The philosophical-legal concepts of "legal possibility" and "legal reality" manifest themselves in specific ways in the existing structures of the functioning of one of the key categories of the general theory of law — legal personality, as well as in its components of legal capacity and legal capacity to act. In the process of identifying these manifestations and analyzing various types of legal possibilities, especially general (abstract) legal possibility, the author places the philosophical-legal category of "possibility" at the core of the concept of "legal personality". From this perspective, separately are considered legal capacity and legal capacity to act as general (abstract) legal possibilities, subjective rights as real legal possibilities, as well as the relationship between these categories is analyzed, highlighting their main differences and the necessity of differentiation. The author also draws special attention to the question of legal capacity (or legal personality) as a general (abstract) legal possibility of legal entities that are subjects of the law. According to the conclusion presented in the article, the analysis of legal personality as a general (abstract) legal possibility has important methodological significance, as it examines and identifies the legal prerequisites that enable a deep understanding of the structure of the effective realization of law and legislation, which is particularly important for lawmaking activities and law implementation practice.

Since the establishment of the Eurasian Economic Union, questions related to the activity of the court of this Union have gained great importance and there has been a need to research them, even though there are very few scientific works related to this international court in our domestic legal literature. This article talks about the judicial activity of the Court of the EAEU and the decisions made by it, which are not the source of the Union law, comparing them with the functions of the Court of the European Union. With the help of the method of comparative legal analysis, in this article, a discussion was made about some issues of the provision of advisory opinions by the EAEU Court and the EU Court, the European Court of Human Rights, and the International Court of Justice. In this context, a comparative legal analysis of EAEU and EU courts, including other international courts, will allow to identification of legal issues related to the status and activity of the EAEU court and offer possible options for their solutions. Moreover, such an analysis can be a guide for the contracting parties when discussing the issue of the legal status of the Court of the Union.

The article is dedicated to the limits of judicial control in cases of challenging the legitimacy of normative legal acts. The specific procedural framework established by the legislator for cases contesting such acts, notably regulatory legal acts, is explored. Within the confines of this research, nuanced issues arising in practical scenarios are scrutinized, with particular emphasis on the assessment of the conformity of a normative legal act or its provisions with a superior normative legal act or its provisions that were once effective but have subsequently become obsolete. The analysis contributes to a deeper understanding of the complexities inherent in adjudicating the legitimacy of normative legal acts and the evolving dynamics between current and obsolete legal provisions.

Mining wastes have now acquired great economic importance, becoming a subject of civil law transactions. The issues of ownership of mining wastes as objects of civil law, despite their complex legal regime, are not regulated by the legislation of the Republic of Armenia, because of which problems arise in interpreting this issue at the theoretical level and within the framework of disputes triggering between the subsoil user and the state. The present article discusses the issues of ownership of mining wastes as objects of civil law in the legal relations of subsoil use. The basic concept of mining waste as an object of civil rights is mentioned, the subject of ownership of mining wastes, problems and gaps in national legislation concerning the exercise of powers that constitute the content of ownership rights are revealed. Further, disputes arising in law enforcement practice on the ownership of mining waste are studied and analyzed. Based on the analysis conducted in this article, proposals are presented aimed at clarifying the subject of ownership of mining waste and the moment of obtaining ownership upon mining wastes, as well as legislative regulation of the exercise of ownership rights to mining waste, which will be essential for resolving disputes arising between the subsoil user and the state in law enforcement practice. Mining wastes have now acquired great economic importance, becoming a subject of civil law transactions. The issues of ownership of mining wastes as objects of civil law, despite their complex legal regime, are not regulated by the legislation of the Republic of Armenia, because of which problems arise in interpreting this issue at the theoretical level and within the framework of disputes triggering between the subsoil user and the state. The present article discusses the issues of ownership of mining wastes as objects of civil law in the legal relations of subsoil use. The basic concept of mining waste as an object of civil rights is mentioned, the subject of ownership of mining wastes, problems and gaps in national legislation concerning the exercise of powers that constitute the content of ownership rights are revealed. Further, disputes arising in law enforcement practice on the ownership of mining waste are studied and analyzed. Based on the analysis conducted in this article, proposals are presented aimed at clarifying the subject of ownership of mining waste and the moment of obtaining ownership upon mining wastes, as well as legislative regulation of the exercise of ownership rights to mining waste, which will be essential for resolving disputes arising between the subsoil user and the state in law enforcement practice. Mining wastes have now acquired great economic importance, becoming a subject of civil law transactions. The issues of ownership of mining wastes as objects of civil law, despite their complex legal regime, are not regulated by the legislation of the Republic of Armenia, because of which problems arise in interpreting this issue at the theoretical level and within the framework of disputes triggering between the subsoil user and the state. The present article discusses the issues of ownership of mining wastes as objects of civil law in the legal relations of subsoil use. The basic concept of mining waste as an object of civil rights is mentioned, the subject of ownership of mining wastes, problems and gaps in national legislation concerning the exercise of powers that constitute the content of ownership rights are revealed. Further, disputes arising in law enforcement practice on the ownership of mining waste are studied and analyzed. Based on the analysis conducted in this article, proposals are presented aimed at clarifying the subject of ownership of mining waste and the moment of obtaining ownership upon mining wastes, as well as legislative regulation of the exercise of ownership rights to mining waste, which will be essential for resolving disputes arising between the subsoil user and the state in law enforcement practice.

The relevance of this scientific work is due to the fact that in the conditions of modern economic and legal relations, startups and corporations with the involvement of venture capital (especially foreign) have become widespread in international practice (conditionally we called them venture joint-stock companies (VJSC)), which, however, remained outside the scope of regulation of the legislation of the Republic of Armenia. As a result of the above-mentioned regulation, the RA legislation has lagged behind modern trends, does not regulate the VJSC as a separate, independent type of corporation, the issues of their flexible corporate governance, the formation of management bodies, special rights and privileges granted to foreign venture investors, thereby creating unnecessary obstacles to venture investments and capital inflows and the creation of startup companies. The purpose of the study is to identify the features and specific features of VJSC corporate governance, the specifics of the formation and activities of their governing bodies-the meeting, the board and the executive body, the rights and privileges certified by shares of venture investors who are shareholders of VJSC, in comparison also with joint-stock companies of a general type. In accordance with this, the amendments and additions made to the law, their shortcomings and omissions, the unreasonableness of restrictions on the rights granted to venture investors by ordinary and preferred shares, the powers and special rights of venture investors within the framework of the formation and activities of management bodies, as well as their substantive elements were studied and analyzed. As a result of the conducted research and studies, it was proposed to introduce a unique corporate governance system of VJSC as a special type of corporation, the features inherent in each of their governing bodies, which will bring the current legislative regulations in line with progressive trends and the development of corporate law. The results of the study are of important theoretical and practical importance, since they make it possible, on the one hand, to form a theoretical understanding of the features of the VJSC, on the other -in practice to establish startup VJSCs and ensure their normal functioning.

This article delves into the emerging institution of preliminary hearings within the Armenian criminal procedure system, shedding light on its contemporary relevance, especially concerning the admissibility of evidence. As a recent addition to the legal landscape, preliminary hearings have become a pivotal phase for criminal cases entering judicial examination, making them a focal point for discussion. The primary objective of this article is to address certain problematic aspects related to the principle of adversarial proceedings within the context of preliminary hearings. The author navigates through the distinctive challenges posed by this novice legal mechanism, recognizing its significance in a wide array of criminal cases. The central argument posits that when grappling with questions of evidence admissibility during preliminary hearings, a clear and decisive regulatory framework is essential. The author advocates for a streamlined process that either deems evidence admissible or inadmissible during this critical stage. Emphasizing the importance of prompt resolution, the article contends that delaying the discussion on the admissibility of evidence is counterproductive and does not align with the principles of effective and fair adversarial proceedings. In essence, the conclusion asserts that a proactive regulatory approach is imperative for ensuring the optimal implementation of preliminary hearings, a vital phase in the evolving landscape of Armenian criminal procedure.

' 1 ' ., , , ' , , , , ( ) , '., : 1) ; 2) , ;3)

1 . , , ., , ., ; ; ; .