Belykh V.S., Doctor of Legal Sciences,
Professor, the Head of Business Law Chair,
Director of Institute of Business and Law
of the Ural State Law Academy
Insurance and Insurance Activities as a Subject of Russian Insurance Law
1. On the Insurance
To begin with base (initial) notion of «insurance». In the theory of insurance one can not definitely decide a question of how to consider insurance: as a means, form, method, regulating device, the whole set of measures or economic relations1. And such ambiguity is found in opinions not only of economists, but lawyers as well1.
Thus, according to Raiher V.K., insurance is a form of organization of centra-lized (to one extent or another) insurance fund at the expense of decentralized sources – contributions of its members. According to Konyshin F.V., insurance is one of the methods of creating a centralized insurance fund for reimbursement, at the expense of insurance contributions, losses in national economy from natural disasters and accidents and also for payments of corresponding sums in connection with occurrence of certain events, connected with life and ability to work of the insured person. It is not difficult to notice that the main accent in definition of insurance is made on the centralized insurance fund.
Predominant is the view on insurance as a system of economic relations, which includes the range of forms and methods of forming funds of cash asset trust and their use to compensate for loss caused by different unforeseen unfavorable events (risks), and also to render aid to citizens in occurrence of certain events in their lives2. One example should be given by the point of view of composite authors of tutorial «Insurance: theory, practice and foreign experience». They suppose that insurance is special contractual economic relations between natural persons and legal persons, on the one part, and organizational structures specializing in rendering insurance services, on the other part3.
Accepting the fact that direction to complex of economic relations is the main characteristic of insurance as an economic category, one cannot but being surprised at the statement about contractual character of these relations. From our point of view, in economic definition of insurance there are not and cannot be any contractual relationships, as economic relations inherently are objective social relations. Basal fundamentals make it possible to distinguish them from insurance legal relations. Besides, the phrase «relations between natural persons and legal persons» unlikely disclose the economic essence of insurance, though there are these relations in insurance. «There are no insurance relations – there is no insurance»4.
V.V. Shahov names features, which characterize economic category of insurance5. They are: existence of redistributive relations and also insurance risk (and of criteria for its estimation); formation of insurance obligation from among the insured and insurers; combination of individual and group insurance interests; joint liability of all insurers for loss; closed apportionment of loss; redistribution of loss in time and universe; recurrency of insurance payments; self-repayment of insurance activities.
Within the framework of this article it is not reasonable to give any evaluation to these principles – this is the task of economic scientists. But one can’t help paying attention to such a feature as joint liability of insurers for loss. The question reasonably arises: Since when did legal notion «joint liability» turn into economic feature of insurance? Moreover, when it comes to joint liability of, we lay stress, insurers for this or that loss. On the contrary, Civil Code of the Russian Federation (art.953) determines joint liability of coinsurers towards the insured (insurance beneficiary) for the payment of insurance compensation under property insurance contract or insurance money under personal insurance contract. It should be noted that joint liability is applied only in such cases which are explicitly provided by law. That is why, it is inconsequent to use such «respected legal category» in economic studies at authors own discretion. The same is applied to such «economic» character of insurance as formation of insurance obligation.
Economic essence of insurance is also differently defined in literature. Thus, according to A.A. Gvozdenko, it (essence) lies in forming by the insurer at the expense of insurance contributions of the insured the insurance fund, which is destined for insurance payouts to the insured in occurrence of insured accident6. In other words, here at the first place again comes the concept of insurance fund as a type of property.
Other scholars see economic essence of insurance in the fact that losses are divided among many policy holders, and premiums are not comparatively difficult for each of them. In the given case the fundamental meaning is given to economic category «losses». Difference between the aggregate sum of insurance premium and the sum of loss paid, forms income (profit) of the insurers7.
From our point of view, the said approaches should not be opposed to each other. The notions «losses» and «insurance fund» are closely interrelated and can’t exist separately. Compensation for loss is done at the expense of insurance fund assets, which is under the authority of either the state or the insurer. Thus, the centralized (reserve) fund is formed at the expense of state resources in-kind or monetary form. The insurance fund of the insurer (organization) is formed by way of pre-mium payment by the insured.
Two scientific theories of the insurance fund predominate in scientific literature: Marxist and amortization8. According to the first theory, surplus value serves as the source of the insurance fund formation. Insurance fund can’t be a priori attributed neither to accumulation fund nor to consumption fund. That‘s why insurance expenses must be covered at the expense of surplus value. According to A.I. Hudjakov, «now existing law practice of detailed regulation of processes of such funds formation in the form of insurance reserves and the order for their placement is also the echo of the command economy, which was characteristic to legal regulation of the insurance in conditions of socialism.»9 The named scientist declares against the definition of the essence of insurance through the category «insurance funds».
The founder of amortization theory is a prominent German scientist Adolph Wagner. He thought that the insurance fund was formed by gradual transition of a part of means of production cost to finished product (amortization). A. Wagner noted that insurance reflects only general possibility of loss occurrence, which also can’t be a priori attributed to any certain objects.
Understanding the content of economic concepts of «losses» and «insurance fund» has also legal significance. Thus, losses from the point of view of the Civil Code of the RF (art.15) are subdivided into real loss and loss of profit. The insurance fund is the object (property) of civil rights (art.128 RF CC).
Not infrequently insurance is identified with insurance activities. Thus, A.A. Ivanov defines insurance as a kind of necessary socially useful activity, under which citizens and organizations beforehand insure themselves against negative consequences in the sphere of their material and personal values by way of paying up of contributions into special fund of a specialized organization (the insurer)10. V.S. Anohin, N.S. Kovalevskaya and others share the same point of view, putting an equality sign between insurance activity and economic relations, arising in the insurance sphere11.
And now let’s go on to legal definition of insurance. The Law of the RF No. 4015-1 of 27 November 1992 (as in force of FL of 29.11.2007. № 57-FL) «On the Organization of Insurance Business in the Russian Federation»12 defines insurance as relations on protection of interests of natural persons and legal persons, the Russian Federation, constituent territories of the Federation and municipal units under occurrence of certain insured accidents at the expense of monetary funds, which are formed by the insurers out of paid premiums (insurance contributions), and also at the expense of other means of the insurers.
In other words, in the mentioned law insurance is examined as economic category (complex of economic relations).
We suppose that the category «insurance» has several aspects: economic, technical-organizational, legal, etc. From economic point of view, insurance is a system of economic relations. In this meaning, insurance is a subject of Insurance Law as a complex unit.
However, insurance may be seen as a kind of economic activity. Being a kind of human (socially useful) activity, insurance is not limited to simple complex of actions. It consists of connected and logical business steps (actions), directed to common objective.
And, at last, from the point of view of law (Civil Law, first of all), insurance is legal relationship between an insurance organization (the insurer) and the insured on the insurance of these or those objects. Here is what V.I. Serebrovsky writes: «from legal point of view, insurance is legal relationship»13. It can be noticed that such a view over insurance got wide spread occurrence in literature.
Other aspects of insurance were also mentioned about in literature. Thus, G.V. Chernova considers insurance as a method of risk management14.
So, let’s formulate some intermediate conclusions. Firstly, many aspects of the notion insurance must not cause illusions that «insurance», «insurance activity», «Insurance legal relationship» – are terminological synonyms15. Secondly, economic content of insurance (which can’t be ignored) is revealed in the system of the following functions: a) accumulative function, which provides collection in the form of insurance premium for the formation of specialized insurance fund; b) compensational (redistributive) function, i.e. reparation of damages and personal property insurance as payment for insurance risk. The latter (function) is exercised in complex of acts, directed to guaranteeing insurance protection of policy holder (insured person) or personal valuable interests and also to preventing insured accidents and minimization of loss. Thirdly, legal definition of insurance is not perfect and has a number of drawbacks.
First of all, it should be noted that economic definition of insurance through complex of economic relations doesn’t disclose the essence of insurance. The phrase «complex of economic relations», which is used in the Law on the Organization of Insurance Business, is widely used when other phenomena and notions are characterized. There are several examples: as an economic category any product is accepted as complex of social-economic relations of people in the process of material values reproduction. The same may be said in connection with property from economic point of view. To continue this thought, unitary enterprise should be examined as social relation of production16. And not only.
Next, if insurance is looked upon in the context of complex of economic rela-tions, then the question reasonably arises: How to correlate insurance and insurance relations between each other? Even at the first sight it is clear that these notions are close. It is no mere chance that A.I. Hudjakov examines insurance relations as a special kind of economic relations17.
There is one argument more: in accordance with the Law on the Organization of Insurance Business insurance is carried out in the form of voluntary and compulsory insurance (art.2). Thus, voluntary insurance is carried out on the basis of the insurance contract and rules of insurance (art.3). In this connection there is a question: Is it possible to carry out insurance, if it is understood as a complex of economic relations? We think, more proper (from economic-legal positions) to examine insurance as an insurance safeguard (better – insurance protection) of the interests of natural and legal persons, public units. It is important to note, that the phrase «relations on protection of valuable interests» does not have in the context of the Law any connection with the category - «legal safeguard», which is generally accepted in legal science. Economy scientists examine insurance coverage as an economic category18. Thereby, economic «spirit» also runs through the content of the Law on the Organization of Insurance Business.
From our point of view, the notion «insurance protection» has legal meaning, being a sort of general category – «legal protection». In the given case it comes to realization of security of property protection, exclusion infringement on it or on valuable interests. Besides, the notion «insurance protection» includes in itself actions, which guarantee prevention of some kind of disasters, reconstruction of the destroyed property19. We think (following other scholars) that protection is a wider notion than safeguard. In particular, legal safeguard occurs, when the rights and legitimate interests of a person are violated20.
The origin of the concept «insurance protection» is connected with carrying out protective function by the state and operation of protective regulations. That is why it is logical to include in legal definition of insurance the phrase «insurance safeguard».
Symptomatic, that art.3 of the Law of the Republic of Uzbekistan No.385-II of 5 April, 2002 «On Insurance Business» defines insurance as a safeguard of interests (but not a complex of economic relations) of legal or natural persons by way of payout in accordance with the insurance contract insurance compensation (insurance money) at the expense of monetary funds, formed out of insurance premiums paid by them on occurrence of a certain event (insured accident).
Summarizing all the above said, it can be concluded that insurance is insurance safeguard of valuable interests of natural and legal persons, public units by way of reparation of damages, caused to the policy holder (the insured) by the occurrence of insured accident at the expense of the usage (redistribution) of cash assets out of special insurance fund (out of the corresponding budget – under compulsory state insurance. In this context the phrase «to carry out insurance» means to carry out safeguard of valuable interests of the corresponding persons.
2. On Insurance Activity
In accordance with p.2 art.2 of the Law on the Organization of Insurance Business, insurance activity (insurance business) is the sphere of the insurer’s activity on the insurance, reinsurance, mutual insurance, and also insurance brokers, insurance actuaries on rendering services, connected with insurance, reinsurance. As it is seen, from the point of view of this Law, the notions «insurance activity» and «insurance business» are synonyms. Secondly, insurance activity is a kind of sphere of activity. Thirdly, in legal definition of insurance activity there is a list of subjects of insurance activity (insurance business).
Insurance activity is a difficult category. First of all, it (activity) is a kind of human (generally useful) activity. That is why we consider it incorrect and illogical to define insurance activity through the notion «the sphere of activity». Here is what A.I. Hudjakov writes correctly on this problem: «…To define activity through sphere means to make both grammar and legal mistake. Activity can’t be the sphere…Insurance activity is activity in the sphere of insurance, but not the sphere itself»21.
In the logical line insurance activity tends to the notion «economical (business) activity». As entrepreneurial and business activities are crisscross notions, not each insurance activity may be regarded as entrepreneurial one. The Civil Code of the RF (art.938), the Law on the Organization of Insurance Business (art.6) recognize as insurers legal persons, created in accordance with legislation of the RF for carrying out insurance, reinsurance, mutual insurance and obtained a license in order instituted by the Law. In other words, insurance organizations may be created in any business form both as commercial and non-commercial organizations. In reality, insurance organizations are set up in the form of economic organization. Hence there is a conclusion: insurance activity, as a rule, is entrepreneurial activity (art.2 CC RF).
Sometimes, insurance activity is defined as the activity of the insurer, connected with conclusion and execution of insurance contracts22. Y.B. Fogelson writes: «Insurance activity includes in itself two constituents: a) conclusion and execution of insurance contract; b) management of money of insurance reserves – specialized monetary funds, which the insurer forms for guaranteeing insurance payout»23.
In our opinion, one can’t definitely assert that insurance activity is limited to the procedure of concluding and executing of insurance contract ( though if this procedure is divided into parts, then one can find there actions, operations – elements of insurance activity). On the basis of the legal definition of insurance activity – this is the field of activity not only of the insurers, but the insurance brokers, the insurance actuaries as well on rendering services, connected with insurance and reinsurance. True, in the normative definition of insurance activity, for some reason, there has been found no place for insurance agents, i.e. insurance middlemen, who help the insurer to find the insured and act on behalf of the insurer and by their order in the limits of the given powers24.
So, insurance activity(insurance business) – is a kind of economical (entrepre-neurial, as a rule) activity of the insurers on insurance, reinsurance, mutual insurance, and also insurance agents, insurance brokers, insurance actuaries on rendering services, connected with insurance, reinsurance. The peculiarities of insurance activity are the following: a) peculiar subject structure; b) sphere of insurance, reinsurance, mutual insurance; c) licensing of insurance operations (excluding the activity of insurance actuaries, who are to be certified); d) is exclusive, as the subjects of the insurance business don’t have right to practice production, trading-intermediary and banking activities25; e) risk (aleatory) activity not only because it is a kind of economical activity, which is directly intersected with entrepreneurship. The risk is immanently inherent to insurance regardless from entrepreneurial activity carried out by the insurers; f) the given activity is connected with forming of insurance funds; g) is directed to shifting losses from insurance accidents onto all participants of the insurance; h) is subjected to special regulation and control by federal executive authority on supervision over insurance activity26.
Different social relations arise over insurance activity. The first group are relations between the subjects of insurance activity. Such relations are appropriately named in literature as horizontal relations. The second group are relations between the insurers and state and local government bodies. These relationships can be named vertical relations. Their specific weight in reality is considerably less, than of horizontal relations. The latter group includes in-house (corporate) relations, which are, in particular, among the departments of the insurance organization. These relations are regulated by the organizations by way of issuing local (corporate) regulations.
Exactly these three groups of relations constitute subject set – the sphere of insurance activity regulation. The given types of social relations are not simply heterogeneous (as there is heterogeneity in Civil Law, for example, between property and non-property relations), they are in hierarchical collateral subordination, interdependent expressly or by implication27.
A.I. Hudjakov also distinguishes three groups of insurance relations: 1) relations, connected with carrying out insurance (insurance relations, in fact); 2) relations on rendering services by insurance agents, insurance brokers, insurance actuaries; 3) relations, which arise in the process of carrying out insurance relations by the state28. As we see, in the structure of insurance relations special place is taken by relations on rendering services, which are named by him as auxiliary.
It is not difficult to notice, that in our division of insurance relations the so-called horizontal relations cover both the first and the second group of insurance relations, suggested by the scholar of authority.
A.K. Shihov sees the Insurance Law subject set in the fact that insurance relations are property relations, which have value (money) terms29. That is why, out of their limits, from the scientific point of view of the scholar, rest vertical insurance relations, i.e. public relations on the organization of the insurance business by the state. There is also no place in this structure to corporate relations.
Taking into consideration the above said, we suggest altering art. 2 of the Law on the Organization of Insurance Business and formulate in the new version the notions «insurance» and «insurance activity».
In the said Law one can find many statements, which even at the first sight cause criticism. If we regard insurance as a set of economical relations, the following questions arise: 1) what does the phrase «insurance is carried out in the form of voluntary insurance and compulsory insurance» mean; 2) what is understood under the phrase «objects of insurance» (art.4 of the Law on the Organization of Insurance Business) in the context of normative definition of insurance; 3) what is considered as the elements of insurance (insurance risk, insurance accident, sum insured etc.), on the basis of the legal interpretation of the insurance. These are the elements of insurance and insurance legal relationships. In our opinion, it is more logical to speak about the elements of insurance legal relationship. And private legal relationship consists of traditional (classical) elements, such as the subject, the object and the content. At the same time, the said relationship includes special elements, characteristic only to insurance.
3. On Insurance Law
The question about the existence of Insurance Law and its place in the system of law is still urgent and is the subject to spirited discussion. First of all, it should be noted, that its examination is associated with a number of academic problems, which legal scholars meet.
Predominant in literature is the opinion that the system of law as an objective phenomenon is the internal structure of law, which reflects integration and differentiation of legal norms. Constituent parts of such phenomenon are legal norms, legal institutions and branches of law30. Legal norm (formally defined rule of behavior) serves as the primary element of the system of law.
In its turn, the institution of law is a separate body (group) of legal norms, intended to regulate in the limits of the subject of the given branch of law certain social relations, which have relative independence31. However, in practice there are great problems in statement of a question: which body of norms can be regarded as a legal institution? In legal science there aren’t any precise criteria for defining as a legal institution (as well as sub- branch) this or that group of norms of law. That is why; scholars and practical workers often misapply this term and mechanically, without the necessary argumentation apply it to any legal phenomenon. For example, in Civil Law one generally attributes General Part, law of property, law of obligation etc. to be among legal institutions. On the other hand, in literature separate kinds of civil law contracts (of sale, supply, work and labor, insurance etc.) are regarded as institutions.
There is a paradox: the notion «institution of Civil law» includes law of obligation and contract law and insurance contract. Some scholars try to find the way out of this situation by introducing in the scientific circulation such terms as «sub-branch» and «sub-institution of law»32. From our point of view, this approach is interesting and deserves attention, though it is not indisputable.
The situation with the category «institution of law» becomes more complicated, if rules on legal persons, property right, civil law contracts are included into separate group of legal norms. Here there are no uniform relations, so one can’t speak about correct usage of the term «institution of law». So it is not accidental that certain publications begin to appear in legal literature. Their authors try to substantiate the existence of commercial (entrepreneurial) law as a functional sub-branch of civil law33, consumer law as a complex legal branch of the secondary order34. In one word, traditional division of the system of law into separate elements doesn’t work. Equally, the idea on system-making features of the autonomy of the branch of law (the subject, methods, principles, etc.), which became dogmatic, also «glitches».
From the said positions insurance law (as banking35, stock, currency, investment36) is a legal formation, which serves to regulate heterogeneous social relations. In the orbit of legal regulations are included separate legal institutions and legal norms of other branches of law (state, administrative, finance etc.) As a result insurance law is a complex formation (sub-branch), harmoniously combining norms of public and private law. It (law) is a constituent part of Business Law.
Yet, the definition of insurance law as a complex legal formation involves some kind of conditional character and uncertainty. But the fact is that in modern conditions the systematization of law, including insurance law is difficult from the position of generally accepted criterions for separating branches (sub-branches) of law. From our point of view, insurance law can’t be related to the branch of law, even to complex one. On the other hand, insurance law is not a legal institution. It occupies an interposition between the branch and legal institution. Naming insurance law as the sub-branch of law, we realize perfectly well, that «sub-branch» has a terminological defect. That is why it inadequately reflects the essence of this formation. As yet, the representatives of the theory of law, branch sciences, figuratively speaking, are interchained by outdated theoretical views and dogmas on the system of law and its elements37.
4. General conclusions and recommendations
1. At present there is a great necessity to reexamine the theory and practice of insurance business. It is mainly in connection with forthcoming entry of Russia into WTO, and also with developing global economic crisis. Against this background there is a high activity of the insurers in the sphere of mergers and takeovers. Over the first three months of the year of 2007, we can mark several significant factors, emphasizing the interest of investors (foreign, in this number) to Russian insurance market: Sweden group «Zürich» bought out IC «NASTA»; Allianz AG bought out a share in AFC «Sistema» in ROSNO. The biggest deal over the whole history of the Russian insurance market became the replacement of shareholders of ROSNO – for 49,2 % of ROSNO shares German Insurance Concern Allianz paid $ 750 mln to AFC holding «Sistema»38.
There is AIG American company on life insurance at the Russian market. In 2009 «AIG Life» Ltd marks its 15-year anniversary of its activity in Russia. British insurance company «Aviva» has entered the Russian market lately. In one word, as once the first President of the USSR spoke, the process started to go.
2. Underdevelopment of insurance market in Russia may be to some extent be «written to» imperfection of insurance legislation, characterized by bulkiness and unsystematic character of formation. The corresponding work on its systematization is being held, but with evident delay.
1 For more information about this see: Shiminova M.J. State Insurance in the USSR. М., 1987, pp. 25-39
2 See: Shahov V.V. Insurance: Textbook for Institutes of Higher Education. М., 1997, p. 15.
3 See: Ageev S.R., Vasilyev N.M., Katyrin S.I. Insurance: Theory, Practice and Foreign Experience. М., 1998, p. 8.
4 See: Hudjakov A.I. Insurance Law. SPb.: Publishing house of Aslanov R. «Juridical Center-Press», 2004, p. 16.
5 See: Shahov V.V. Op.cit., p. 15.
6 See: Gvozdenko А. А. The Fundamentals of Insurance: Textbook, p.5
7 See: Ageev S.R., Vasilyev N.M., Katyrin S.I. Op.cit., p. 6.
8 See: Shahov V.V. Op.cit., pp. 8 – 9.
9 See: Hudjakov A.I. Op.cit., p. 23.
10 See: Civil Law: Textbook / Ed. Y.K. Tolstoy, A.P. Sergeev. М., 1997. P. 2, p. 496.
11 See: Anohin V.S. Business Law: Textbook. М., 1999, p. 369; Commercial Law: Textbook /Ed. V.F. Popondopulo, V.F. Yakovlev. SPb., 1998, p. 275; Business Law of the Russian Federation/ Ch.ed. E.P. Gubin, P.G. Lahno. М.: Lawyer, 2006, pp.740-749 (the author of chapter 16 – Shkarinov I.A.).
12 Originally the text of the document was published: Newspaper Russia. 1993. № 6. Then — The Law on the Organization of Insurance Business.
13 Serebrovsky V.I. Selected Works. М.: Statute (in the series «Classic of Russian Civil law»), 1997, p. 32.
14 See: Insurance: Textbook/Ed. G.V.Chernova. М., 2007, pp. 44-45.
15 Many aspects of these or those phenomena, on the one hand, favors the examination of the given phenomenon from different points, on the other hand, it waters down the boundaries of apparatus criticus. The essence of the examined phenomenon is sometimes lost behind multiple aspects.
16 See: Yakushev V.S. Legal Personality of State Manufacturing Enterprise. Sverdlovsk, 1973,pp.4-9.
17 See: Hudjakov A.I. Op.cit., pp. 47-63.
18 See Shahov V.V. Op.cit., p. 15.
19 See: Shiminova M.Y. State Insurance in the USSR. M., 1987, pp.42-43.
20 See: Abova T.E. Protection of Business Rights of Enterprises. M., 1975, pp.91-92; Dontsov S.E. Civil Noncontractual Means of Socialist Property Protection. M., 1980, p.6-8.
21 Hudjakov A.I. Insurance Law, p.26
22 In accordance with art.2 The Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan of 18 December, 2000, No. 126-2 «On the Insurance Activity», insurance activity is the activity insurance (reinsurance) organization, connected with conclusion and execution of insurance (reinsurance) contracts.
23 Fogelson Y.B. Commentary on the Insurance Legislation. М., 1999, p.10.
24 See: Hudjakov A.I. Op.cit., pp.26-27.
25 In the new version of art.6 of the Law on the Organization of Insurance Business there is no rule on the corresponding prohibitions, which can be unlikely regarded correct.
26 Business Law of the Russian federation/ Ch.ed. E.P. Gubin, P.G. Lahno, pp.740-741.
27 Safiullin D.N. Theory and practice of legal regulation of business relations in the USSR. Sverdlovsk. Publishing house of the Urals University, 1990, p.72.
28 Hudjakov A.I. Insurance Law, pp.189-190.
29 Shihov A.K. Op.cit., p.56.
30 See: Perevalov V.D. Theory of State and Law: Textbook. М., 2005, pp. 127-131; Komarov S.A. General Theory of State and Law: Textbook. М., 1997, pp. 272-274.
31 Yakushev V.S. On the Concept of the Legal Institution // Jurisprudence. 1970. № 6, p. 67.
32 N.D Egorov marks five sub-branches inside Civil law: law of property and other real rights; personal non-property rights, rights to the results of creative activity; inheritance law. In its turn, the sub-branch of the law of property consists of two legal institutions, contractual and non-contractual obligations (see; Civil Law: Textbook/ Ed. Y.K. Tolstoy, A.P. Sergeev. M./ 1996/P/1, pp.21-23.
33 Popondopulo V.F. Commercial (entrepreneurial) Law: Textbook. M.: Lawyer, 2003, p.29.
34 See: Railyan A.A. Theoretical Grounds of the Consumer Law of Russia. Author's abstract … Doctor of Legal Sciences. Kazan, 2007, pp.13,25.
35 According to G.A. Tosunyan, A.Y. Vikulina, A.M. Ekmalyan, banking law is a comlex branch of law. See: Banking Law of the Russian Federation. General Part: Textbook/Ed. B.N.Topornin. M., 2002, pp.16-22.
36 S.P. Moroz regards investment law as a complex branch of law. See: Moroz S.P. Investment Law of the Republic of Kazahstan: sc.ed. Almaty, 2006, pp.91-93 etc.
37 See: Azmin D.M., Fillipova S.Y. Criteria to Definition of Branches of Russian Law (in the con-text of discussion on the structure of private law). M., 2007, pp.67-72.
38 Bogdanov I.K. The Results of the Russian Insurance Market Development over the First Three Months of 2007// http://www.insur-info.ru/experts