THE INSTITUTE OF SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION IN THE LIGHT OF THE COURT SYSTEM REFORM

The topicality of the research is stipulated by the fact that the institute of the competence of commercial courts is undergoing changes. A draft law considerably changing the institute of cassation in commercial courts actually changes the norms on a territorial competence of courts but a number of problems with an object competence remain unsettled. The subject-matter jurisdiction institutes of corporate disputes and cases arising out of some economic relations in some period of time can hardly be called perfect. The above substantiates the necessity to address the problems of court competence in the light of the principle of balancing private and public interests. On the basis of the research the author comes to some conclusions: Russian legislation doesn't define the legal status of a freelancer, theoretically such an employee should conclude a contractor agreement and have then a status of an entrepreneur and all disputes with him are referred to the commercial court competence. But in fact an employee can be employed on a fixed term labor contract using a new for Russian legislation category of a "distant employee" and the character of his activities will meet the criteria of risk and systematicity that will equate him to an entrepreneur; a vague system of social guarantees and a specific status of a "conscript" will put him also closer to an entrepreneur. Meanwhile, the above disputes are within the competence of the courts of general jurisdiction due to a formal criterion-a freelancer has no status of an entrepreneur. At the same time the introduction of the notion "distant labor" into the legislation and the duty to conclude a labor contract with a freelancer doesn't' change anything at all. Paid sick lists and holidays fall out of the sphere of these relations because the preparation mechanism has not been worked out in the law. To sum it up, we have a veiled contractor agreement with a different title and a factual impossibility to defend one's rights in a specialized court. Moreover, legal status of the successor of a shareholder who is accepting inheritance or, perhaps, is involved in a trial (dispute with other successors) in the court of general jurisdiction has not been determined. Actually, it can happen that a society has no data about successors as the latter are not bound to inform registrars about themselves. The most difficult situation occurs when there is a dispute between successors of a shareholder affecting the problems of corporate law. Such disputes are considered to be hereditary and are resolved only in the courts of general jurisdiction and this doesn't allow taking the specificity of such cases into account and try them in the courts competent in the field of company law. It's pointed out in the article that a vague definition of the criteria of subject-matter jurisdiction creates conditions for violations of both private interests of entities, entrepreneurs and natural persons and of public interests aimed at guaranteeing legality. The authors believe that the definition of the concept "economic dispute" in legislation wouldn't allow the abuse of legal public interests which is expressed in an ungrounded failure of justice in the courts of general jurisdiction and commercial courts. According to the authors "other economic activity" can be defined as the one resulting from private economic interests of the subject and it is aimed at acquiring definite benefits. It is appropriate to develop the categories of "private economic interest" and "public economic interest" as impulsive causes for the activity under analysis and as grounds for the protection of the implied right or legal interests in the courts of economic jurisdiction.