Übersicht der Konferenzthemen und -inhalte

The Conference


Legal position of non-recognized States in the post-Soviet space UNDER INTERNATIONAL TRADE LAW, PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW AND INTERNATIONAL CIVIL PROCEDURE” was held in Bordesholm and Kiel on 12-14 July 2018 with the support of DAAD and Internationalisierungsfond CAU.


The program of the Conference

covered a wide range of areas where the issue of non-recognized states play a role: from public and private international law to international civil procedure and arbitration. The speakers have agreed to publication of the conference materials on the website of the Institute of East European Law. The publication of scientific articles based on the Conference speeches is planned for 2019.





If you are interested in accessing Conference materials, please choose a speaker’s name and title of presentation from a relevant Session:


      1. Introduction

  1. Prof. Dr. Andreas R. Ziegler (Univ. Lausanne): Non-recognized States from the perspective of public international law in general

The recognition or refusal of recognition of States (and sometimes certain Governments) has always had the potential to disturb friendly relations among States. International Law has developed only few generally recognized principles and even those are often applied with a lot of pragmatism in view of the political context. Nevertheless, States attempt to justify their own unilateral actions in this field with legal arguments and sometimes even courts have been called upon to state and interpret the applicable rules. This presentation tries to give an overview on the current state of affairs and the trends and uses the example of Switzerland (due to its role in international relations and as a seat of international organizations) to highlight existing tensions.


  1. Prof. Dr. Alexander Trunk (Univ. Kiel): Overview of non-recognized States in the post-Soviet region

The presentation gives a statistics-based short overview of the non-recognized states (territories, entities) existing at present in the post-Soviet region: Abkhazia, DNR und LNR (Eastern Ukraine), Nagorno-Karabakh, South Ossetia, Transnistria

      1. International trade law
        1. WTO, Eurasian Economic Union, CIS
  1. Prof. Dr. Karsten Nowrot (Univ. Hamburg): Non-recognized States from the perspective of WTO law

In order to illustrate the reasons for a preferably close relationship between non-recognized territorial entities on the one hand as well as the international economic system and its legal order on the other hand, it seems useful to draw attention to two main aspects or perspectives. First, from the external economic perspective, non-recognized territorial entities (NRTE) provide for valuable business opportunities. Second, from the internal economic (and political) perspective of the NRTE in question, a functioning economy is of paramount importance in order to achieve welfare gains for the population as well as for the stability of the political community. However, the desire of (recognized) states to retain a certain “policy space”, has to be taken into account when assessing and understanding the normative ordering structures and individual provisions of international trade and investment agreements. Against this background, the presentation is intended to describe and evaluate the normative approaches to the factual and legal challenges arising in connection with NRTE as adopted by the multilateral regime of the WTO legal order. First, an assessment will be given of how the issue of state succession with regard to membership in international organizations is currently addressed in the WTO. Second, the presentation is furthermore aimed at evaluating the comparatively “liberal” WTO rules as well as practice on membership and their relevance in the present context. Third, attention will moreover be drawn to the possibility for invocations under Article XIII of the WTO Agreement with regard to the non-application of multilateral trade agreements of the WTO legal order between individual WTO members with particular emphasis on the relevance of this provision in the context of NRTE. Fourth and finally, the presentation also attempts to address, from the perspective of WTO law, some of the legal issues potentially arising from relations between a secessionist NRTE and the country from which it has – or tries to – withdraw(n).


  1. Prof. Dr. Zhenis Kembayev (KIMEP, Almaty): Non-recognized States from the perspective of the law of the Eurasian Economic Union and the CIS


        1. EU treaties and non-recognized States: Association treaties, PCAs and other EU FTAs
  1. Prof. Dr. Michael Geistlinger (Univ. Salzburg): Non-recognized States from the perspective of the EU’s Association treaties, PCAs and other EU law

The EU has no uniform approach to non-recognized states falling under the territorial scope of its PCAs or Association Agreements, but joins the attitude and will of the respective central governments. The agreements, themselves, follow the initial understanding of the international community after the break-down of the Soviet Union that the borders of the former Soviet Republics shall be the borders of the respective independent states. Thus, the Association Agreements with Moldova formally extends also to Transnistria and the Association Agreement with Georgia covers also Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Whereas, however, the Moldovan Government opted for supporting the EU policy of making the Transnistrian conflict a widely forgotten past through attraction of goods and people by EU trade and visa-free regime, the EU in line with the Georgian Government excludes Abkhazia and South Ossetia from the application of the agreement as long as Georgia will not have reconciliated the territory in the borders of the former Soviet Republic. The recently signed Comprehensive and Enhanced Partnership Agreement between the EU/EURATOM and their members and Armenia addresses the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict in its preamble. The PCA with Azerbaijan, on the other hand, stays silent on Nagorno-Karabakh, but considers in its preamble the commitment of the EU and its members and of the Republic of Azerbaijan “to strengthen the political and economic freedoms which constitute the very basis of the partnership,“ and recognizes “in that context that support of the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic of Azerbaijan will contribute to the safeguarding of peace and stability in Europe“. The factual result for Nagorno-Karabakh is the same as for Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The presentation will elaborate details by focusing on the most challenging example of Transnistria.


  1. Prof. Dr. Viktor Muraviov (Taras Shevchenko National Univ. Kiev): Association Agreement with Ukraine and non-recognized Territories

The Eastern Partnership Policy proclaimed by the European Union in 2008 foresees a new generation of Association agreements (AA), far-reaching integration into the EU economy that are based on extending on them four freedoms of the internal market. In principle, the AA with Ukraine comprises all Ukrainian territory. Since the AA have been concluded before the beginning of the Russian invasion, those territories and their populations are not covered by the Agreement. Unrecognized territories are not able to maintain normal economic relations with other states, but for Russia. Free movement of goods: international and Ukrainian sanctions exclude any possibility to trade between those territories and the EU. The territories produce some goods, but for internal use only or for trade with Russia. For goods from the unrecognized territories to enter the Ukraine, they need a license to be obtained from the Ukrainian Ministry of Economic Development and Trade. Free movement of services and freedom of establishment: cannot be extended on those territories because of embargo. Free movement of persons: many Ukrainians living on these territories still have Ukrainian passports and can use visa free regime for traveling to the EU, as it is foreseen by the AA. To get a biometric passport they are obliged to come to Kiev and confirm their Ukrainian citizenship. Freedom of capital: in the AA it is reduced to protection of investments. Ukraine cannot do it, since its legislation is not valid there. It may mean that Russia is in charge for the protection of those investments. Thus, there is no free movement of capital to and from those unrecognized territories. The AA will cover those territories, when they are integrated into Ukraine.

  1. Ass. Prof. Dr. Narine Ghazaryan (Nottingham Univ.): Nagorno-Karabakh: Regional integration prospects and the perils of non-recognition

The armed ethno-territorial conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh (NK) was put to an end when a peace agreement was signed in 1994 within the framework of the OSCE Minsk Group co-chaired by Russia, France and the US. A self-proclaimed independent republic, NK is not recognized by international community with the exception of other breakaway regions in the post-Soviet territory. A political entity comprising ethnic Armenians, NK has a close affiliation with the Republic of Armenia. Until recently, the Armenian government was dominated by leaders originating from NK. Despite its economic and military support for NK, Armenia itself has not recognized the independence of the region. In its external relations, Armenia strived to develop close cooperation with Russia while simultaneously pursuing an integration agenda with the EU through the European Neighborhood Policy and the promise of an Association Agreement containing a Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement. Not only NK had to be excluded from any such efforts, the region’s unresolved status also proved to be a major thorn on the path towards closer political and economic cooperation with the EU. In 2013, under pressure from Russia Armenia decided to backtrack on the prospect of concluding an Association Agreement with the EU in favor of joining the Eurasian Economic Union. NK was to be excluded from any benefits of participating in such projects due to the stance of other participants of the Eurasian Economic Union. It is, however, unclear how the benefits of the regional integration can be excluded in practice – one of the issues this talk sets to explore within the context presented above.


        1. Sanctions regimes and non-recognized States in the region
  1. Prof. Dr. Marcus Schladebach (Univ. of Potsdam): The present sanctions regimes in the region (EU, Russia, Ukraine) and non-recognized States

The presentation wants to give a short overview on the recent sanction regime of the European Union concerning Russia and the Ukraine. Since 2014 the European Union has established and extended this regime in a substantially and temporally way. The main focus of the legal acts of the European Union is not directed on Russia as a State. The different measures are more addressed to persons who are responsible for the unstable situation in the Ukraine and its special occupied regions. It is a matter of politics, whether this EU measures will bring the Ukraine closer to the European Union or not.

  1. Prof. Dr. Anatolij Kapustin (Institute for Legislation and Comparative Law, Moscow): Russian perspective

The presentation first poses a question regarding meaning of the used terms “non-recognized State” and “sanctions regimes” under public international law, than describes different types of lawful sanctions regimes, such as measures taken by the UN Security Council under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, measures of international responsibility (countermeasures), unilateral measures of states or regional international organizations as a means of political pressure on other state(s) and retortions against unfriendly acts of states and regional international organizations. The final part of the presentation highlights the position of Russian Federation regarding sanctions regimes in its Foreign Policy Concept and relevant legislation.

  1. Prof. Dr. Roman Petrov (Kiev Mohyla-Academy): Ukrainian perspective

Ukraine pursues coherent policy of non-recognition and support of internationally-approved sanction regimes against the self-proclaimed entities in the post-Soviet area. According to Ukrainian legislation the so-called “peoples republics” in the East of Ukraine are considered as terrorist organisations. Law of Ukraine on reintegration of Donbas (2018) states that the Russian Federation committed the act of military aggression against the territorial sovereignty of Ukraine. Therefore, since 2014, Ukraine, supported by international organisations, Council of Europe and many countries, has been consistently applying restrictive measures against the Russian Federation. In accordance with Article 215 of the TFEU the EU possesses the competence to apply restrictive measures against third countries and nationals in order to achieve objectives of the Common Foreign and Security Policy. The EU is actively engaged in solving the security crisis in Ukraine and its territorial integrity and sovereignty. Since March 2014 the EU’s restrictive measures concern: cancellation of the EU-Russia dialogue on matters of the visa free regime and new bilateral agreement; asset freezes and visa bans of persons and entities responsible for action against Ukraine’s territorial integrity; economic restrictions of Crimea; measures of sectoral economic cooperation between the EU and Russia. Therefore, Ukraine pursues the policy of non-recognition of self-proclaimed entities within the post-Soviet area and applies variety of political, economic and legal restrictive measures against the Russian Federation for violating Ukraine’s territorial integrity.

      1. Private international law and non-recognized States in the region
  1. Prof. Dr. Jürgen Basedow (MPI Hamburg): Non-recognized States from the perspective of private international law

The presentation deals with two basic questions: first, whether irregularity under public international law or constitutional law is relevant for private international law at all, and second, with the situation between the two German States as reflected by case law and legal literature in the years between 1949 to 1990. As to the first question, there are two basic approaches: a normative and a factual one. The normative approach suggests itself where under private international law the nationality of a foreigner is the relevant connecting factor for issues of personal status. establishes constitutional harmony as between the various institutions of a country, in particular between the executive and the judiciary. But it does not take account of the differences in motivation which determine the positions taken by the government on the one side, and the views of the private parties to the case pending in court, on the other. The factual approach was first voiced by the US Supreme Court, that when the act in question proceeds from an “actual government” and belongs to a category of acts which are “necessary to peace and good order among citizens”, it shall be given effect. At the same time it would exclude those acts of the foreign government which tend to strengthen its own unlawful power or which are directed against the forum state. The factual approach appears to be superior throughout jurisdictions as long as only private interests are involved. This would be different where the non-recognized political entity itself initiates a lawsuit in the forum state, seeking legal remedies in its own favor. As to the second question, the factual approach does not solve all problems as can be seen from the legal situation in Germany in 1949-1990. Until 1973 West Germany and the Western allies did not recognize East Germany as a State. After Grundlagenvertrag of 1973, the West German government declared that the Treaty did not deal with citizenship, while the East German government declared that the Treaty would facilitate the regulation of citizenship issues.

  1. Ass. Prof. Dr. Nikitas Hatzimihail (Univ. of Cyprus): The perspective of Cyprus

Cyprus, a former British colony and an EU Member State since 2004 is a mixed jurisdiction strongly influenced by English commercial law and civil litigation. It is home to many individuals coming from all across the post-Soviet space and to even more companies, trusts and other entities, controlled or owned, in part or in full, by them – and of course the location of some of their assets. It is also the place where many transactions connected to the post-Soviet area are localized. As a result, Cyprus courts are called to grant interim or final relief or to allow for enforcement of judgments and awards in such cases. At the same, despite the marked differences between the various post-Soviet problem cases and the state of affairs in Cyprus itself, as a result of Turkish occupation and de facto control of the northern part of the island for over forty years, the approach taken by Cyprus law, within the framework set by international law, is undoubtedly influenced by the local situation and mindful of both humane considerations and the political stakes in “merely” private-law cases.

  1. Ass. Prof. Dr. German Galushchenko (Taras Shevchenko National Univ. Kiev): Ukrainian perspective

Recognition of a state will not affect the power that derives from the rules of private law. Law is a comprehensive system, a power which belongs to a nation, and power, per se, does not require any recognition as its source a priori is self-sufficient. Even if to assume that recognition is a legal act of establishment of a state as a subject, then this act is important only for international relations governed by international law, however, for jurisdictional activities it has no sense since such activities does not concern the relations between states. In Ukraine, Law on Private international law does not consider the issue of application of law of the non-recognized states. But on this issue one can find different court practice, for example, in the practice of Odessa Commercial Appeal Court.

  1. Prof. Dr. George Vashakidze (Ilia State Univ., Tbilisi): Georgian perspective

The presentation deals with case scenarios, where a Georgian court is called upon to adjudicate a case linked to a foreign legal system. Neither Abkhazian nor South Ossetian legal systems can be regarded as “foreign” legal systems within the meaning of Law of Georgia on Private International Law (GePIL). Applicability of the de facto legal regimes belongs to the field of internal conflict of laws (interlocal law) rather than to private international law. Abkhazian and South Ossetian population the Georgian courts will still have to resolve the international conflict of laws. This is due to the fact the overwhelming majority of the local population alongside with their local passports also hold Russian passports and is a Russian citizen. Foreign citizenship represents a foreign element and makes each case a foreign case. For the foreign-element-cases concerning Abkhazia and South Ossetia there are two main PIL sources available: Minsk Convention, that prevails over the rules under GePIL and GePIL.

Under the “Law on Occupied Territories” (2008) any act of self-proclaimed authorities establishing any kind of legal relationship is a nullity in the eyes of Georgian law and must be treated as such by Georgian authorities, including courts. The acts issued by self-proclaimed authorities establishing civil statuses other than birth and death are not recognized by the Georgian Civil register and will remain so as long as there is no clear instruction provided through law. The recognition of civil statuses acquired in Abkhazia and South Ossetia shall be superseded by a conflict of laws check and of an examination of the applicable law. This can be achieved through the application of the rules laid down in GePIL by analogy. In application of Abkhazian and South Ossetian laws, one can differentiate two approaches: a ‘comity approach’ that no recognition can be given to the laws and acts of a non-recognized government unless this is possible under the laws of the recognized government; and a ‘dualistic approach’, under which “Law on Occupied Territories” would be taken into account only and as far as in a particular case its rules could be attributed a character of international mandatory rules of a third country.

  1. Ass. Prof. Dr. Svetlana Krupko (IGPRAN, Moscow): Russian perspective

The non-recognized status of a State does not exclude the private disputes with participation of economic entities, registered and located on the territory of a non-recognized State, and also the disputes related to the entrepreneurial activity on the relevant territory. When resolving such disputes, Russian courts are faced with the issue of not only of the law applicable to the merits of the case, but also of a party’s legal personality in the legal relation in dispute, registered under the law of a non-recognized State. Some further issues include: whether a sum in controversy can be recovered in the currency of a non-recognized State; whether the foreign judgements of non-recognized States can be recognized and enforced, and whether official documents, issued by the authorities of the non-recognized States can be recognized. The due regard has to be taken not only to rules of private international law and international civil procedure, but also to their interrelation with the international law of human rights.

  1. Prof. Dr. Armen Haykyants (Yerevan State Univ.): Armenian perspective

Legal problems associated with non-recognized states in international private law, including international trade, can be approached from two perspectives: first, whether the law of non-recognized state is applicable if the connecting factor refers to this law; second, whether the official documents necessary for enforcement of civil rights, issued by the competent authorities of a non-recognized state, shall be recognized. It also concerns recognition and enforcement of judgements rendered by court of a non-recognized state. Domestic jurisprudence of some states and international supranational authorities share the consorted view that documents issued vis-à-vis private persons by a non-recognized state are legitimate, shall be recognized and can serve as a basis for actions of legal nature. In Republic of Armenia there is a principle of reciprocity in recognition and enforcement of foreign judgements.


      1. Cross-border civil litigation, international commercial arbitration and non-recognized States in the region
        1. Cross-border civil litigation
  1. Prof. Dr. Alexander Trunk (Univ. Kiel): Non-recognized States from the perspective of international civil procedure law (EU and selected countries)

The presentation gives a structure of issues and solutions relating to non-recognized states (territories, entities) in cross-border civil procedure. It is proposed to distinguish between relations mother country – breakaway region (non-recognized state) and relations between non-recognized state – third country. The said distinction relates both to legal sources and to basic approaches taken (e.g. interlocal v. international law of civil procedure). Although the focus of the presentation is on non-recognized states in the post-Soviet region, judicial practice and doctrine dealing with other non-recognized states (e.g. Northern Cyprus, Taiwan, Kosovo) are also taken into account. The presentation starts with general aspects, e.g. the relationship between cross-border civil procedure and public international law, and then turns to jurisdiction, conduct of proceedings, recognition and enforcement of foreign judicial documents/decisions.

  1. Prof. Dr. Marta Pertegás (Univ. Maastricht): Judicial assistance and non-recognized States

This presentation will introduce the proposition that judicial assistance in civil and commercial matters should be maintained and enhanced in the interest of private parties, despite political and territorial disruptions. Political tensions and geopolitical disputes significantly affect the proper operation of judicial assistance tools, to the detriment of individuals in quest of justice.

The question under consideration is whether the uncertain legal status of certain territories jeopardizes the operation of such instruments in practice. The reference to “non-recognized States” is unsettled but may be understood to those territories where the divergences between the legal and factual territorial status form an impediment to the operation of judicial assistance treaties. With regard to such “non-recognized States”, authorities need to embark on a preliminary assessment on what Contracting State actually means. If both States at stake are Contracting States, do international rules on State responsibility, in particular the “effective control” standard, determine which State should implement the obligations arising out of the relevant Convention? And how to proceed when only one of the States at stake is a Contracting State to the relevant Convention? This presentation will illustrate such impediments by reference to field experiences gathered with administrative and judicial authorities in different States. Private and public interests may clash but the pendulum should swing towards the facilitation of judicial assistance in the interest of legal operators and, more generally, of mobile citizens involved in international transactions.

  1. Prof. Dr. Vladimir Yarkov, Ass. Prof. Dr. Igor Renz (Ural State Law Univ.): Russian perspective

The presentation will underline the need to differentiate between public and private legal relations as a basis for positive solution of the arising issues. The author will specify both international and domestic legal sources, the possibilities and limits of their application, show the basic approaches to recognition of acts and documents of the non-recognized State entities (NSE). The second part of the presentation will deal with the transnational aspects of civil litigation with participation of subjects from NSE, applicability of international treaties, court competence, recognition of judgements from NSE with reference to case practice. The final part of the presentation will be devoted to notarial actions and recognition of notarial deeds from the NSE. On basis of analysis of the notarial practice, the author will point out that the rights and interests of private parties located on the territory of the NSE shall not suffer disproportionate harm due to a formalistic refusal in considering the documents by the relevant authorities.

  1. Ass. Prof. Dr. George Svanadze (Univ. Tbilisi): Georgian perspective

One of the main sources for the topic in question is the Law on Occupied Territories with the purpose of defining the status of the occupied territories as a result of military aggression and to establish a special legal regime for the territories. The Law provides for the boundaries, special regimes, emergency rules followed by several restrictions such as free movement and restrictions in economic activities regarding these territories. It names the relevant territories under the law in question. This law could be considered as set of rules establishing sort of public order of Georgia in terms of the occupied territories as defined by the law. According to the Law on Occupied Territories, a body (official) shall be illegal if it is not established (appointed/elected) under the procedures determined by the legislation of Georgia, and/or if in any form it actually performs legislative, executive, or judicial functions or other activity in the occupied territories that fall within functions of the State or local self-government bodies of Georgia. Hence, if there is any decision of any body from occupied territory subject to recognition or/and enforcement on the territory of Georgia, then it is to expect that Georgian supreme court will take into consideration public policy issue as pre-condition for recognition or/and enforcement based on which the recognition or/and enforcement would be – highly likely - denied. In terms of other non-recognized states, it is important to note, that parliament of Georgia is issuing respective resolutions on the position of Georgia with respect to non-recognized states, which should be also understood as part of Georgia’s foreign policy.

  1. Prof. Dr. Pavel Biriukov (Voronezh State Univ.): on DNR/LNR

The presentation is devoted to legal regulation of recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in Lugansk and Donetsk. It covers the legislative bases for it in both republics. After highlighting the main sources the author comes to the conclusion that the current regulation is clearly insufficient. There are no international treaties on of the execution of foreign judgments. In Lugansk certain Ukrainian judgements regarding alimony are accepted for enforcement, but not under any specific procedure. Accordingly, the general judicial practice of recognition and enforcement is missing. In Donetsk the norms of the relevant procedural codes of Ukraine are applied. At the same time, there is a rapid reorientation to the legislation of the Russian Federation.

  1. Prof. Dr. Shimon Shetreet (Hebrew Univ. of Jerusalem): Concluding remarks
        1. International commercial arbitration (a round-table discussion led by Prof. Dr. Bělohlávek (Univ. of Ostrava)
      1. Developments in the field of civil justice in the region
  2. Prof. Dr. Alan Uzelac (Univ. of Zagreb): Civil justice in the region (Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia, Moldova, Russia, Ukraine)

The presentation deals with the comparison of the basic indicators of civil justice systems of several countries that used to belong to the USSR: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Moldova, Russia and Ukraine. The main basis for the comparison is the information collected in the evaluation rounds of the European Commission for the Efficiency of the Council of Europe (CEPEJ), supplemented by some other sources. The analysis reveals that, in spite of continuing efforts to reform the justice systems in the analyzed region, there are still important similarities, and shared systemic defects and insufficiencies. The author concludes that these shared elements (which are also present in more developed systems of various post-Socialist countries, including those of Central and South-Eastern Europe) demonstrate that the analyzed systems still belong (and will likely continue to belong for an extended period of time) to the Socialist legal tradition, in the sense presented in the author’s previous works on the survival of that legal tradition.

  1. Ass. Prof. Dr. Iryna Izarova (Taras Shevchenko National Univ. Kiev and Kiev Mohyla Academy): Ukrainian perspective

Ukraine undoubtedly does not stand aside from the prominent reforms all over Europe, which is clearly testified by recent reforms of judicial system and civil procedure. This report consists of 3 parts. The first two are related to the general issues of reforming and development of the judiciary and civil justice in Ukraine. The focus of the first part made on the general characteristics of the latest reforms in the field of judicial system among them changing of the Constitution of Ukraine (concerning justice), returning to a three-tier system of courts according the new law ‘On judicial system and status of judges’, changing of the territoriality of the judicial system etc. A few words were devoted to the development of e-justice in Ukraine. In the next part of the report it was analyzed the current reforms of civil procedure such as the main aim and new principle of СPC 2017 – case management, and its main elements – court fees, time-limits and the choice of procedures – common or simplified. As far as the last one is a very novel of CPC 2017, the main features were described. In the last part of the report the main problems of ensuring the right to apply to court in eastern part of Ukraine are outlined and the steps aimed at their solution are described. The main aspects of the problem of ensuring the right to appeal and access to court faced by Ukrainian citizens residing on the temporarily occupied territory are as follows territorial access to the court, legal expenses, access to information about the place, date and time of the trial and the court decision.

  1. Prof. Dr. Sergiu Baiesu, Lecturer Vladimir Palamarciuc, PhD candidate (Moldovan State Univ. Chisinau): Moldovan perspective

This presentation aims to reveal most relevant reforms in the field of civil justice and the state of civil law on the Moldovan territory since its independence (1990). During the three decades Moldova’s judiciary system passed through various reforms of the courts organization, legal professionals and functioning of the civil justice. The recent and ongoing developments give special approach to the optimization of legal proceedings, territorial and matter jurisdiction of the courts, implementation of electronic files etc. The civil law is shaped by similar reforming trend, notable crossing through the application of Civil Code from 1964, adoption of the new Civil Code in 2002, harmonization perspective with EU framework and ongoing reform modernizing fundamentally the civil code (with significant inspiration from DCFR), which is aimed to enter into force at the beginning of 2019. Taking into account the context of Transnistria territory some organizational particularities of Moldovan civil justice are present, which are addressed in the communication as well.

  1. Prof. Dr. Vladislav Tolstykh (Univ. of Novosibirsk): on several non-recognized states

Currently there are six non-recognized states (NrS) in the post-Soviet space. All of them were formed as a result of armed conflicts between a compactly residing minority and a state striving for national unification. The political goal of the NrS is usually a reunion with a close ethnos. Some NrS are building an independent order, following Russian and Armenian models. LPR and DPR, whose political future is not clear, are building an ad hoc construction: they follow the strategy of rapprochement with Russian law; allow the application of Ukrainian laws and try to create common legal institutions. NrS that have already built state institutions are carrying out reforms aimed at ensuring their sustainable functioning. LPR and DPR center on laws in the sphere of state building which fixe special regimes and establish governmental institutions

  1. Prof. Dr. Vladlena Lisenco (Transnistrian Shevchenko Univ., Tiraspol): on Transnistria

The often describes “frozen conflict” in Transnistria has been existing for the last 27 years and meanwhile is known as the 5+2 format (Moldova and Transnistria act as parties to the conflict, Russia, Ukraine and the OSCE are mediators, the EU and the USA are observers). The official position of Transnistria regarding legal succession is that today’s Moldova pursuant to the people’s right of self-determination did not secede from the USSR but proclaimed their independence even before the collapse of the Soviet Union. Transnistria, however, by not seceding from the USSR inherited its territory, population, property, resources exclusively from the USSR, basing its establishment on humanistic, civil and multiethnic principles. Many international agreements and treaties are recognized in Transnistria as framework documents for Transnistria’s regulatory and legal framework. Problems connected with the execution of foreign judicial decisions for Transnistria range from lack of agreements on mutual recognition and enforcement of judicial decisions between Transnistria and other states (except for Abkhazia and South Ossetia) to lack of agreements on the recognition and execution of the decisions of international courts, in particular, the European Court of Human Rights and other bodies of international justice in Transnistria. A key problem is the non-compliance with the principle of reciprocity by other states and international organizations towards Transnistria. Possible solutions might be the extension of full-fledged treaties with foreign states on mutual recognition and enforcement of judicial decisions of Transnistria, the determination of Transnistrian law as the law of the applicable party in contractual obligations, provisions on a unilateral basis to the Transnistrian legislation especially focusing on reciprocity and extending the cooperation with the judicial authorities of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.