In the article, the author describes the history of the formation of constitutional legislation in Finland and, in particular, notes the key events and participants in the process of constitutionalism in the country. The author describes the Finnish arrangement for monitoring that the adopted laws comply with the Finnish constitution and its provisions of fundamental rights as well as the human rights obligations of Finland. Of particular importance in the article is the description of the development of the institution of fundamental human rights and freedoms, their form of consolidation in the legislation, as well as the shrinking role of customary law. The author emphasizes the important role of the provisions of the Constitution not only in guaranteeing the realization of rights and freedoms, but also in providing guidance for the subsequent development of legislative regulation on various fields of law, including the rights and duties relating to providing of a healthy environment.

The historical discussion of formation of the concept of freedom briefly displays main definitions of freedom, shows interrelations and connections of the concept of freedom with other important notions of the human existence, such as subject, self-realization, law, good, labor, knowledge, otherness. Correct understanding of the phenomenon of freedom implies a principle distinction between law and morality. It is law as a social institute that introduces freedom as such into social life, whereas morality provides only liberation from evil. According to the initial definition freedom is a labor of self-realization. As freedom obtains social reality only in a legal form, the more concrete definition of freedom is as follows: freedom is a balance of man’s rights and duties.

The author, based on the theory of constructivism, explores the central concept of law — the legal norm. A consistent deconstruction of the legal norms is carried out, which allows us to distinguish three of its components: “Normative proposition” or “Normative utterance” about the rule of conduct, “Normative rule”, which serves as a model for assessing the behavior of a participant in legal communication in law enforcement, and “Rule of conduct” as the basis for the obligation of subjects of the legal communication. The proposed deconstruction allows, in the author’s opinion, to argue that the legislator who speaks out on the acceptable form of legally significant behavior is limited with legalization factors, the basis of which (the external border of the normative proposition) are moral imperatives. They define the boundaries of a person’s freedom and define the contours of his acceptable legal behavior. For a subject of law, a normative statement becomes imperative as a result of inclusion in legal communication. Such communication is possible only if there is a single code of legal communication. The aforementioned indicates the presence of structures of public consciousness (legal construction) that predetermine not only the choice of the form of behavior the participant in legal communication but also the characteristics of the normative statement itself. Law as an objective phenomenon, defined through the categories of truth or falsity, exists only at the level of normative utterance. In turn, normative rules and rules of conduct are evaluated through the criterion of effectiveness (achievement of a legal goal).The impossibility of deducing the true state of affairs from a rule that have a normative dimension allows us to assert that the components of the legal material that make up the content of any legal system have a constructive “nature”. According to the author, the methodology of legal constructivism removes the opposition between the norm and the legal relationship, making it meaningless to search in a normative matter for the actual content of acts of subjects of legal communication. The application of the approach under consideration allows us to state that the subject of legal communication is a way of representing the corresponding legal structure through his target behavior.

In article problems at application rather new institute of the town-planning legislation cancellation of the documentation on a lay out of territory, recognition of separate parts of such documentation not subject to application are considered. The author tries to reveal distinctions between cancellation of such documentation and recognition of separate parts not subject to application, considers a number of questions connected with possibility of cancellation of the documentation on a territory planning corresponding to legislative requirements. Also the attention is given to definition of the subject structure of the persons empowered on cancellation of the documentation on a lay-out of territory, necessity of carrying out of public hearings in the course of such cancellation. In conclusion, the author draws the main conclusions, once again drawing attention to the existence of systemic shortcomings of the existing public law regulation.

Achieving equal rights and opportunities for men and women is an integral part of ensuring human rights. The international ranking of the gender gap calculated by the World Economic Forum shows that there is a very big difference in its reduction in different countries of the world. The European Union has achieved the best results. This indicates the effectiveness of its measures to overcome gender discrimination. The analysis showed that the countries-leaders consider gender equality not only as a constitutional principle, but also include it in national legislation. They require the development and implementation of plans to overcome the gender discrimination from all organizations with more than 25 (30) people. An effective mechanism has been created to control ensuring the principle of gender equality in these countries. It includes administrative measures, and criminal prosecution in some countries.

The article is devoted to the consideration of the positions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation on issues of state structure, in particular the principles of the federal structure, the status and powers of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, the delimitation of subjects of jurisdiction, and the organization of public authority. The author considers the main differences between a federal and confederal structure, type and other features of a federal structure, enshrined in the 1993 Constitution of the Russian Federation.

The subject of the article is the question of responsibility of persons for match-fi activities. The issue of probable assessment of evidence in CAS 2019/A/6636 is being considered. Predicting the CAS position is based on established Arbitration practice. The parties positions are modeled based on information available in open sources.

This material is devoted to a review of expert speeches at the Conference “The Constitution of Russia: Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow”, held in St. Petersburg on December 9–10, 2019. The problems of modern federalism were discussed at the conference. The experts analyzed the origins and causes of the existing state structure in the Russian Federation, its features and possible development paths; possible ways of developing the state system of the Russian Federation in the direction of federalism, confederation and unitary state; discussed current issues and features of federalism.

The review highlights the main issues raised by the participants of the conference held on April 20, 2020 in the online conference mode in connection with the conditions of self-isolation applied in the framework of the COVID-19 pandemic. The conference discussed the impact of digital technologies on public relations, prospects and the need to change the legal regulation of such relations, the experience of developing digitalization of public administration in China, as well as the contents of the term Legal Tech and Law Tech and problems associated with artificial intelligence.