The article is dedicated to examining the unique aspects of a fundamental right held by performers - the right of distribution of the performance fixations. Although the RA Law "On Copyright and Related Rights" provides the right to distribute performance fixations, the legal regulations do not reveal the essence of the distribution right. Moreover, the law does not provide detailed regulations pertaining to the right of exhaustion, or more specifically, the doctrine of first sale, which is inherently intertwined with the right of distribution. It's worth highlighting that the concept of exhaustion rights, particularly within the digital age, has sparked extensive deliberation within international practice and scholarly circles. Consequently, this article provides an in-depth examination of the recent stances taken by both the US and EU courts concerning the notion of digital exhaustion. Based on the studies and analysis, the article summarizes that the right of exhaustion should be interpreted as applicable only in the case of the distribution of performances fixed on tangible objects. Consequently, in instances where performances are, for instance, hosted on streaming services, the doctrine of exhaustion finds no applicability. Furthermore, despite the absence of a specific response within Armenian legal practice and legislation regarding the interpretation of exhaustion rights in the digital realm, the article asserts that the interpretation within the Armenian legal system should exclude the application of the doctrine of first sale to digital fixations of performances.

This article examines how normative logic embedded in reparations law continues to shape contemporary German criminal law, taking the Luxembourg Agreement of 1952 between the Federal Republic of Germany, the State of Israel and the Jewish Conference on Material Claims against Germany (JCC) as its very conceptual point of departure. Against the backdrop of rising antisemitic criminal offenses in Germany, the article focuses on the amendment of Section 46 (2) of the German Criminal Code (StGB; Strafgesetzbuch), which explicitly includes antisemitic motives among the circumstances relevant for sentencing. While this amendment has been criticized as merely declaratory or even ‘symbolic’, this article argues that such criticism overlooks the deeper legal genealogy of state responsibility that ultimately originates in the Luxembourg Agreement. Antisemitic motives intensify culpability and wrongfulness because they engage the foundational commitments of the post-war legal order that emerged in response to antisemitic state-driven violence. Explicitly naming such motives in sentencing law therefore constitutes a crucial institutional function by shaping investigative practices, judicial reasoning, and normative expectations within the criminal justice system. From a criminal legal perspective, the article develops an account of motives as normative indicators that affect both culpability and wrongfulness. Antisemitic motives, it argues, intensify the Unrechtsgehalt of an offense because they negate the equal moral status of the victim and symbolically attack the legal order that emerged in response to antisemitic state violence. The article concludes that the explicit inclusion of antisemitic motives in Section 46 (2) StGB reflects a coherent and legally grounded response to historically specific injustice and underscores the role of criminal law in stabilizing responsibility within the German legal order.

SEPARATION OF THE FUNCTIONS OF THE HEAD OF THE INVESTIGATIVE BODY AND THE SUPERVISING PROSECUTOR IN THE CONTEXT OF RELATIONS BETWEEN THE PUBLIC PARTICIPANTS IN THE PROCEEDINGS GEVORG BAGHDASARYAN Candidate of Law, Lecturer at YSU Chair of Criminal Procedure and Criminalistics, State Councilor of Justice of the Third Class baghdasaryangevorg001@gmail.com https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6407-6253 This article addresses the fundamental issue of distinguishing the functions of organizing, managing, supervision and oversight of the preliminary investigation. Acknowledging that this issue is not new in the theory of criminal proceedings, the author first outlines its historical background and identifies the factors that have prevented its resolution to this day. Subsequently, by presenting the existing theoretical approaches to the content of the aforementioned functions, the author concludes that there are no objective and applicable criteria for their delineation. Based on a combined analysis of the powers vested in the supervising prosecutor and the head of the investigative body, the author concludes that the legislature has failed to implement the “one subject – one function” concept, which is proclaimed as the foundation for regulating the relationships between public participants in criminal proceedings. Although each has been formally assigned a distinct function, in practice, they have also been endowed with powers that are inherent to the function of the other participant. Given the organic interconnection between the functions of organizing, directing, supervising and overseeing the preliminary investigation, the author considers the overlap of certain powers between the supervising prosecutor and the head of the investigative body to be natural, however, the author criticizes the authority granted to the supervising prosecutor to annul procedural acts issued by the head of the investigative body that pertain to the organization of the investigation.

Հոդվածում քննարկվում է «բժշկական գաղտնիք» եզրույթի իրավական բովանդակությունը, բացահայտվում է բժշկական գաղտնիք հանդիսացող տեղեկությունների հիմնական շրջանակը, ըստ այդմ հիմնավորվում է, որ բժշկական գաղտնիքը մի կողմից ներառում է անձի բուն առողջական վիճակի մասին տեղեկությունները, մյուս կողմից՝ բժշկական օգնության և սպասարկման դիմելու մասին և դրա ընթացքում ստացված տեղեկությունները (կարող են վերաբերել անձի անձնական, մասնավոր կյանքին): Առողջության հետ կապված տվյալները ներառում են պացիենտի առողջական վիճակին վերաբերող բոլոր տվյալները, որոնք կապված են պացիենտի անցյալ, ներկա կամ ապագա ֆիզիկական կամ հոգեկան առողջական վիճակի հետ։ Ինչ վերաբերում է բժշկական օգնության և սպասարկման դիմելու մասին և դրա ընթացքում ստացված տեղեկությունների շրջանակին, ապա դրանք կարող են ներառել տվյալների բավականին լայն շրջանակ՝ այդ թվում պացիենտի անձնական, ընտանեկան, մասնագիտական, տնտեսական և ֆինանսական վիճակի, ինչպես նաև այլ անձանց հետ նրա հարաբերություններին առնչվող։ Հոդվածում ներկայացվել են նաև բժշկական գաղտնիք համարվող տվյալների փոխանցման իրավաչափության հիմնական պայմանները։ Բժշկական միջամտության համար պացիենտի իրազեկված համաձայնության առկայությունը որոշելու նպատակով որպես երեք նախապայմաններ առանձնացվել են՝ իրավասության առկայությունը, անհրաժեշտ տեղեկատվության առկայությունը, կամավորությունը՝ բացահայտելով դրանցից յուրաքանչյուրի բովանդակությունը:

This article talks about the relationship of the National Assembly with the executive and judicial powers. The author came to the conclusion that under the parliamentary model, the functions performed by the state authorities are actually not equal in nature and differ from each other in legal force and content, that is, the activities of the legislative branch are of a legislative nature, and the judicial and executive authorities are of a sub-legislative nature. The article also emphasizes the idea that the legislative branch has so-called “functional superiority” over other branches of government, which in itself should not be considered as a violation of the constitutional balance between the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government. Because the essence of the principle of separation and balancing of powers is not to preserve equal functions for the branches of government, which, due to the nature of the functions of the branches of government, are no longer equal, but to ensure the necessary and sufficient powers of each branch of government.Addressing the issue that one of the central issues in the relationship between the branches of legislative and executive power is parliamentary control over the executive power, and emphasizing that in such conditions it is necessary to ensure effective mechanisms to curb the dominance of the executive power (Prime Minister) becomes of key importance, the author as a political guarantee of the implementation of high-quality control in relation to the executive branch, it takes into account the presence of a strong parliamentary opposition, because the main criterion for creating an opposition is not power, law, but the limitation of power by law.

1

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

:

The article discusses and analyzes the issue of ensuring the child's participation in the decision-making process related to health condition, particularly from the point of view of giving the child's consent for medical intervention, as well as the issue of parents' participation in the decision-making process related to the child's health condition. As a result of the conducted analysis, it is justified that the child should not act as a passive observer in the decision-making process related to the health condition, but at the same time, the role of the child in the mentioned process should not be absolute. In the context of medical care and service, the child's age, level of maturity, ability to make decisions independently, the nature of the medical care and services to be provided due to the child's health condition, and the urgency of providing medical intervention are distinguished as circumstances for taking the child's opinion into account. The article also highlights the main conditions for obtaining a child's consent for medical intervention. In the framework of the work, it is justified that, from the point of view of solving the issue of providing medical care and services to the child, a more flexible approach should be adopted, and it should be considered legitimate for one parent to make decisions regarding the health care of the child in cases (for example, in the context of urgent medical care and services), when it is in the interests of the child, taking into account the health condition of the child.