish their full or partial reception.
Even in the case of a delay or failure of the above initiatives, inclusion of carefully
thought-over EU rules in the domestic legislation will enable improvement in the Russian
law that in the end will be helpful both for the state and ordinary citizens.
Establishment of the common European space in economic and other spheres is
impossible without emergence of a single legal space; the latter, on the contrary, is capable of developing regardless of integration processes in other spheres.
4. Development scenarios of legal integration in Russia

and the European Union
Legal integration between Russia and the European Union can have unilateral and/or bilateral (mutual) nature.
In the former case, it would have to do with the reception by our country of the legal
achievements of the EU on the level of:
a) education: inclusion of the European Union law in the obligatory standard of the
higher legal education. Creation of the specialised EU law departments both in Moscow and
in provincial higher educational institutions alongside with extension and development of
the volume of the EU law taught at educational institutions would also be feasible. It is necessary to publish more educational literature, handbooks, translations and comments to the
legislation and judiciary practice of the EU. In the educational process, increasing orientation to concrete spheres and sectors of the European Union law and reinforcement of the link
with practice is vital.
That includes also coverage of the same discipline by means of publishing brief manuals and brochures (for example, European Parliament, Common Foreign and Security
Policy of the European Union, Schengen Visa, Europol);
b) Legal drafting activity: examination of the current legislation of the Russian
Federation to identify its compliance with the standards of the European Union while revealing and eliminating existing contradictions by modifications and amendments to the laws in
force and subordinate legislation. All new legislation of the Russian Federation should be
drafted in compliance with the European Union laws;
- 18 -
c) International treaties and agreements with the states of the former USSR: in this
case, the issue is the use of European Union legal toolkit with a view to integration with the
CIS countries, and among others within the framework of the Eurasian Economic
Community.
Bilateral legal integration between Russia and the EU is a higher level of interface
which should be effectuated on the basis of mutual agreements:
) The agreement On cooperation in the legal sphere. A similar agreement can be
signed on the basis of the effective Partnership and Cooperation Agreement of 1994 which
stipulates the need of harmonisation between legal systems of Russia and the EU.
On the one hand, it could include provisions for mandatory assessment of the new
Russian legislation by representatives of the Union, while on the other hand, it could also
feature provisions about the need of preliminary consultations with the Russian Federation
when elaborating new elements of the EU law on issues of mutual interest (foreign trade,
visa regime, prevention of crime, environmental standards, etc.);
b) The agreement on the common economic space and other agreements providing for
partial extension to Russia of the EU Common Market treatment with simultaneous introduction in the Russian territory of relevant acts of the Union (Regulations and Directives of
the EU governing and supporting freedom of movement of workers, freedom of establishment and provision of services, etc.);
c) The Constitution of the European Union in its Article I-57 provides for an opportunity of development privileged relations with neighbour countries that could promote
Russias integration with the EU.
d) Submission of an application by Russia on accession to the European Union and
official recognition of our country by the EU Council of the official accession country
status.
In this case, the Russian Federation will launch full incorporation of all EU law rules
into its own legislation.
III. Common European Law Space
1. Harmonisation of the Russian law in the context

of legal reform
The largest shortcoming of the ongoing legal reform in contemporary Russia is its lagging
behind the emerging tendency in the legislation of civilised countries towards approximation
and harmonisation of rules and standards.
Such approximation, first of all, is dictated by globalisation of interests in trade and
movement of people and rapid development of the legislation in cross-border spheres (transport, communications).
As it has been shown above, the 1993 Constitution of Russia as a key element of ongoing legal reform in its Article 79 gives the green light to Russias participation in integration
processes. Nothing prevents such processes from moving ahead in field of legislation.
Harmonisation of the Russian law with the legislation of the EU fully complies with the
rules and spirit of the Constitution of the Russian Federation.
In the European countries of today, such harmonisation is performed on the EU level;
Member States of the Union are obliged to unify and harmonise their own legislation according to the prescriptions of the Union, while EFTA Member States do it according to the
Agreement on the CES, accession states according to the Europe Agreements on
Association, and partner states, within the framework of partnership and cooperation agreements. Process of harmonisation covers today almost all European countries.
It is fully logical for Russia to pursue the measures for legislation approximation with
other European countries (rather than, for example, with the countries of North America).
The Russias legal system of today as a whole is more similar to legal systems of the
Romano-Germanic legal family despite of its still remaining transitional nature and remaining rules from socialist law in some spheres of legal regulation. As R. David put it seventy
years of socialism will undoubtedly affect the law to which the former socialist countries will
come6. However, the experience of the countries of former socialist block and in particular
former Baltic republics of the USSR testifies about the existence of practical opportunity of
creation in the framework of the transitional legal systems of the new legislation compatible with rules of the European Union.
Moreover, Article 55 of the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (PCA) between the
Russian Federation and the European Union of 1994 (ratified by Russia in November 1996
and effectuated in December 1997) which establishes the current legal platform of mutual
relations between the Russian Federation and the Union, provides for such legislative
approximation.
Article 55 of the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement is formulated as follows:
- 20 -
Article 55. Legislative Cooperation

1. The Parties recognise that an important condition for strengthening the economic links
between Russia and the Community is the approximation of legislation. Russia shall
endeavour to ensure that its legislation will be gradually made compatible with that of
the Community.
2. The approximation of laws shall extend to the following areas in particular: company
law, banking law, company accounts and taxes, protection of workers at the workplace,
financial services, rules on competition, public procurement, protection of health and life
of humans, animals and plants, the environment, consumer protection, indirect taxation,
customs law, technical rules and standards, nuclear laws and regulations, transport.
As we examine the above-mentioned provisions, it becomes clear that Article 55 of the
PCA contains three key points:
1. The Parties recognise that an important condition for strengthening the economic links
between Russia and the Community is the approximation of legislation.
2. Russia aspires to ensure that its legislation will be gradually made compatible with
that of the Community.
3. Process of approximation of legislations extends in particular, to the following sectors
of law:
company law;
banking law;
company accounts and taxes;
protection of workers at the workplace;
financial services;
rules on competition;
public procurement;
protection of health and life of humans, animals and plants;
the environment;
consumer protection;
indirect taxation;
customs law;
technical rules and standards;
nuclear laws and regulations;
transport.
That makes 15 spheres of legislative approximation. Furthermore, they are not major
spheres of law.
2. Legislative harmonisation from the point of view

of competency delimitation
A mere enumeration of legislation approximation sectors at once makes one recall and keep
in mind when formulating the harmonisation models of legal space the fact that the Russian
Federation is a federal state. And just like with any federal state, it is typical for Russia to
distinguish between the competencies of the federation and its subjects as it is set out in the
Russian Federation Constitution of 1993.
- 21 -

Let us turn to Articles 7173 of the Russian Federation Constitution and focus on the
provisions of the Constitution concerned by Article 55 of the PCA:
Article 71
The jurisdiction of the Russian Federation includes:
<...>
) establishment of the principles of federal policy and federal programmes in the sphere
of state, economic, ecological, social, cultural and national development of the Russian
Federation;
f) establishment of legal basis for a single market; financial, currency, credit, and customs regulation, money issue, the principles of pricing policy; federal economic services, including federal banks;
g) federal budget, federal taxes and dues, federal funds of regional development;
h) federal power systems, nuclear power-engineering, fission materials, federal transport, railways, information and communication, outer space activities;
<...>
n) judicial system, procurator's office, criminal, criminal procedure and criminal-executive legislation, amnesty and pardoning, civil, civil procedure and arbitration procedure
legislation, legal regulation of intellectual property;
<...>
p) meteorological service, standards, metric system, horometry accounting, geodesy and
cartography, names of geographical units, official statistics and accounting;
<..>.
Article 72
1. The joint jurisdiction of the Russian Federation and the subjects of the Russian
Federation includes:
<...>
e) nature utilisation, protection of the environment and ensuring ecological safety; specially protected natural territories, protection of historical and cultural monuments;
<...>
g) coordination of issues of health care; protection of the family, maternity, paternity and
childhood; social protection, including social security;
<...>
i) establishment of common principles of taxation and dues in the Russian Federation;
j) administrative, administrative procedure, labour, family, housing, land, water, and forest legislation; legislation on subsoil and environmental protection;
<...>.
Article 73
Outside the limits of authority of the Russian Federation and the powers of the Russian
Federation on issues under joint jurisdiction of the Russian Federation and the subjects
of the Russian Federation, the subjects of the Russian Federation shall possess full state
power.
It is not necessary to undertake any special study to draw a conclusion that provisions
of the PCA Article 55 touch upon all three levels of the legislative competence of federal
bodies and the ones of the subjects of the Russian Federation.
- 22 -
It may be that the harmonisation mechanism for the Russian legislation should provide for participation of federation subject authorities in such process, or at least, for
sure, their opportunity of access to the process.
We would like to remind you that in this connection provisions of same Articles of the
Constitution which we have intentionally omitted. According to Clauses (j) and (k) of Article
71 of the Constitution international treaties the Russian Federation and the external economic relations of the Russian Federation are included in the competency of the Federation,
while according to Clause (), part 1, Article 72 fulfilment of international treaties is in joint
jurisdiction of the Federation and its subjects. Therefore, execution of the PCA is not only
the business of federal public authorities, but also of the authorities of the subjects of the
Russian Federation.
3. Comparative analysis of the provisions of Article 55

of the PCA with Russia, Article 51 of the PCA with
Ukraine and Article 50 of the PCA with Moldova
Further, it would be desirable to pay attention to the provisions of partnership and cooperation agreements signed by the European Union with other European CIS countries, in particular, with Ukraine and Moldova.
PCA, as it has been already mentioned, is a model agreement (the PCA with Russia
being a prototype), and therefore there is nothing surprising in the fact that similar regulations about legislative harmonisation are contained in Article 51 of the PCA with Ukraine
and Article 50 of the PCA with Moldova.
The first two parts of the specified articles literally repeat the provisions of Article 55 of
the PCA with Russia. However, Articles of the Ukrainian and Moldavian PCA also contain
the third part, which is missing in the Russian PCA.
Part 3, Article 51 of the PCA with Ukraine and Part 3, Article 50, of the PCA with
Moldova are identical:
The Community shall provide Ukraine (Moldova) with technical assistance as appropriate for the implementation of these measures which may include in particular:
the exchange of experts,
the provision of early information especially on relevant legislation,
organisation of seminars,
training activities,
aid for translation of Community legislation in the relevant sectors.
One can only guess why similar provisions do not appear in the PCA with Russia. What
is contained in the above-captioned Articles of the Agreements with Ukraine and Moldova
is really a kind of a rough draft of a legal mechanism for implementing the PCA provisions.
It is on such basis and with the use of such tools that legislation approximation and all activities accompanying the relevant process should take place.
It cannot be ruled out that a similar item had been contained in the initial texts of the
draft PCA with Russia, but has not been included in the final body of the document, which
eventually has not been to the benefit of the Russian state and people in general.
- 23 -

To the credit of the European partners, they have provided and continue to provide
Russia with certain technical support on this issue in the framework of the Tacis programme.
However, when it comes to harmonisation of the legislation, involvement of a wider expertise on various levels is necessary for a thorough study of the issue.
Without doubt, when creating the harmonisation mechanism we should take into account
provisions of the above articles as a model and expression of the commitment of the partner
to provide such mechanism. Those provisions should be replicated when the PCA is extended by the signing of the relevant protocols to it or when concluding on its basis a special
Agreement on Legal Assistance and Agreements on Application of the PCA Article 55.
4. The agreement on application of the PCA Article 55 and

establishment of the Common European Law Space
The Partnership and Cooperation Agreement is a framework agreement and on its basis special
agreements in the concrete spheres of cooperation are to be concluded. It is quite possible to
conclude on its basis a special agreement about the application of the PCA Article 55 which
would provide the mechanism of legislation approximation between Russia and the Union.
Such an agreement could become one of the components of the Common European Law
Space (CELS) between Russia and the Union which logically proceeds from the measures
for legislative approximation and can be organically incorporated in the concept of the
Common European Economic Space being developed today within the framework of the
Putin-Prodi initiative.
The Common European Law Space should include four levels:
A. Reception of acquis de l'Union in the Russian legislation in the spheres outlined in
Article 55 of the PCA. This process should include establishment of the lists of acts by the
Union in the respective 15 spheres containing the rules necessary for replication in the
Russian legislation. These lists could be tuned into protocols to the Agreement on application of the PCA Article 55. It is necessary to identify also the respective Russian legislation
which is subject to change with a view to harmonisation.
B. Creation of the mechanism for adoption of the new decisions of the European Union
in those spheres taking into account the interests of Russia. Harmonisation should take place
not only on the Russian part. It is a bilateral process if it is based on partner relations.
C. Achievement of homogeneity, i.e. uniformity of application and interpretation of harmonised acts by the Russian courts according to the existing practice of the European Court
of Justice. This can be accomplished if a special mechanism is in place similar to the one
applied for the CES. That would become a European component of the judicial reform
widely discussed in Russia.
D. Future expansion of frameworks of harmonisation beyond the limits of the PCA
Article 55.
However, this requires thorough preparation including the study of the European Union
law and raising awareness about it, development of the relevant Russian legislation, draft
agreements or agreements which would provide relevant mechanisms for implementation of
different levels of the CELS, training of qualified staff and improvement of professional skill
of the judges and officials.
IV. Creation of the institutional and legal

mechanism of legislative harmonisation
1. The basic mechanisms of legislative harmonisation

in Europe
Though lagging a little behind the other European powers in harmonisation of the internal
legislation, Russia gets a unique advantage expressed in the opportunity of generalisation
and use of the experience of such harmonisation already accumulated by other countries.
Creation of the institutional and legal mechanism for legislative harmonisation is, in
fact, the main problem. Implementation of the above-mentioned process will depend on it.
At the same time, one cannot say that there exists any single universal scheme of harmonisation of the national law throughout the states of Europe. Mechanisms vary from country to
country and function according to the specificities of each people and the status of the relevant countrys political and a legal system.
On the whole, it is possible to divide all harmonisation mechanisms of national legislation existing in Europe into 5 primary groups:
1. Harmonisation mechanisms inside the European Union, in the EU Member States
2. Harmonisation mechanisms in accession states.
3. Harmonisation mechanism of the Swiss national law.
4. Harmonisation mechanism within the framework of the European economic space.
5. Harmonisation mechanism in other European partner countries.
2. Mechanisms of legislative harmonisation in Member

States of the European Union
The experience accumulated in the framework of the first group of mechanisms is so far
unfortunately practically inapplicable to Russia. Member States directly take part in the
establishment of the EU acts to be harmonised with. Though their influence is sufficiently
restricted by the qualified majority procedure in the Council, the legislation is still being harmonised exclusively up to their needs and interests.
Decision-making process is one of the most vulnerable elements of the European Union
per se. It is overburdened with trivia and in essence reflects the entire set of interstate interests struggling within the Union.
The experience of new Member States in establishing the mechanisms of legislation harmonisation used before their accession into the European Union would be perhaps the most
useful one for Russia. Here it is possible to find a great variety of approaches to such mech- 25 -

anisms. From rather a simple interfacing between the Ministry of Justice and Parliament in
the Czech Republic on this question to the creation of an entire European Gateway in
Slovenia. The latter includes interaction between the national government, Slovene parliament and EU bodies, interdepartmental cooperation and the activities of special working
groups of experts.
It is necessary to also take into account the fact that the new Member States as well as
the accession states were required to harmonise and unify the entire national legislation. For
Russia, such undertaking would be easier since activities aimed at harmonisation are limited to 15 spheres listed in Article 55 of the PCA.
3. Mechanisms of legislative harmonisation in accession

countries
The second group of approximation mechanisms is equally diverse. The most interesting
example is the institutional and legal mechanism of legislation harmonisation in Croatia
where there is a special ministry for the European affairs supervising that process.
Unfortunately, as of today, emergence of such institution in Russia is hardly possible.
The situation with harmonisation in Romania, Bulgaria and Turkey somewhat reminds
the contemporary Russian one: as such, relevant institutional and legal mechanism in those
countries is missing. The harmonisation process relying on the provisions of agreements on
association is performed exclusively at the political will of the decision-makers of the country, which is aspiring to join the EU. The harmonisation is based on political and ideological
measures. Especially pronounced this trend is in Turkey.
It appears that, it is unacceptable for Russia to act that way, since Russia, according to
Medium-Term Strategy for the Development of the Relations with the European Union (until
2010) is not going to accede to the European Union or create association with the European
Communities. Thus, Russia has no such political and ideological incentive for harmonisation
of the legislation as, for example, Bulgaria. Moreover, the described stimuli are prone to
change, while the mechanism replying on them is unsteady.
4. The mechanism of legislative harmonisation

in Switzerland
The third group. The harmonisation mechanism of mutual relations between the EU and
Switzerland is also basically tuned on the political will. However, as opposed to Russia, here
everything does not depend on the will of national decision-makers or, frankly speaking, one
leader: in the Swiss harmonisation mechanism the major part is played by will of the majority, i.e. the tool of a referendum is used.
Switzerland is a member of the European Free Trade Association but not of the economic space comprised by the Common Market between the EFTA and the EU. Switzerland does
not participate in the CES mechanisms, and EFTA Court jurisdiction does not extend to it.
Relations between the EU and Switzerland are based upon 7 basic bilateral treaties
which were signed in 1999 and effectuated in 2001. The last one, the eighth treaty establishing the joining of Switzerland to the Schengen acquis was signed in 2004 and has not yet
come into force.
- 26 -
The above-mentioned 7 treaties are devoted to special questions of cooperation and

envisage common model rules on the basis of the standards and rules of the European Union.
Thus, ratification of the given agreements through referendum is the basic element in harmonisation of the Swiss legislation with the EU law.
The designated 7 bilateral treaties allow automatic extension of some categories of acts
by the Union to Switzerland. An example of such EU statutory act which is covering
Switzerland is the Directive of the European Parliament and Council 2004/38/ of April
29, 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members on free residence
and choice of domicile in the territory of Member States, amendment of Regulation (EEC)
No 1612/68 and repeal of Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC,
75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC and 93/96/EEC7.
Such relations, according to Dutch professor A. Kellerman, constitute enhanced bilateralism. Undoubtedly, relations between Russia and the EU are also built on a bilateral
basis; however, one can hardly imagine today a complete projection of the EU-Switzerland
relations to the ones between the EU and Russia with regard to legislative harmonisation, for
one simple reason. Treaties between the EU and Switzerland cover more narrow spheres and
are focused on more special questions in their framework. They are devoted to:
Free movement of persons.
Air transport.
Carriage of goods and passengers by rail and road.
Agricultural issues.
Mutual recognition in relation to conformity assessment.
Scientific and technological co-operation.
Public procurement.
When comparing those fields with the 15 fields of legislative harmonisation according
to the PCA Article 55, only the last sphere coincides, i.e. public procurement, while 3 more
may somehow fit into them as individual issues. Harmonisation of the Swiss legislation has
a concrete, practical and applied character. Such harmonisation is not aimed at supporting
the creation of any economic union or even a free trade area in the GATT understanding of
that notion.
The only thing that it is possible to introduce in the near future in the relations between
Russia and the European Union based on experience of the EU-Switzerland relations is a
realisation of free movement of persons, by the conclusion of a similar bilateral agreement
or the separate report to PCA.
5. Mechanism of legislative harmonisation

in the framework of the European economic space
The fourth group is made by the harmonisation mechanism created in the framework
of the European Economic Area (EEA). The Agreement on the European Economic Area
of 1992 in effect since 1994 acts as a legal platform for the establishment and functioning of
the EEA8.
Members of the Agreement are, on one hand, the European Communities and jointly all
of their Member States, and on the other hand, the European Free Trade Association (EFTA)
countries9. The latter consist of Iceland, Norway, Liechtenstein and Switzerland10 (originally,
on the part of EFTA, Austria, Finland and Sweden also took part in the Agreement, but later,
- 27 -

those countries became full Member States of the European Union). In total, the European
Economic Space includes 28 countries with a population of over 500 million people.
The EEA Agreement has allowed extending the Common Market to the European states
which are formally not part of European Communities or EU members, including the legislation of the EU concerning free movement of goods, persons, services and capitals and relevant adjacent subjects11.
According to the Medium-Term Strategy for the Development of the Relations with the
European Union (until 2010); Russia is not going to join the European Union or to create an
association with the European Communities. However, provisions of the EEA Agreement
could be useful for the development of a legal mechanism of supporting the Common
European Economic Space alongside with the enforcement mechanism of the 1994
Partnership and Cooperation Agreement, in particular its Article 55, and thus to influence the
development of conceptual foundations of the Common European Law Space.
In view of developing the concept of the Common European Law Space, provisions of
the EEA Agreement outlining the principles of legal integration, decision-making mechanism and the one for maintaining the homogeneity of the application of the Agreement are
the most important and interesting ones.
Article 7 of the EEA Agreement establishes the principle and rules of legal integration
within the framework of the EEA:
1. Acts referred to or contained in the Annexes to this Agreement or in decisions of the
EEA Joint Committee shall be binding upon the Contracting Parties and be, or be made, part
of their internal legal order;
2. An act corresponding to an EEC regulation shall as such be made part of the internal
legal order of the Contracting Parties;
3. An act corresponding to an EEC directive shall leave to the authorities of the
Contracting Parties the choice of form and method of implementation.
Article 6 supplements these rules with a principle of uniformity of interpretation and
application by the Parties of Agreements provisions. This means, for the future development
of case law, that the provisions of the Agreement, in so far as they are identical in substance
to corresponding rules of the Treaty establishing the European Community and to acts adopted in its application, shall, in their implementation and application, be interpreted in conformity with the relevant rulings of the Court of Justice of the European Communities given
prior to the date of signature of the Agreement.
The decision-making mechanism in pursuance of the EEA Agreement is founded on
these principles and designed so as to ensure consideration of all stakeholders interests. That
mechanism is outlined in Articles 97-104 of the Agreement. In fact, it represents a supplement to legislative procedures of the Community.
When developing the decisions of the European Commission in a specific sphere covered by an EEA Agreement, the Commission should ensure participation in that process of
experts from the EFTA Member States.
When sending the bill to the EU Council, the European Commission officially submits
its copies to the EFTA Member States. Each of the parties can initiate its discussion in EEA
Joint Committee. When a draft law is discussed by the EU Council, the parties can also initiate its discussion also by the EEA Joint Committee. After reaching a decision, the EU
Council, the text goes to the EEA Joint Committee which changes corresponding Protocols
to the Agreement establishing rules or listing the acts subject to implementation by the EFTA
Member States according to Article 7 of the EEA Agreement (a kind of approval of the act
adopted by the Council of the European Union).
- 28 -
A separate procedure applies if the decision of the EU Council can be transformed into
the legislation body of the EFTA country only after the fulfilment of certain constitutional
requirements (Article 103).
Of undeniable interest are also the procedures for maintaining the homogeneity of the
Agreements provisions, supervision and endowment with binding force and dispute resolution.
Similar mechanisms could be taken into account for the development of a special agreement on the application of PCA Article 55, development and signing of which could be one
of key tasks of the Common European Law Space.
The EEA Agreement institutionalises a specific organisational structure of the EEA
which comprises the EEA Council, EEA Joint Committee, EEA Joint Parliamentary
Committee and EEA Consultative Committee. Also on the basis of the provisions of the EEA
Agreement, a specific judicial tribunal, the EFTA Court, was established, which was
endowed alongside with the European Court of Justice with the powers for resolution of disputes arising within the framework of the European Economic Area.
It is also worth mentioning that except for presence of a specific judicial tribunal, the
EEA structure is extremely similar to the structure of joint EU and Russian bodies established by the PCA. For implementation of its provisions, the 1994 Partnership and
Cooperation Agreement provides for the creation of special structures: Cooperation Council,
Cooperation Committee and Parliamentary Cooperation Committee.
Below we will try to briefly compare those bodies.
6. Comparative analysis of the EEA and PCA institutional

mechanisms
EEA. The EEA Council consists of the members of the Council of the European
Communities and members of the EC Commission, and of one member of the Government
of each of the EFTA States. It is, in particular, responsible for giving political impetus in the
implementation of the EEA Agreement and makes the decisions leading to amendment of the
Agreement.
The EEA Joint Committee consists of the representatives of contracting parties. This
body provides for effective implementation of the Agreement and consultations between the
parties during the EEA validity period.
The EEA Joint Parliamentary Committee is composed of equal numbers of, on one hand,
those of the European Parliament and, on the other hand, members of the Parliaments of the
EFTA States. It examines the reports of the EEA Joint Committee, on the functioning and the
development of the EEA in the form of debate.
The EEA Consultative Committee is composed of equal numbers of, on one hand, those
of the Economic and Social Committee of the Community and, on the other hand, members
of the EFTA Consultative Committee. This body possesses the advisory authority in the decision-making in the framework of the EEA.
PCA. The Cooperation Council meets on the ministerial level. It consists of the members of the Government of the Russian Federation and the members of the Council of the
European Union and the EC Commission; it meets once a year and whenever the circumstances require. It examines any major issues arising within the framework of the PCA and
any other issues of mutual interest to the parties; it also makes appropriate recommendations,
examines the disputes between the parties arising on the issues of application and interpretation of the PCA. The Cooperation Council independently determines its rules of procedure.
- 29 -

Presidency in Cooperation Council is held alternately by representatives of Russia and the

European Union.
Cooperation Council can make decisions on the creation of any other special body for
assistance in its activities.
The Cooperation Committee meets on the ministerial level; it is composed of the members of the RF Government, Council of the European Union and Commission of the
European Communities. The Cooperation Committee assists the Cooperation Council in the
performance of its duties, also by preparing its meetings. It performs all the duties as provided for in the PCA and Cooperation Council rules of procedure. The Cooperation Council
may also delegate any of its powers to the Cooperation Committee.
The Parliamentary Cooperation Committee consists of the members of the Federal
Assembly of the Russian Federation and members of the European parliament. The
Committee determines its own rules of procedure and intervals of sessions independently.
The Parliamentary Cooperation Committee can request the necessary information on the
application of the PCA from the Cooperation Council; it is informed on recommendations of
the Cooperation Council and can make recommendations to Cooperation Council.
Accordingly, when the mechanism of legislative harmonisation is created in the framework of the application of Article 55 or establishment of the Common European Economic
Space, it would be appropriate to endow the PCA bodies with the powers similar to the ones
enjoyed by EEA bodies. The functions of EFTA Court could be in an abridged form commissioned to the RF Supreme Court and the RF Supreme Court of Arbitration. Eventually,
for the European Court of Justice it would be possible to envisage an additional jurisdiction
on interpretation and resolution of disputes connected with the Common European
Economic Space.
In any case, in the very mechanism of legislative harmonisation, a space should be
allocated for participation of the supreme courts of the Russian Federation.
7. The phenomenon of dual obligation and the role

of other regional unions in harmonisation
of the legislation
As it was already mentioned, in the framework of the European Economic Area the legislation of Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein is being harmonised by them with the legislation of the EU.
It would be worth emphasising especially that concerning Norway and Iceland in many
cases the dual obligation of legislative harmonisation applies. The reason for that is that
those countries already from the middle of XX century have been harmonising their own legislations with other Scandinavian countries within the framework of the so-called Nordic
Cooperation, the Agreement about which had been signed in Helsinki in 1962. The specified contract contains a whole section devoted to legislative harmonisation of the
Scandinavian countries. We are quoting it below.
Legal Cooperation
Article 2
In the drafting of laws and regulations in any of the Nordic countries, citizens of all the
other Nordic countries shall be treated equally with the citizens of the aforementioned
- 30 -
country. This shall apply within all those areas falling within the jurisdiction of the
Treaty of Cooperation.
Exceptions to the first paragraph may, however, be made if a requirement of citizenship
is constitutionally stipulated, or is necessary because of other international obligations or is
otherwise deemed necessary for particular reasons.
Article 3
The High Contracting Parties shall endeavour to facilitate the acquisition by citizens of
one Nordic country to citizenship of another Nordic country.
Article 4
The High Contracting Parties shall continue their cooperation in the field of law with the
aim of attaining the greatest possible uniformity in the field of private law.
Article 5
The High Contracting Parties should seek to establish uniform rules relating to criminal
offences and the penalties for such offences.
With regard to criminal offences committed in one of the Nordic countries, it shall, as
far as circumstances allow, be possible to investigate and prosecute the offence in another Nordic country.
Article 6
The High Contracting Parties shall seek to achieve a coordination of legislation in such
areas, other than the aforementioned, as are considered appropriate.
Other Scandinavian countries, Denmark, Sweden and Finland, are members of the
European Union. Consequently, while harmonising their legislation within the framework of
Nordic Cooperation, Norway and Iceland, indirectly to some extent adopt the model rules
developed by the EU. This process exists alongside with EEA obligations.
In spite of the fact that in the process of absorption by the European Union of new
European countries and digestion of them, the number of the regional unions in Europe
will be and should be reduced, the obligations accepted in the framework of such unions
do not and will not conflict with the system of the Union, but only strengthen its foundations
and facilitate the accession of those new countries to the Union.
The example of the Nordic Cooperation is rather indicative in this respect. The same
relates to the obligations of partner countries across the CIS, Eurasian Economic Community
and to the Union State. Integration within the framework of those Eastern European structures
does not contradict nor conflict, but only pushes ahead and encourages partner countries to
integration with the European Union and in many respects accelerates such interaction.
8. The harmonisation mechanism of the legislation in

other European PCA partner states
Finally, the fifth group of mechanisms is composed of harmonisation mechanisms existing
in the European partner countries, Ukraine and Moldova.
The Ukrainian mechanism is the most interesting one. The respective process in
Moldova at first developed vigorously, but has been suspended for some time around the end
- 31 -

of 2001. However, the experience of Ukraine in terms of preparing the mechanism of legislative approximation should be rather useful for Russia.
As it was already emphasised above, Article 51 of the PCA with Ukraine contains not
only the obligation to harmonise legislation and the list of spheres covered by that obligation, but also the external aspect of the harmonisation mechanism of the Ukrainian law. In
particular, the European Union undertakes to support Ukraine when it comes to technical aid
through an exchange of the experts, special information on the introduction of the respective
legislation, organisation of seminars, training of experts and the help in translation of the legislation of the Community in corresponding sectors.
The internal aspect of the above-mentioned mechanism consists of the interface between
the Supreme Rada and Ukrainian Ministry of Justice.
On November 4, 2000, the Ukrainian Supreme Rada ratified a special Harmonisation
Programme of Ukrainian Legislation with the Legislation of the EU. The programme contains a list of the basic Ukrainian statutory legal acts subject to change with a view to harmonisation. The Supreme Rada has also formed a Commission of the Supreme Rada on
issues of the European integration overseeing the issues of harmonisation.
In turn, the Ukrainian Ministry of Justice under its auspices has established a special
European and Comparative Law Centre (http: // www.eclc.gov.ua).
The centre is charged with monitoring the Ukrainian legislation for its comparability
with the EU law, expert appraisal of the legislative initiatives, translation of the EU acts into
the Ukrainian language, development and maintenance of a glossary of the main European
terms and establishment of the European legal database in the Ukrainian language.
In the beginning of 2004, the Ministry of Justice has also approved the translation procedure of the EU legislation texts into the Ukrainian language containing key rules, algorithm and a technique of such translations. The European and Comparative Law Centre has
been appointed the sole official body for the translation of the given documents into the
Ukrainian language.
Practical work of the Centre is moving ahead successfully if not to say running at full
speed. The Centre is occupied also with the development of educational programmes. In particular, it was namely the European and Comparative Law Centre that has prepared a course
in The European Choice of Ukraine for secondary school students that successfully went
through testing in a number of the Kiev schools.
9. Mechanism of legislative harmonisation for Russia

It appears that like the majority of the listed mechanisms, the harmonisation mechanism for
Russia should include two components: external and internal.
The external component should consist of four elements: informational, administrative,
organisational and financial.
The informational element should consist in duly granting the relevant information in
full by the bodies of the Union about legislative work in 15 spheres of harmonisation.
The administrative element consists in the modernisation of the interface on the level of
the PCA institutions, in particular, their endowment with powers similar to those of the EEA
bodies. In the activity of various Commission departments and Council working groups it is
necessary to also envisage an access and participation of Russian experts in the development
of statutory acts concerning 15 spheres of approximation.
The organisational element should include technical support of educational and professional upgrading programmes for the training and further training of experts in the respec- 32 -
tive areas as well as mechanisms for the involvement of the relevant expertise in the decision-making on the raised questions.
The financial element implies the creation of stable and sufficient basis for the funding
of such mechanisms. Such financial structure should be established and developed on a bilateral basis.
Creation of the given mechanism can take place in the vein of Russias transition to Euro
settlements in the external economic operations. The idea of Russias de-dollarization and
transition into a more stable reserve currency is most attractive at the moment. For operational cooperation on the Euro issues it would be feasible (and, in our opinion, the time has
long been ripe to do it regardless of the plans of introducing the Euro for mutual settlements)
to open a representation office of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation at the European
Central Bank. On that basis it would be possible to launch a co-funding mechanism for
many actions of mutual interest.
In the processes described above worthy of noting is the constructive role of the EU
Tacis programme which could play a key role in the establishment of such mechanism and
render unique support with information, expertise and technical assistance to these undertakings.
Implementation of the external component of the harmonisation mechanism could be
commissioned as a whole to the structures of the RF Foreign Ministry. However, the direct
and practical legal part of this work should be handled by structures of the RF Ministry of
Justice in the coordination with the Foreign Ministry.
The internal component appears to be the most significant one since the approximation
of the Russian law should take place namely through it. Therefore, naturally enough, the
bodies focused on international law-making and dealing directly with internal legislation
should be engaged in realisation of this process including its coordination as may be required
with relevant structures of the Foreign Ministry and the European Union.
In addition, appearance of a special ministry or department on the European affairs
in Russia is extremely desirable, but not achievable for the moment.
The EU Tacis programme could play an important part in establishing such mechanism
and providing unique technical assistance to the above undertakings.
The internal component of the harmonisation mechanism should be designed in cooperation between the RF Ministry of Justice and the State Duma of the RF Federal Assembly.
To that end, it is necessary to create a special department within the structure of the
Ministry of Justice which would handle these issues of legislative harmonisation. Under the
auspices of such a department it would be possible to create permanent expert groups in each
sphere of harmonisation.
In case of concluding an agreement about application of the PCA Article 55 according
to the model proposed in the present report, the above-mentioned expert groups could perfectly cooperate both directly and through the Foreign Ministry with relevant departments of
the Commission and EU Council working groups in the course of the development of the EU
legislation.
It would be possible to create an ad hoc committee or other division of the State Duma
on the questions of harmonisation of the RF legislation.
The department of the Ministry of Justice in charge of harmonisation could be assigned
2 more tasks:
firstly, the translation of the EU legislation in 15 harmonisation spheres into Russian
and drawing up a database on such legislation;
secondly, training and further training of the Russian experts in the field of the
European law.
- 33 -

The first task is somewhat easier. The Ministry of Justice can commission that work to the
Rus-EU (Russia European Union) International Cooperation and Development Centre,
working with the Centre and MSLA Chair of EU Law, the staff of which has extensive experience in preparing translations of the European legal texts. They have developed their own
algorithm, technique and even a dictionary for such activities. It should be mentioned that the
Institute of Europe of the Russian Academy of Science has already developed in the 1990s a
special glossary on the European integration which can be of certain help in such work.
The Rus-EU Centre jointly with MSLA Chair of EU Law is capable, in cooperation
with Consultant Plus legal database provider to create a special database on the European
legislation for the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation especially because versions
of such databases as Handbook of the EU law prepared by the MSLA Chair of the EU law
have already been submitted for their approval.
The second task is more difficult, because today the training of specialists in the field of
the European law is carried out essentially only by MGIMO University and MSLA. Still, the
number of experts on the EU law is not sufficient. Highly skilled experts with a thorough
understanding of the most complicated matters of the EU law are necessary for work in the
expert committees.
This problem can be solved only through common efforts of the existing educational
establishments with a comprehensive support from the Ministry of Science and Education,
Ministry of Justice and other ministries and departments.
Creation of the European college at MGIMO University through an arrangement at the
top level is a promising way towards partial solution of the problem. However, to make the
idea work really effectively it is necessary not to copy blindly the European approaches to
training in the European Union law, but to develop from the outset a curriculum and methods of training capable of working effectively on the Russian soil together with the leading
Russian schools of European law.
Initial result of the activity of the above-mentioned European Gateway i.e. a set of
practical structures for the harmonisation of the RF legislation with the one of the EU should
be laying down a programme of harmonisation of the legislation which can be approved
both by the RF State Duma and the governmental structures, in particular, the already mentioned RF Ministry of Justice.
A list of statutory legal acts subject to amendment in connection with the legislative harmonisation should be reflected in such Programme.
Conclusions and proposals
1. Russia and the European Union are key partners in the European region. Steady and
harmonious social and economic development of the region depends on strengthening and
expansion of their cooperation as a whole. Such strengthening and expansion of relations
between them acts, in particular, as a necessary element in shaping of the collective security system in Europe, in particular. Russia and the European Union are indispensable economic partners for each other, their economies and political interests are compatible, mutually dependent and complimentary.
This kind of mutual dependence dictates acceleration of the integration processes between
Russia and the European Union, including their extension into the sphere of legislation.
2. Development of the European integration without Russias participation in that
process is incomplete, while the construction of the so-called Wider Europe is impossible.
The leaders of Russia and other European countries should pay to that special attention.
Russia can and should establish supranational ties with the European Union. The 1993
Constitution of Russia permits that.
Such cooperation does not, by far, imply Russias membership in the European Union
though in the long-term perspective such development cannot be ruled out. There are examples and mechanisms of softer models of integration.
Participation of Russia in the activities of NATO which from the legal point of view can
be described as Russias quasi-membership in that organisation can serve as a working
model for todays relations with the EU. However, in order to formalise such relations with
the EU it takes a more complex mechanism and a precise legal regulation of its functioning.
3. The basic document regulating the current Relations between Russia and the EU is
the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement of 1994. That agreement covers all facets of the
relations between the EU and Russia and is a model one in terms of contents, a framework
one in terms of the form and a prospective one in terms of the orientation.
4. The Partnership and Cooperation Agreement has chosen harmonisation (approximation) of the legislation as a way of legal integration between Russia and the European Union.
As a whole, harmonisation or approximation of the national law consists in introduction of the general principles of legal regulation in specific areas of public life while the
states retain a greater or smaller room for their own legal regulation.
The PCAArticle 55 is especially devoted to that process. This Article nominates the spheres
of legislation approximation and obliges Russia to perform necessary measures for that purpose.
Harmonisation of legislation is an important and effective tool of partnership between
Russia and the EU in the long run aimed at the expansion of such partnership and its development into stable neighbourliness on the basis of a free trade area.
The prospect of an enhanced partnership within the framework of the PCA is seen in a
context of establishing between Russia and the EU of four mutually interfering spaces: the
Common European Economic Space, the Common Space of External Security, Common
Space of Freedom, Security and Justice, and the Common Space of Research, Education and
Culture.
- 35 -

Alongside with other mechanisms of the partnership provided for in the PCA, the tool
of legislation approximation, as stipulated in the PCA Article 55 should undoubtedly become
a reference point in their shaping.
5. For each of the four foreseen spaces it is necessary to adjust a special mechanism of
interface which should certainly include among others the reception of the EU standards into
the Russian law. At the same time, establishment of other spaces in the framework of the RURussia integration cannot be ruled out, either.
The European Union law today acts as a legislative model according to which virtually
all European countries are harmonising their laws. In that respect, the EU law becomes a
truly European one.
The legal system of the European Union is quite comparable to the Roman law and its
well-known Justinian Code (Corpus Juris) adopted by many European countries and having
affected among others the legal system of Russia.
The European Union law plays a role of the single standard of determining the rules of
the game and of all participants of the Common Market including both Member States, and
citizens and legal entities of the Union. Once the Constitution of Europe is adopted, that standard will become even more legitimate, clear and binding one.
Establishment of the common European space in economic and other spheres is impossible without emergence of single legal space.
6. The legal integration between Russia and the EU may have a unilateral or bilateral/mutual nature.
In the former case, it would have to do with the reception by our country of the legal
achievements of the EU on the level of education, legal drafting activity and international
obligations including the ones in the CIS framework.
In the latter case, the components in the framework of the reception of aquis will have
to include an agreement on cooperation in the legal sphere or on application of Article 55,
agreement(s) or protocol(s) to the PCA on the common economic space and other agreements providing for partial extension to Russia of the EU Common Market treatment and
discussion of an option of granting Russia a special privileged status for the EU similar in
many respects to the one of a Member State of Accession State.
7. The largest shortcoming of the ongoing legal reform in contemporary Russia is its
lagging behind the emerging tendency in the legislation of civilised countries towards
approximation and harmonisation of rules and standards.
It is fully logical for Russia to pursue the measures for legislation approximation with
other European countries (rather than, for example, with the countries of North America).
Harmonisation of the Russian law with the legislation of the EU fully complies with the
rules and spirit of the Constitution of Russian Federation.
Harmonisation of the Russian law with the EU legislation constitutes an assumed obligation for the establishment of partnership as stipulated in Article 55 of the PCA. Alongside
with that, 15 spheres for the legislative approximation are outlined therein, which are not the
major legal fields.
When modelling the mechanism of legislative approximation and undertaking specific
measures in that field one should take into account the fact that the Russian Federation is a
federal state and areas of legal harmonisation mentioned in the PCA Article 55 touch upon
all three levels of the legislative competence of the federation and its subjects identified in
Articles 7173 of the RF Constitution.
It means that the harmonisation mechanism for the Russian legislation should provide
for participation of federation subject authorities in such process, or, for sure, their opportunity of access to the process.
- 36 -
8. Comparative analysis of the provisions of the PCAs with Russia, Ukraine and
Moldova shows that the articles of the Ukrainian and Moldavian PCAs dealing with legislative harmonisation also contain the third part, which is missing in the Russian PCA. That
part is dedicated to the issues of technical assistance on the part of the Union to the legislation approximation process.
To the credit of the European partners, they have provided and continue to provide
Russia with certain technical support on this issue in the framework of the Tacis programme.
However, when it comes to harmonisation of the legislation, involvement of a wider expertise on various levels is necessary for a thorough study of the issue.
Without doubt, when creating the harmonisation mechanism we should take into account
the provisions of the above articles as a model and expression of commitment of the partner
to provide such mechanism. Those provisions on the technical assistance to the process of
legislative approximation following the example of Ukraine and Moldova should be replicated when the PCA is extended by the signing of the relevant protocols to it or when concluding on its basis a special agreement on legal assistance or/and agreements on application
of the PCA Article 55.
9. The Partnership and Cooperation Agreement is a framework agreement and on its
basis special agreements in concrete spheres of cooperation are to be concluded. It is quite
possible to conclude on this basis the special agreement about application of the PCA
Article 55 which would foresee the mechanism of legislation approximation between Russia
and the Union.
Such agreement could become one of components to Common European Law Space
(CELS) between Russia and the Union which logically proceeds from the measures for legislative approximation and can be organically incorporated in the concept of the Common
European Economic Space being developed today within the framework of the Putin-Prodi
Initiative.
The Common European Law Space should include four levels:
A. Reception of acquis de l'Union in the Russian legislation in the spheres outlined in
Article 55 of the PCA. This process should include the establishment of the lists of
acts by the Union in the respective 15 spheres containing the rules necessary for
replication in the Russian legislation. These lists could be tuned into protocols to
the Agreement on application of the PCA Article 55. It is necessary to identify also
the respective Russian legislation which is subject to change with a view to harmonisation.
B. Creation of the mechanism for the adoption of the new decisions of the European
Union in those spheres taking into account the interests of Russia. Harmonisation
should take place not only on the Russian part. It is a bilateral process if it is based on
partner relations.
C. Achievement of homogeneity, i.e. uniformity of application and interpretation of harmonised acts by the Russian courts according to the existing practice of the European
Court of Justice. This can be accomplished if a special mechanism is in place similar to the one applied for CES. That would become a European component of the
judicial reform widely discussed in Russia.
D. Future expansion of frameworks of harmonisation beyond the limits of PCAArticle 55.
However, this process requires thorough preparation including the study of the European
Union law and raising awareness about it, development of the relevant Russian legislation,
draft agreements or agreements which would provide relevant mechanisms for implementation of different levels of CELS, the training of qualified staff and improvement of professional skill of the judges and officials.
- 37 -

10. Though lagging a little behind the other European powers in harmonisation of the internal legislation, Russia gets a unique advantage expressed in the opportunity of generalisation
and use of the experience of such harmonisation already accumulated by other countries.
On the whole, it is possible to divide all harmonisation mechanisms of national legislation existing in Europe into 5 primary groups:
1. Harmonisation mechanisms inside the European Union, in the EU Member States.
2. Harmonisation mechanisms in accession states.
3. Harmonisation mechanism of the Swiss national law.
4. Harmonisation mechanism within the framework of the European economic space.
5. Harmonisation mechanism in other European partner countries.
Comparative analysis of the indicated mechanisms enables one to make a conclusion
that the most interesting and practicable one for the Russian situation is the experience of
creating a system of corresponding legislation by the EFTA countries (Norway, Iceland and
Lichtenstein) in the framework of the European Economic Area and the experience of
Ukraine in preparing the ground for setting up such harmonisation mechanism.
11. Like the majority of mechanisms discussed above, the legislative harmonisation
mechanism for Russia should include two components, external and internal.
The external component should consist of four elements: informational, administrative,
organisational and financial.
Implementation of the external component of the harmonisation mechanism could be
commissioned as a whole to the departments of the RF Foreign Ministry. However, the direct
and practical legal part of this work should be handled by the departments of the RF
Ministry of Justice in the coordination with the Foreign Ministry.
The internal component appears to be the most significant one since approximation of
the Russian law should take place namely through it. Therefore, naturally enough, the bodies focused on international law-making and dealing directly with internal legislation should
be engaged in realisation of this process including its coordination as may be required with
relevant structures of the Foreign Ministry and the European Union.
In addition, the appearance of a special ministry or a department on the European affairs
in Russia is extremely desirable, but not achievable for the moment.
The EU Tacis programme could play an important part in establishing such a mechanism
and providing the unique technical assistance to the above undertakings.
The internal component of the harmonisation mechanism should be designed in cooperation between the RF Ministry of Justice and the State Duma of the RF Federal
Assembly.
To that end, it is necessary to create a special department within structure of the Ministry
of Justice which would handle the issues of legislative harmonisation. Under the auspices of
such department it would be possible to create permanent expert groups in each sphere of
harmonisation.
In the case of concluding an agreement about application of the PCA Article 55 according to the model proposed in the present report, the above-mentioned expert groups could
perfectly cooperate both directly and through the Foreign Ministry with the relevant departments of the Commission and EU Council working groups in the course of the development
of the EU legislation.
It would be possible to create an ad hoc committee or other division of the State Duma
on the questions of harmonisation of the RF legislation.
The department of the Ministry of Justice in charge of harmonisation could be assigned
2 more tasks:
firstly, the translation of the EU legislation in the 15 harmonisation spheres into
Russian and drawing up a database on such legislation;
secondly, training and further training of the Russian experts in the field of the
European law.
- 38 -
The first task is somewhat easier. The Ministry of Justice can commission that work to
the Rus-EU (Russia European Union) International Cooperation and Development
Centre, working with the Centre and MSLA Chair of EU Law. The Rus-EU Centre jointly with the MSLA Chair of EU Law is capable of establishing a special database on the
European legislation for the RF Ministry of Justice.
The second task is more difficult, and may only be solved only through the common
efforts of the existing educational establishments with comprehensive support from the
Ministry of Science and Education, the Ministry of Justice and other ministries and departments.
Creation of the European College at MGIMO University through an arrangement on the
top level is a promising way towards partial solution of the problem. However, to make the
idea work really effectively it is necessary not to copy blindly the European approaches to
training in the European Union law, but to develop from the outset a curriculum and methods of training capable for working effectively on the Russian soil together with the leading
Russian schools of European law.
Besides, it would be feasible to include the EU law in the obligatory standard of higher
legal education and support the establishment of special chairs at law schools.
12. Initial result of activity of the above-mentioned European Gateway i.e. a set of
practical structures for the harmonisation of the RF legislation with the one of the EU should
be laying down a programme of harmonisation of the legislation which can be approved
both by the RF State Duma and the governmental structures, in particular, the already mentioned RF Ministry of Justice.
The program of harmonisation of the Russian legislation with the legislation of EU can
have 2 main phases:
1st phase legislative harmonisation programme in the framework of the already
achieved agreement according to PCA Article 55, as the minimum programme.
The inventory of statutory legal acts subject to amendment in connection with harmonisation of the legislation should be included in such programmes. It would be feasible to
involve the Russian and European experts in the development of this program, while its
funding could come from the Tacis programme or other European institutions interested in
such funding;
and the 2nd phase a comprehensive programme for harmonisation of the Russian
Federation legislation with the legislation of EU in the framework of the 4 Common
European Spaces (maximum programme).
Structurally, this programme of legislative harmonisation as the major component of the
emerging Common European Law Space could be broken into 4 primary groups of strategic
problems: 1) Common European Economic Space; 2) Common European Space of External
Security; 3) Common European Space of Freedom, Security and Justice; 4) Common
European Space of Research, Educations and Culture.
Further, inside each of these groups it is possible to structurally designate the specific
sector components which will be studied by the relevant expert groups.
Notes
M.Emerson. The Wider Europe Matrix, Brussels, 2004. P. 7677.
EC. Doc, COM (2003) 104. final. P. 9.
EC. Doc, COM (2003) 104. final. P. 12.
Diplomaticheskiy Vestnik. 1994. No. 15/16. Pp. 2959.
Federal Law of November 25, 1996.
David R. Jauffret-Spinosi, C. Osnovniye pravoviye systemy sovremennosti. oscow, Mezhdunarodniye

otnosheniya, 1997. P. 21. (in Russian).
OJ 2004 L 158/77.
See the EEA Agreement in Russian translated by P.A. Kalinichenko in: Rossiya i Evropeiskiy Soyuz: dokumenty i materially. Kashkin, S.Yu., Ed. oscow, 2003. P. 446.
European Free Trade Association (EFTA) was founded 1960 on the basis of the respective Agreement made
in Stockholm in 1959. Throughout 1960, EFTA acted as an alternative to the integration in the framework of
the Common Market, however, in the later years, a number of EFTA member countries (UK and Denmark
in 1972, Portugal in 1985, Austria, Finland and Sweden in 1994) left the organisation and became members
of the European Communities.
10
Switzerland has signed the EEA Agreement, by has not ratified it. Today, the economic integration between
the Community and Switzerland is based on 7 special agreements in force since 2002.
11
See more in: Blanchet T., Piipponen R., Westman-Cle;ment M. The Agreement on the European Economic
Area (EEA). A Guide to the Free Movement of Goods and Competition Rules / Oxford, 1996; EEA Law: A
Commentary on the EEA Agreement / Stockholm, 1993.

XXI .
: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
I.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
1.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
2.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
5.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
II. Corpus Juris :

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
1.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
2. . . . . . 51
3.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
III. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
2. . . . . . . . . . . 57
3. . 55 , . 51
. 50 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
4. . 55
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
IV. -
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
2.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
3. - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
5.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
7.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
8.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
- 42 -
.
, , .
(Wider Europe),
, .

.
- , , , .
, , , . , , , ,
1.
,
.
, ,
.
, , .
, , , . .
,
:

, ;
.

, ;
- 43 -

. , .
, . 49 , , , , , .
, ,
2;
, . , ,
,
;
, - - .
,
;
, , . . ,

;

( ), , , (
),
, . , ;
( , ,
) . , (, , , , ..). : , , , ,
, , ,
, , , , , 3;
, - 44 -
. .
XXI .
,
, , ;

, .
, .
,
, .. ,
.
, , .
, ,
.
. ,
. - ,

, , .
I.

1.

. , , . , ,
,
.
90- .,
. , .
, , , .
, 55% .
5- (22%),
, .
,
,
1994 . 1313 . 2004 . 2200 .
,
.
,
,
- 46 -
. .
XXI .
, , ,
, , , , , .
, .
2.

(), , - , 24 1994 . . ()4. 1996 .5 1 1997 .

( ).
, -.
10 , .
, 112 , , , .

10 ( , ).
, .
,
, .
. 1994 . , ,
XXI . 1994 . , . , .
, (, . 2122).
.
, , . , ,
(. 1 ).
- 47 -
3.
.
, .
(.. ) .
55 . , . .
,
,
, ,
, , , , , , , , , , ,
, , .
, :
-, ,
- ,
;
-, ,
;
-, , .
,

. , . 1, , , , , , , . , , .
4.
,
. ,
. ,
.
- 48 -
. .
XXI .
, . .
, ..., . .. , , . - ,
.
, ... .. , ,
, .
, , , ,
.
5.

, . : , , , , , .
, . , , . 55 ,
.
, (). (. 8 2003 .).
, , ,
, . , , ,
.
, , ,
.
II. Corpus Juris :

1.

,
.

. , , ,
, , .
, ,
, !

. 1957 .
, .
1992 .
,
(. 1).
, , , .
2004 .,
.
,
, , , .
, !
- 50 -
. .
XXI .
,
, .
: ,
( 1997 .), ,
, ,
-.
, . 79 1993 . .
. . 79:
79

,
.

, . ,

, -
.
!
. , , , , .
, ,
, , ,
.
- 2002 . , . ,
, .
2.

, . , .
- 51 -
. ,

, , .
. ,
. , , , .
, .
,
. , , . ,
.
. , , , .

, .
, .
, , , , . .
. . , , , , , , .
,
. , .
, ,
.
. , .
, .
, ,
, . , , , , - .
VIII .
. , - 52 -
. .
XXI .
.
, -,
. , .
,
, .
, .

, . -
,
, .

, , .
,
- ,
.
. ( ) .
3.

( ,
, .)
,

.
,
.
. ( )
, ,
,
( ), .
- .

25 -, 3 - , . - 53 -
.
, . , , .

, , . , - ( ), , 36
42 .
,
,
.
, , .
(Corpus Juris), .
.

.
, , -,
.
, - ,
Acquis (Acquis communautaire Acquis de lUnion
).
, ().

, , .
; ,
, .
4.

/ () .
- 54 -
. .
XXI .

:
) :
.
, , . , , .
.

(, ,
, , );
) :
,
.
;
)
: , .
, :
) .
1994 ., .
, , , ,
,
( , , , ..), ;
) ,
( ,
, .);
) . I57
,
;
) -.
() .
III.
1.

, , , .
, (, ).
, 1993 . , . 79 . . .
.
,
, - , - .
.
( , , ). - ,
. . , , ,
, 6. , ,
,
.
, . 55
1994 . ( 1996 ., 1997 .),
,
.
55 :
- 56 -
. .
XXI .
55.
1. , .

.
2. , , : ; ; ; ; ; ; ;
, ; ; ; ; ;
;
; .
, , . 55
:
1. , .
2. .
3. , , :
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
, ;
;
;
;
;
;
;
.
15 . , .
2.

, .
, ,
, 1993 .
- 57 -
. 7173 , . 55 :
71
:
<...>
) , , , ,
;
) ; , , , , , ;
, ;
) ; ; ;
) , ,
; , , ; ;
<...>
) ; ; , - - ; ; ,
- - ;
;
<...>
) , , , ; ; ; ;
<>.
72
1. :
<...>
) ;
; ; ;
<...>
) ; , ,
; , ;
<...>
) ;
) , -, , ,
, , , , , ;
<...>.
73
.
- 58 -
. .
XXI .
- , , . 55 .
,

, , .
, . .. () () . 71 , . () . 1 . 72 . , ,
.
3. . 55
, . 51 . 50

, ,
, , .
, , (
), , . 51 . 50 .
. 55
.
, .
3 . 51 . 3 . 50 :
() , , , :
;

;
;
;
.
, . .
, .
, , , , ,
.

. , - 59 -
.
,
, .
,

. 55 .
4. . 55

, .
. 55 , .
(Common European Law Space CELS) , , .
:
1. acquis de lUnion , . 55 . 15 , . . 55 . , .
2.
. . , .
3. . , ,
, .
.
4. . 55 .
,
, , ,

, ,
.
IV. -

1.

, ,
.
-
.
. , - , . , , .

5 :
1. , .
2. -.
3. .
4. .
5. -.
2.

, , , , . - . , .
- 61 -
.
.
, - , .
. , , , .
, -,
-, .
15 , . 55 .
3.
-
. -
, , . , .
, - -
. ,
, ,
. . .
, ,
( 2010 .) . -
, , . , , , , .
4.

.
. , ,
- 62 -
. .
XXI .

.
,
,
. ,
.
7 , 1999 . 2001 . , Schengen acquis, 2004 . .
7
. ,
.
7 . , , 2004/38/ 29 2004 .

-, () 1612/68
64/221/, 68/360/, 72/194/, 73/148/, 75/34/, 75/35/, 90/364/
93/96/7.
,
. , . ,
,
. . :
;
;
;
;
;
;
.
15 . 55 , 3 . -,
. -
.
, , ,
.
- 63 -
5.

, (). 1992 ., 1994 .8

, ,
-, , 9. , , 10 (
,
, ). 28 500 .
, , , ,
, , 11.
( 2010 .)
.

,
1994 ., . 55, .

, ,
() .
7 :
1. , , .
2. , , .
3. , ,
.
6 . , (case-law) , ,
, ,
.
. .. 97104 . , .
- 64 -
. .
XXI .
, , .
, . . . , , , . 7 ( ).
, (. 103).
, , .
. 55 ,
.
,
, ,
, .
, , .
,
, . 1994 . , , .
.
6.

. , .
, .
. .
,
,
.
- 65 -

.
.
. , ,
1 , , .
, , , , , ,
. . .
.
, .

, . , .
.
. .
, ,
.
,
. 55
,
, .
.
, , .
,
.
7.

, , .
, . , . - 66 -
. .
XXI .

, 1962 .
, . .

2
.
.
, , ,
, .
3
.
4

.
5

.
, ,
.
6
, , .
,
. ,
, ,
, . .
, , , ,
, .
.
- , . , , , -
.
- 67 -
8.

, , - .
. , - 2001 . .

.
, . 51 , , . , , , , , ,
.

.
4 2000 . . - , . , .

(http://www.eclc.gov.ua).
,
, , , .
2004 . , , .
.
, ,
. . ,
,
.
9.

, , ,
.
- 68 -
. .
XXI .
, , .

15 .
, , , ,
.

, 15 .

, - .
. .
. . (, ,
)
. ,
.
,
-
.

.
.
, . , , , , .
, .

.
, . .
- 69 -
. 55 ,
.
.
2 :
-, 15
;
-, .
. - ( ),
,
. , . , 1990- .
,
.
- + ,
, ,
.
.
() . . , .
, ,
.
(), , . , ,
, .
, , , , .
-
, .
1. .

- .
. , , .

,
.
2. , .

.
.
1993 . .
,
, . .
,
.
.
3. , ,
1994 .
,
.
4.
() .

.
. 55 .
.

,
- 71 -
.

: , , , , , .
, ,
, . 55 , ,
.
5.
,
. .
, . .

(Corpus Juris),
.
,
, -,
.
, .

.
6. / () .

, , , .
acquis
. 55 , () (
() ) , ,
,
- -.
7. , , , .

( , , ).
.

, . 55
. 15 ,
.
- 72 -
. .
XXI .
, ,
. 55 ,
, .. 7173 .

.
, , ,

.
8. ,
, ,
, , .
.
. , , .
,
.

. 55 .
9. .

.
. 55 , .
(Common European Law Space
CELS) ,
,
.
:
. acquis de lUnion , . 55 . 15 , . . 55 . , .
. . . , .
- 73 -
. . , , , .
. . 55 .
,
,
, , ,
, .
10.
, ,
.

5 :
1. , .
2. -.
3. .
4. .
5. -.
,

(, ) ,
.
11.
.
, , .

.
.
, . , , , , .
,
.

.

.
- 74 -
. .
XXI .
, . .
. 55 ,
.
.

2 :
-, 15
;
-, .
.
- ( ), . -
.
, ,
.
(), , . , ,
,
.
,
.
12. , ..
, . 55 , , , , .
2 :
1-
. 55 .
-
, . ,
.
- 75 -
2-
4 (-).
,
4 : 1) ; 2) ;
3) , ; 4)
, .
, ,
.
Emerson M. The Wider Europe Matrix, Brussels, 2004. P. 7677.
EC. Doc, COM (2003) 104. final. P. 9.
EC. Doc, COM (2003) 104. final. P. 12.
. 1994. 15/16. . 2959.
25 1996 .
., - . . .: , 1997. . 21.
OJ 2004 L 158/77.
.. .: :
/ . . .. . ., 2003. . 446.
1960 . 1959 .
1960- . , ( 1972 ., 1985 ., ,
1994 .) .
10
, . 7 ,
2002 .
11
.: Blanchet T., Piipponen R., Westman-Cle;ment M. The Agreement on the European

Economic Area (EEA). A Guide to the Free Movement of Goods and Competition Rules / Oxford, 1996;
EEA Law: A Commentary on the EEA Agreement / Stockholm, 1993.
RUSSIAN-EUROPEAN TRENDS -
2004
N 1
Jean-Paul Blandinie`res Change of the fundamental productive and social paradigms and transformation of the public
sphere in Europe. (EU experience)
- .
. ( )
N 2
V. Voloshin EU Russia energy dialogue

.
2005
N 3
Alfred E. Kellermann Membership of the European Internal Market without being an EU Member State. A comparison of
EU Norway, EU Switzerland and EU Russia relations, with special focus on the experiences with approximation of
legislation.
. , .
,
N 4
M. Entin Effective state

.
W. Douma Increasing the Efficiency of State Regulation of the Russian Economy with the Help of Experiences of the EU
and Selected EU Member States
.

N 5
P. Kryuchkova Improving Quality of Legislative Regulation of Econonomic Acivities: European Experience and Prospects
for Russia
. :

RUSSIAN-EUROPEAN TRENDS
-
6, 2005 .
.
.
.
08.11.2005

. . . 5,0
70100/16
300 .
193
.
125040, , 3- . , 3/5, . 609 6183

Tendintele Relatiilor Ruso-Europene

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tendintele Relatiilor Ruso-Europene

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

6

Strategic and Practical Aspects

The Russian-European Centre for

About the author

Sergey Kashkin is the Chief of the Chair of

Strategy and Mechanisms of the Legislation Harmonisation

Strategy and Mechanisms

Introduction: Russia in the context of a Wider Europe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

III. Common European Law Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

IV. Creation of the institutional and legal mechanism of legislative harmonisation . . . . 25

Conclusions and proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Introduction: Russia in the context

Strategic and Practical Aspects of the Legislation Harmonization between Russia

I. Harmonisation of legislation as the key

1. Objective need for advancement of cooperation

2. PCA as the basic document in the mutual relations

3. Harmonisation of legislation from the point

Strategic and Practical Aspects of the Legislation Harmonization between Russia

5. Harmonisation of the legislation concerning Common

II. Corpus Juris for the United Europe:

1. Social angle of Russias inclusion in the process

2. Common Economic Space as an element

Strategic and Practical Aspects of the Legislation Harmonization between Russia

3. Reception of legal standards of the European Union

Strategic and Practical Aspects of the Legislation Harmonization between Russia

4. Development scenarios of legal integration in Russia

III. Common European Law Space

1. Harmonisation of the Russian law in the context

Article 55. Legislative Cooperation

2. Legislative harmonisation from the point of view

Strategic and Practical Aspects of the Legislation Harmonization between Russia

3. Comparative analysis of the provisions of Article 55

Strategic and Practical Aspects of the Legislation Harmonization between Russia

4. The agreement on application of the PCA Article 55 and

IV. Creation of the institutional and legal

1. The basic mechanisms of legislative harmonisation

2. Mechanisms of legislative harmonisation in Member

Strategic and Practical Aspects of the Legislation Harmonization between Russia

3. Mechanisms of legislative harmonisation in accession

4. The mechanism of legislative harmonisation

The above-mentioned 7 treaties are devoted to special questions of cooperation and

5. Mechanism of legislative harmonisation

Strategic and Practical Aspects of the Legislation Harmonization between Russia

6. Comparative analysis of the EEA and PCA institutional

Strategic and Practical Aspects of the Legislation Harmonization between Russia

Presidency in Cooperation Council is held alternately by representatives of Russia and the

7. The phenomenon of dual obligation and the role

8. The harmonisation mechanism of the legislation in

Strategic and Practical Aspects of the Legislation Harmonization between Russia

9. Mechanism of legislative harmonisation for Russia

Strategic and Practical Aspects of the Legislation Harmonization between Russia

Conclusions and proposals

Strategic and Practical Aspects of the Legislation Harmonization between Russia

Strategic and Practical Aspects of the Legislation Harmonization between Russia

M.Emerson. The Wider Europe Matrix, Brussels, 2004. P. 7677.

EC. Doc, COM (2003) 104. final. P. 9.

EC. Doc, COM (2003) 104. final. P. 12.

Diplomaticheskiy Vestnik. 1994. No. 15/16. Pp. 2959.

Federal Law of November 25, 1996.

David R. Jauffret-Spinosi, C. Osnovniye pravoviye systemy sovremennosti. oscow, Mezhdunarodniye

II. Corpus Juris :

(), , - , 24 1994 . . ()4. 1996 .5 1 1997 .