Most of them cancel provisions of the just put into operation Federal Act No.83. The State Duma website already contains a bill No.47538-b with the amendments to the Civil Code of the Russian Federation that has been prepared for a second reading. If it were a new Code edition, I am absolutely sure, it would be carefully studied throughout; but when you need to understand all the amendments, you have to put an old edition (I mean, the current Civil Code) on one side and a list of amendments – on the other, and carefully read all the proposals of what should be changed.

In fact, these amendments mostly cancel provisions of the Federal Act No.83 that was passed not so long ago – on July 1, 2012. A struggle had been present for one year and a half: new rules that had been offered for all institutions financed from the state budget. Rights of many theatres, museums and other cultural institution had been limited. Some things got finally recovered, and one year and a half was needed to write new charters; some institutions still haven’t opened accounts, but they have to do in terms of a new act. Two months (even three) have passed, and people have to start everything once more! But is this just a matter of opening new bank accounts and composing new charters?! A greater part of these amendments ready to be passed is much more dangerous for a cultural sector.

For instance, the Federal Act No.83 actually canceled the state’s subsidiary responsibility to budget and autonomous institutes. But, at the same time, it granted some freedom. Today, considering these proposed amendments to the Civil Code, we see that the subsidiary responsibility recovers, but only in terms of recovering a part of damage to individuals. But the sacrifice is a financial freedom. And what is damage for individuals? Frankly speaking, I’ve been looking for such examples, but haven’t found any of them, where not a particular doctor, but the whole hospital was proved to be guilty in doing harm to a particular patient. And what can be said about theatres and libraries? Do they need this good will of the state in damage recovery to individuals?

Another thing is about giving financial freedom to theatres and museums. We talk about extra-budgetary income – money that theatres and museums get from selling tickets. Theatres, for example, may spend this money for new performances, equipment, seats, and bonuses to actors, according to the Federal Law No.83. A new Civil Code returns this money to a founder, who can direct them for different purposes according to a prescribed order, and this order is a thing of one’s own will that can be changed several times a year.

There’s another thing, maybe even more important than any other aspects. Today theatres, museums and other similar institutions may spend on everything that promotes success of the charter goals. An orchestra may buy new instruments, for instance. But the proposed amendments suppose extra-budgetary spending only on financing major activities. At first glance, all of this looks pretty much the same. But the difference really exists, and it creates such a juristic situation, when an opportunity to decrease budget expenditures and compensate these losses with their own funds and incomes of museums and theatres happens. Or, maybe it is better? No way it is because these incomes help museums and theatres develop.

So, an old appeal “to live better you need to work harder” seems to lose its power and sense: we return back to wage leveling because very soon you will lose any interest in a harder and better work. And those who work better won’t live better, so what is a need to do so? So, are you still ready for those amendments to the Civil Code?

Grigoriy Zaslavskiy

Corporate and contract law, Project Group №2, Project Group №6