What is a municipal government enterprise? State-owned enterprise - what kind of organization is it?

A unitary enterprise, based on the right of operational management, is created by decision of the Government of the Russian Federation on the basis of property in federal ownership. Another name for such an enterprise is a federal government enterprise. The constituent document of a state-owned enterprise is its charter, approved by the Government of the Russian Federation. The corporate name of the enterprise must contain indications that the enterprise is state-owned.

A state-owned enterprise, in relation to the property assigned to it, carries out operational management within the limits established by law in accordance with the goals of its activities, the tasks of the owner and the purpose of the property. The owner of property assigned to a state-owned enterprise has the right to withdraw excess, unused or misused property and dispose of it at his own discretion.

A state-owned enterprise independently sells the products it produces, unless otherwise specified. legal acts.

A state-owned enterprise has the right to alienate the property assigned to it only with the consent of the owner of this property. The procedure for distributing income of a state-owned enterprise is determined by the owner of its property.

Government Russian Federation bears subsidiary liability for the obligations of a state-owned enterprise if its property is insufficient, and the state-owned enterprise can be reorganized or liquidated by decision of the Government of the Russian Federation.

Forms of road transport enterprises

In the automotive industry, standard forms of enterprises have been established, operating depending on their own specialization. In addition to the classification of firms by organizational and legal forms, forms of ownership and industry, the distribution of enterprises (firms) by number of personnel is of great practical importance. Based on the number of employees, firms are classified into small, medium and large enterprises. This gradation is rather arbitrary and largely depends on industry characteristics. Since the legislation and economic policy of the Russian Government currently provide for certain measures to stimulate the development of private business, small businesses are provided with specific tax and other benefits.

Large-scale business is characterized by forms that are based on the association of enterprises and firms into aggregate structures: corporations, business associations, concerns, holding companies, consortia.

The corporation is Joint-Stock Company, combining the activities of several firms to achieve their common goals or protect certain privileges. As a legal entity, a corporation is responsible for dates and taxes for all its constituent enterprises and acts as an independent business entity.

Economic associations are contractual associations of enterprises and organizations created to jointly perform homogeneous functions and coordinate common activities. Members of the association have the right to join any other associations.

Concerns are a form of large contractual associations, usually of a monopoly type, that make it possible to use the opportunities of large-scale production. The most important feature of a concern was the unity of ownership of its constituent firms, enterprises, and banks.

Holding companies - characterized by the fact that they have control over other companies, either through ownership of their shares and cash capital, or in connection with the right to appoint directors of controlled companies.

A consortium is a temporary voluntary association of enterprises and organizations formed to solve specific problems and problems, implement large investment, scientific, technical and environmental projects.

Specialization of motor transport enterprises

In addition to general classification characteristics (by form of activity, size, organizational and legal forms), road transport enterprises differ in the types of services provided:

Passenger ATPs (bus fleets for servicing urban transport, intercity, excursion and tourist trips, etc.) are usually located in large cities and regional centers - places with the largest number of routes. ATPs are located in such a way as to eliminate zero (idle) runs as much as possible and, as a rule, are constructed in the form of buildings with built-in infrastructure for storing and repairing rolling stock;

Cargo vehicles ( general purpose, specialized in certain types of transportation - containers, industrial products, metal, bricks, bulk cargo, reinforced concrete products, petroleum products and fuels and lubricants, consumer goods, bakery products). Freight transport vehicles are located near cargo-generating industrial enterprises and railway freight stations, usually on the outskirts of the city in order to relieve its center from traffic jams. Cargo trucks are built in the form of a fenced area with a complex of industrial-type buildings, where administrative, repair, auxiliary areas and workshops are located, located in one or more buildings.

Other enterprises of the motor transport complex include:

Freight forwarding enterprises;

Bus terminals and bus stations;

Specialized enterprises for vehicle maintenance and repair;

Industry training centers that provide training and retraining for automotive transport specialists.

Objective necessity and economic functions of state-owned enterprises. Government sector - important element mixed economy and a condition for successful development modern society. World and pre-revolutionary domestic experience show that the scale and structure of nationalization depend on the state of the national economy, specific historical tasks and many other factors. Such changes occur within certain limits. Contraction or expansion of the public sector without taking into account these objective boundaries is fraught with negative consequences for the socio-economic development and security of the country.

There are public needs for products and services, the production of which, for one reason or another, cannot be provided by the private sector or entrusted to it. This determines both the need for state and municipal (socialized, public) enterprises, as well as their number, scope of operation and volume of production. Therefore, the privatization policy should be based on the list and scope of action specified and provided for in the law or other legal acts state and municipal enterprises, which is important for stabilizing the national economy.

Although the public sector is a very broad and capacious concept, it is based on state-owned enterprises. Based on federal property and the property of constituent entities of the Russian Federation. together with the management of organs local government, based on municipal property, it forms the public sector of the economy. Accordingly, state and municipal enterprises are public (public) unitary enterprises.

The public sector of the economy may be assigned a number of reproduction functions

ensuring the activities of enterprises and sectors of the national economy, which, being unprofitable or unprofitable, are traditionally of no interest to private capital, but the development of which determines the general conditions of reproduction. This applies primarily to sectors of economic and social infrastructure (electric power, transport, communications, housing and communal services, etc.);

recovery of industries experiencing crises (ferrous metallurgy, shipbuilding, coal industry, etc.):

assistance to vital sectors of the economy in order to achieve the required level of viability, accelerate scientific and technical progress and strengthen on this basis the country’s position in the world economy (science and capital-intensive industries),

security environment by introducing waste-free technologies, construction of treatment facilities in areas of production that potentially pose an environmental hazard.

The implementation of these functions from the standpoint of ensuring public (national and local) interests is the main motive for the formation and operation of state and municipal unitary enterprises, although their commercial activities are not excluded. Private entrepreneurship is initially subordinated to the task of making a profit and, by its nature, cannot be directly focused on public interest. The social need of a private entrepreneur is of interest only insofar as its satisfaction brings profit.

Current legislation provides for two types of unitary enterprises: based on the right of economic management of property and on the right of operational management of it. The latter type is usually called a state-owned enterprise. In order to satisfy the needs for certain types of unique products, the state is forced to use public property to create enterprises, the property of which is transferred to it for operational management. Such production facilities mainly carry out government orders for products or services of special importance. Here, the economic function of a unitary state-owned enterprise is to directly satisfy the public need for special-purpose products (services).

The creation of state-owned enterprises is necessary not only because there are socially significant areas of the economy that are either not of interest to private capital, or its participation is undesirable from the point of view of state interests. Lack of an effective system of state regulation of socio-economic development, difficult conditions modern reproduction give reason to assume that such enterprises will be able to promote structural restructuring and the development of “growth points”. Akhmeduev A. State-owned enterprises: functions, criteria and management mechanism / Economist No. 9. 1998, art. 77-84

Criteria for state-owned enterprises. The criteria for creating a state-owned plant (factory, farm) on the basis of liquidated production were determined by the Decree of the President of the Russian Federation “On the reform of state-owned enterprises” dated May 23, 1994. The Decree provides for the liquidation of a federal enterprise and the formation on its basis of a state-owned enterprise only in in relation to industrial or agricultural production: carrying out activities permitted by federal laws exclusively for state enterprises; the predominant (more than 50%) consumer of products, works and services of which is the state; privatization of which is prohibited.

Moreover, the basis for the decision to liquidate a state enterprise and create a state-owned enterprise are: inappropriate spending of federal funds; lack of profit for the last two years; use of real estate, secured by the right of economic management, in violation of current rules. Thus, any of the three categories of industrial or agricultural enterprises mentioned above can be liquidated as a punishment if at least one of the three listed conditions is met; only on the basis of the punished federal enterprises is it possible to create state-owned factories.
It follows from this. established criteria and conditions.are private character, and the decree; vaguely “defines the general” procedure for creating state-owned enterprises. Firstly, new state-owned enterprises can be formed, and not only on the basis of liquidated ones. Secondly, not only industrial or agricultural, but also state-owned enterprises can and should be created factories in other sectors of the national economy. Thirdly, a state enterprise that meets any of the established three criteria can be transformed into a state-owned enterprise, regardless of whether any of the three conditions of punishment are present or not. Fourthly, they can and state-owned enterprises should be created not only federal, but also of the constituent entities of the Federation and municipal ones.

At the same time, the criteria are too general and are not linked to the nature of the enterprise’s activities. Indicators of unprofitability, a ban on privatization, supply to the state of a predominant (more than 50%) share of production are not criteria in themselves. For example, all enterprises whose consumer of more than 50% of their products is the state can hardly be state-owned. If it purchases more than 50% of grown grain from an agricultural enterprise or more than 50% of sewn military uniforms from a clothing factory, then it is unlikely that such production needs to be transferred to state-owned production. Of course, a state-owned enterprise can be unprofitable. But it will be classified as state-owned not because it is unprofitable, but because it significantly requires direct government intervention in its activities for the purpose of uninterrupted functioning. A state-owned enterprise that is significant from the point of view of national interests can be state-owned, regardless of whether it brings profit or loss. Legal entities. Educational and practical manual. M.Yu. Tikhomirov. 2003 Art. 389-394.

The same applies to the privatization criterion. If it is legally determined that it is not subject to privatization, then, according to all objective characteristics of its activity, such an enterprise should be classified as a state enterprise. Only it is state-owned not because it is not subject to privatization, but not subject to privatization because, in terms of its significance, it must be state-owned. That is why enterprises, the privatization of which is prohibited by certain legislative acts, can be classified as state-owned. Thus, in accordance with the Decree of the President of the country dated April 13, 1996, the Government of the Russian Federation, by resolution of July 12, 1996, approved a list of 480 enterprises and organizations of the defense complex, the privatization of which is prohibited. Undoubtedly, the enterprises included in this list should be transformed into state-owned enterprises. It is in such cases that the ban on privatization can be accepted as a criterion for government proceedings.

However, the Privatization Program for State and Municipal Enterprises defines an extensive list of objects, the privatization of which is prohibited. It is unlikely that all of them can be transformed into state-owned enterprises. Here the problem of selection inevitably arises. Other criteria are needed. In our opinion, the criteria should be based on an assessment of: the state (social) importance of the enterprise, the need for direct government intervention in its management and control over its activities. It is extremely important that these criteria are as specific as possible and tied to an objective characteristic of the social significance of the functioning of the enterprise. Sukhanov E. The right of economic management, the right of operational management / Economy and Law, No. 6., 2000, Art. 3-12.

It seems indisputable that production facilities carrying out activities permitted by current legislation exclusively for state enterprises must be state-owned. This will allow not only to establish their profile and specialization, but also to determine tasks, production plans, and strictly control their work. Among these, first of all, quite reasonably, there will be enterprises of the military-industrial complex, the so-called power ministries and departments, etc.

State enterprises can be civilian enterprises and facilities that, for security purposes, must be under the jurisdiction of the state. These include sea and river ports, airports, nuclear and large hydroelectric power plants, subways, etc. Enterprises that make up a unified national life support system, the reliable operation and safety of which is guaranteed by the state, should also be state-owned. Meaning railways, postal services, water management and reclamation systems, hydrometeorological and sanitary-epidemiological services, etc. They solve problems of special public importance, their state control is objectively necessary.

From the above it follows that unitary production and services can be state-owned: those carrying out activities permitted by law exclusively for state enterprises; constituting a unified national life support system, the functioning and safety of which is guaranteed by the state; of public importance and which, for the purpose of their safety and security, must be under the jurisdiction of the state.

These criteria strictly limit the number of government-owned industries and services, and taking into account the significance, as well as sectoral and regional characteristics, can be specified for federal, federal and municipal enterprises.

Economic and legal status. All state enterprises in pre-revolutionary Russia had the status of state enterprises. State and municipal proceedings based on the right of operational management of property also existed in the socialist economic system. The concept of a state-owned enterprise (plant, factory, farm) was first introduced by the Decree of the President of the Russian Federation “On the reform of state-owned enterprises.” As a new organizational and legal form, it is enshrined in the new Civil Code.

Its legal and economic status has been determined. This is a legal entity that has separate property under operational management, with all the ensuing rights and responsibilities. Although the property is separated, the founder has the right of ownership to it. At the same time, a state-owned enterprise is a unitary enterprise. This means that his property is indivisible and is not distributed among deposits (shares, shares), including among employees.

The economic content of the concept of the right of operational management of property, as well as the right of economic management, has not been fully disclosed. Unlike unitary enterprises, whose property is transferred to economic management, for state-owned enterprises it is assigned to operational management. These two legal forms do not imply any significant differences in the natural relations of these types of unitary enterprises and their founders. In any case, such differences do not follow from the Civil Code.

It has been established that enterprises on economic management and state-owned enterprises exercise the rights of ownership, use and disposal of property. Both cannot alienate property (sell, lease, pledge, contribute as a contribution to the authorized capital of business companies and partnerships) without the consent of the owner. The only difference is that a state-owned enterprise has the right to alienate, with the consent of the owner, any property assigned to it, and an enterprise under economic management - only real estate. In this case, the division of property transferred into economic management into movable and immovable contradicts Article 132 of the Civil Code, according to which the enterprise as a whole, as a property complex, is real estate.

State-owned enterprises are recognized as commercial structures, but not all of them set the main goal of their activities to make profit. The same applies to the majority of non-state unitary enterprises (the property of which is transferred to economic management), which are undoubtedly commercial. Among those and other types unitary enterprises are unprofitable. But this does not mean that they cease to be commercial. Firstly, unprofitability may be temporary. Secondly, even if commercial organization does not pursue profit-making as its main goal, it makes saving resources and reducing costs one of the most important tasks of its activities. For state-owned enterprises, profit and reduction of costs in terms of economic content are equivalent indicators. Thirdly, making a profit is not the only sign of commercialization. A state-owned enterprise operates in a market environment and enters into economic relations with other business entities, participates in competition... This is a commercial activity, the final economic result of which can be not only profit.

The Civil Code provides for the formation of a state-owned enterprise only in the status of a federal one and only on the basis of property that is in federal ownership. The Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of May 23, 1994 was also designed to create state-owned factories on the basis of converted state enterprises. But all this does not exclude, but rather presupposes the possibility of establishing state (subjects of the Russian Federation) and municipal government enterprises.

The decree recommended that the executive authorities of the constituent entities of the Federation carry out the reform of state-owned enterprises related to their property, and local governments - municipal ones. This means that, by analogy with federal ones, they can create their own state-owned enterprises on the basis of liquidated industries, which is quite logical.

At the same time, according to the Civil Code, unitary enterprises based on the right of operational management of property have the status of federal, constituent entities of the Federation and municipal. They are the ones that are state-owned, regardless of the status of the owner of the property, i.e. the founder. Consequently, not only federal bodies, but also government bodies of the constituent entities of the Federation and local governments can establish state-owned enterprises, both new and on the basis of the transformation (liquidation) of existing industries.

Laws are needed on state government enterprises or on state and municipal unitary enterprises. At the same time, it is necessary to provide for the possibility of creating and operating state-owned enterprises on the basis of not only federal property, but also the property of constituent entities of the Russian Federation, as well as municipal property.

It is advisable to single out state-owned factories from existing state and municipal enterprises and determine their status, economic regime, methods and management bodies, etc. This must be done urgently in connection with the privatization and deployment of the bankruptcy process of unprofitable and insolvent industries.

Relations between a state-owned enterprise and the owner regarding the use of property. Of decisive importance for the relationship between government bodies and government production are the relations regarding the use of property enshrined in the right of operational management.

The concepts of “economic management” and “operational management” determine the nature of relations regarding the ownership, use and disposal of property. Although in both cases, enterprises under the conditions of economic management and state-owned ones, as noted, are essentially equally endowed with such rights, however, property and management rights are designated differently in the Civil Code. .

It clearly states that the owner of property under economic management decides on the creation of an enterprise, determining the subject and goals of its activities, its reorganization and liquidation, approves the charter, appoints a director (manager), and exercises control over the use of purpose and safety of the transferred property. It is clear that the same functions are performed in relation to government proceedings. However, this is not fixed, but it is determined that the owner, represented by the Government of the Russian Federation, approves the charter of a state-owned enterprise, can make a decision on its reorganization or liquidation, and has the right to withdraw excess, unused or misused property. The fact that the functions of the owner are not clearly defined leaves wide scope for the intervention of government bodies in the activities of enterprises that are not clear about their rights, the limits of dependence on the owner and the possibility of economic independence. Therefore, it is advisable to legislate the following functions of the owner in relation to government proceedings:

related to the establishment of an enterprise (creation and establishment of its status, determination of the subject and goals of activities, approval of the charter, decision-making on reorganization or liquidation);

related to property relations (assigning property to the enterprise for operational management, establishing the size and payment of the authorized capital, determining the structure and purpose of property, seizure of excess, unused or misused, control over the intended use and safety of assigned property):

related to enterprise management (appointment of a director, establishment of a mandatory task for the production and supply of products for the needs of the owner, monitoring its implementation, determining the procedure for distributing income). Sukhanov E. The right of economic management, the right of operational management / Economy and Law, No. 6., 2000, Art. 3-12.

Specifying the functions and their legislative consolidation will help create an effective mechanism for the relationship between the owner and the state-owned enterprise, outline the boundaries of its independence, and significantly improve the controllability of production.

Regulation of the activities of state-owned enterprises The Civil Code does not provide for any requirements for the productive use of property under economic control. The enterprise independently decides the issues of its application. The right of operational management presupposes that government production owns, uses and disposes of the property assigned to it in accordance with its purpose. Here an essential element is added - the right of the owner to complete the task and the obligation of the enterprise to carry it out

The mechanism for implementing this legal norm determined by the Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of October 6, 1994, which approved the Procedure for planning and financing state-owned production. It is envisaged that they will function under the influence of two systems - administrative and market. Implementation of the task of the state (owner) in full. is regulated from above, and permitted independent economic activity is organized according to the laws of the market.

The state approves for the enterprise not only a development plan and a plan-order for the supply of products for state needs, but also prices for them, a wage fund for the volume of the plan-order, a limit on the number of employees. At the same time, it establishes the tariff schedule and the procedure for remuneration. Thus, a state-owned enterprise carrying out a state task does not have economic independence.

It is important to bring the procedure for planning and financing the activities of state-owned plants (factories, farms) in accordance with the Civil Code. The mandatory task (plan-order) should be limited to the volume of product supplies (in physical terms in a specific product range and range) with an indication of delivery time. The enterprise must first of all carry out this task, for which it bears economic and administrative responsibility. Consequently, the goal of production planning is to fulfill the owner’s assignment with minimal expenditure of resources. Therefore, planning should be the competence of the enterprise itself. There is no need to establish from above the wage fund and headcount limit, the tariff schedule and the procedure for remunerating workers. Prices for products on a general basis can be stipulated in a contract (agreement) defining the obligations and responsibilities of both the customer and the enterprise, of course, with the exception of cases where a uniform procedure for state regulation of prices has been established. Civil law. Textbook / Ed. E.A.Sukhanova.T.2. M., 2000. Article 317.

This approach will strengthen the economic interest of the enterprise and its responsibility for fulfilling the owner’s assignment. At the same time, this will make it possible to make maximum use of saved and free resources for permitted independent economic activity.

A government enterprise can be created in the following cases:

if the predominant or significant part of the products produced, work performed, services provided is intended for federal state needs, the needs of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation or municipality;

the need to use property, the privatization of which is prohibited, including property necessary to ensure the security of the Russian Federation, the functioning of air, rail and water transport, and the implementation of other strategic interests of the Russian Federation;

the need to carry out activities for the production of goods, performance of work, provision of services sold at prices established by the state in order to solve social problems;

the need to develop and produce certain types of products that ensure the security of the Russian Federation;

the need to produce certain types of products that are withdrawn from circulation or have limited circulation;

the need to carry out certain subsidized activities and conduct unprofitable production;

the need to carry out activities provided for by federal laws exclusively for state-owned enterprises.

The main condition for the creation and operation of state-owned enterprises is the need to supply goods, perform work or provide services for state needs.

General requirements for supply contracts for state needs are established by paragraph 4 of Chapter 30 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation.

In accordance with Article 525 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the supply of goods for state needs is carried out on the basis of a state contract for the supply of goods for state needs, as well as contracts for the supply of goods for state needs concluded in accordance with it.

State needs are recognized as the needs of the Russian Federation or constituent entities of the Russian Federation, determined in accordance with the procedure established by law, and provided at the expense of budget funds and extra-budgetary sources of financing.

Article 527 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation establishes that a state contract is concluded on the basis of an order from a state customer for the supply of goods for state needs, accepted by the supplier (performer). For a government customer who has placed an order accepted by a supplier (performer), the conclusion of a government contract is mandatory.

The conclusion of a state contract is mandatory for the supplier (performer) only in cases established by law, and on the condition that the state customer will compensate for all losses that may be caused to the supplier (performer) in connection with the implementation of the state contract.

The provision for compensation of losses does not apply to a state-owned enterprise. Thus, when placing a state order at a state-owned enterprise, the corresponding government body is exempted not only from compensation for direct losses, but also (which is much more important) from the application of penalties and other financial sanctions. It follows from this that the attraction of state-owned enterprises to supply goods, perform work or provide services for state needs, ultimately, is aimed at minimizing unproductive losses of budgets at all levels.

Article 530 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation provides for the possibility of the buyer refusing to enter into an agreement for the supply of goods for state needs - the buyer has the right to fully or partially refuse the goods specified in the notice of attachment and from concluding an agreement for their supply. In this case, the supplier (performer) must immediately notify the state customer and has the right to demand from him notification of attachment to another buyer.

And Article 524 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation contains a norm (albeit a reference one), in accordance with which (in cases provided for by law) the state customer has the right to fully or partially refuse goods, the supply of which is provided for by the state contract, subject to compensation to the supplier losses caused by such a refusal. If the government customer’s refusal of goods, the supply of which is provided for in the state contract, results in the termination or change of the contract for the supply of goods for state needs, the losses caused to the buyer by such termination or change are compensated by the state customer.

A federal government enterprise is established by a decision of the Government of the Russian Federation.

A state-owned enterprise of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation is established by a decision of the authority state power subject of the Russian Federation, which, in accordance with the acts defining the status of this body, is granted the right to make such a decision.

A municipal government enterprise is established by a decision of a local government body, which, in accordance with the acts defining the status of this body, is granted the right to make such a decision. Charters of unitary enterprises / M.Yu. Tikhomirov. - M.: 2003., p. 30.

In paragraphs 1-3 of Article 8 of the Law on Unitary Enterprises, regulating the powers of management bodies to establish unitary enterprise, you need to pay attention to the following:

a state-owned enterprise can now be not only federal, but also regional (subject of the Russian Federation) and municipal. The Civil Code of the Russian Federation previously allowed the creation and operation of only federal state-owned enterprises - on the basis of property owned by the federal government. Corresponding changes have been made to the Civil Code of the Russian Federation with the adoption of the Law on Unitary Enterprises. In this case, there was no legislative conflict. However, the necessary changes were not made to the legislative acts establishing the powers of regional and local authorities (and containing a list of functions performed by these bodies). Thus, the implementation of the right to create state-owned enterprises of state authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and local governments is postponed, at least until changes are made to federal laws regulating their activities, and, as a maximum, until the completion of the ongoing reform of regional and local government. Comments to the Federal Law of November 14, 2002 No. 161-FZ “On State and Municipal Unitary Enterprises.” - M., “TD ELITE-2000”, 2003

A state-owned enterprise as a commercial structure must be self-financed. The government has determined the procedure for financing activities commercial enterprises, including those related to the implementation of the order plan and development plan, at the expense of their own income. This should become the norm in market economy. Such a standard is all the more achievable when fulfilling a defense order, when it is possible to guarantee a fixed level of profitability by type of product, as provided for by the Law “On State Defense Order”.

Of course, there may be exceptions to this general rule, if the enterprise actions government organizations(owners) suffer damage due to the creation of non-market conditions for the fulfillment of a mandatory task, as well as forced economic or administrative restrictions. In such cases, the state is obliged to compensate it for real damage, regardless of whether the enterprise has enough income to finance production or not. Funds from the budget for such compensation should be provided on a planned basis in order to achieve a sustainable financial situation.

In addition to compensation for losses, a state-owned enterprise has the right to receive from the state financial resources for capital costs, implementation of the development plan, maintenance of social infrastructure, but only in cases where it does not have enough of its own funds. Civil law. Textbook / Ed. E.A.Sukhanova.T.2. M., 2000. Article 323.

The main source of resources for ensuring expanded reproduction of a state-owned enterprise is income and profit. Therefore, the order of distribution of the latter is of decisive importance for the normal reproductive process.

But this issue remains complex and confusing; The Civil Code does not clarify it. It stipulates that for products: income from the use of property under economic management or operational management, as well as property acquired by a unitary enterprise, comes under economic management or operational management in the manner established by the Civil Code (Article 299.2). other laws and other legal acts for the acquisition of property rights. This means that the products and income of a unitary enterprise, regardless of whether the property is under economic management or operational management, belong to the founder-owner. Consequently, the procedure for distributing income of a state-owned enterprise is determined by the owner of its property.

As a result, the enterprise’s profit, received both from the implementation of the order plan and as a result of permitted independent activities, is distributed according to standards centrally established by the state body (owner). The so-called free balance of profit is withdrawn into budget revenue.

To correctly resolve the issue and justify the distribution of income and profit, it is necessary to recognize the fallacy of the very initial premise, which considers products and income as a consequence of the use of property (capital), and not the “productivity” of production factors. According to the theory of factors of production, the income of any enterprise, including a unitary one, is the result of all factors of production, i.e. labor, capital, natural resources, entrepreneurial activity.

An indispensable condition for production efficiency is that in all enterprises each of these factors receives economic realization, and property subjects - production participants assign a share of income corresponding to the productive power of the factor in the form wages, interest, rent, profit, etc. Before such primary distribution, the results of production (products, income) must become the property of the manufacturer-enterprise or entrepreneur directly, who fulfills obligations to the owners of resources - participants in production.

This is exactly the approach implemented in Art. 136 of the Civil Code, which provides that proceeds received from the use of property belong to the person using it legally, i.e., a manufacturing company or entrepreneur. It is not difficult to understand that the provisions of Art. 299.2 of the Civil Code contradict Art. 136. Legal entities. Educational and practical manual. M.Yu. Tikhomirov. 2003, art. 399.

When determining the procedure for distributing income of a state-owned enterprise, one must proceed from the fact that income and profit belong to it. and the owner, in turn, has the right to receive part of the profit in the form of payment for the use of property (interest on capital). This will sharply increase the interest of all participants in production in the results of management, since the owner of the property, participating in the business with his capital, the team of the enterprise - with labor, the entrepreneur - with organizational talent, receive a share of income from the total result to the extent of their efficiency. Sukhanov E. The right of economic management, the right of operational management / Economy and Law, No. 6., 2000, Art. 3-12.

Taking into account the above, the existing profit distribution mechanism can be improved in various directions. It is advisable to consider the possibility of alternative methods. Depending on the form of relationship with the budget, regulatory or tax distribution options are real. If the profit received from fulfilling the order plan can be distributed according to the normative method, then the profit received from the implementation of independent economic activity must be allocated according to the tax option.

The need of production for financial resources (capital investments, working capital) depends on the nature of the product being manufactured, on how often it has to be updated, on the degree of product development, age structure fixed assets. Therefore, standards must be differentiated taking into account the characteristics of reproduction. Depending on the type of production and its condition, the profit due to the owner of the property can be withdrawn from the budget or sent to the funds of the enterprise.

They are under direct government control on issues of production (directive planning, assignments), price policy, finance, and material incentives for personnel. State-owned enterprises do not have the right to refuse to conclude a state contract for the supply of goods for state needs. Accordingly, they are obliged to enter into specific contracts with organizations that are consumers of goods or services. The property of a state-owned enterprise is assigned to it with the right of operational management.

At the same time, the state assumes responsibility for the obligations of this category of enterprises and provides them with the necessary financial assistance, protects them from bankruptcy, provides benefits for government procurement, etc. Consequently, the enterprises in question are actually budgetary organizations and are excluded from the market system of farming, although they experience a certain influence from it. The normal functioning of state-owned enterprises is supported by strict disciplinary liability, but they are unlikely to be able to claim sufficiently high economic efficiency. The costs of their maintenance will make up a significant part of the state budget. Akhmeduev A. State-owned enterprises: functions, criteria and management mechanism / Economist No. 9. 1998, art. 77-84

At least two conclusions follow from the above:

The number of state-owned enterprises must be reduced to a reasonable minimum;

In relation to them, it is advisable to develop a special control system.

The first problem goes beyond the scope of the article, and the second is its essence.

It would seem that a solution to the problem of managing state-owned enterprises can be found by borrowing the experience of managing state-owned enterprises in developed countries. However, in different countries it is different and takes into account the specific characteristics of a given country. Therefore, proposals to transfer the relevant experience of the United States or France to Russian soil are hardly acceptable. It is necessary to independently fit into the existing system of governing bodies and take into account your own historical experience.

Perhaps the only one common feature management of state-owned enterprises in all countries is the implementation of this management by the relevant ministries or (along with ministries) special permanent commissions (for example, the federal commission for atomic energy in USA).

In Russia, in accordance with Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of May 23, 1994 No. 1003 “On the reform of state-owned enterprises,” the decision to liquidate a federal state-owned enterprise and create a state-owned plant, factory or farm on its basis is made by the Government of the Russian Federation. It also determines the federal executive body, which approves the charter of a state-owned enterprise and manages its activities. While maintaining the administrative subordination of enterprises, it is necessary to eliminate the former most significant shortcomings command system. These include, first of all, the lack of incentives for enterprise management to take initiative and take risks, as well as the virtual absence of responsibility for the consequences of decisions made by higher authorities. The modern economic manager of a state-owned enterprise should not become a transfer authority for the implementation of orders and instructions from employees of the state apparatus. He has the right to have a certain independence here too. The higher authority should retain only control over its de. A means of overcoming these and other shortcomings of the previously existing management system may be:, firstly, collegiality in making the most important business decisions by highly competent persons; secondly, the use of a competitive selection system management personnel; thirdly, the use in a number of cases of independent expert assessments. The practical implementation of these provisions is seen in the following:

1. Strategic decisions on the management of a state-owned enterprise must be made collectively by a higher body.

2. Within decisions made the head of the enterprise must be guaranteed a certain degree of independence, without which the manager’s entrepreneurial activity cannot manifest itself.

3. The selection of managers should be carried out on the basis of a competition of applicants' programs. Advantages go to programs that most fully reflect the requirements of state industrial policy.

4. Conclusion of a contract with the economic manager, which actually guarantees his rights and clearly establishes his duties, and with the enterprise - a “contract plan”, which contains the program of its activities.

5. As foreign practice shows, the activity programs of state-owned enterprises are drawn up in such a way that government subsidies for their implementation are minimal, and costs are covered from funds from successful business activities. For these purposes, it is necessary not only to have a certain freedom for the manager, but also to create interest among the staff in achieving positive results work (individual, division, enterprise as a whole). It is possible and necessary to use both long-used (for example, team organization of labor) and new (for example, profit sharing) forms of production management.

6. The state's liability for the enterprise's debts should not be direct, but subsidiary. Sukhanov E. The right of economic management, the right of operational management / Economy and Law, No. 6., 2000, Art. 3-12.

Based on the above, one of the options for the management scheme for state-owned enterprises could look like this.

A commission (committee, council) for the management of state-owned enterprises is formed under the sectoral management body. The organization of such a body in the State Property Committee system is impractical, since managing a state-owned enterprise requires knowledge of the industry-specific features of production. At the same time, in order to prevent departmental interests from prevailing, it is desirable to include at least 50 percent of independent specialists (economists, financiers, representatives of the State Committee for Industry, State Committee for Administrative Offenses, etc.) in these commissions. A commission formed in this way could perform the functions of a permanent competition commission for the selection of management personnel, develop the conditions of the competition, the enterprise’s activity program, and exercise control. Along with "external" control in organizational structure enterprises need to introduce bodies through which personnel would have the opportunity to take part in production management.

An attempt to establish the optimal legal status of managers of state-owned enterprises (both state-owned and commercial) was carried out by Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of June 10, 1994 No. 1200 “On some measures to ensure state management of the economy.” It established that the government or federal executive bodies authorized by it enter into a contract with the economic manager based not on labor law, but on civil law. The Decree lists the mandatory conditions that must be contained in the contract, including the procedure and conditions for its early termination and even the manager’s liability for damage caused to the enterprise as a result of his actions or inaction.

The civil law nature of the contract, in principle, makes it possible federal authorities establish the rights and responsibilities of the manager in managing the enterprise without regard to the legislative restrictions established by the Labor Code. After all, the Decree does not speak about any specific rights and responsibilities of an economic manager, except for his reporting, the procedure and deadlines for which must be established by the Government of the Russian Federation. Obviously, issues of management of a state-owned enterprise must be resolved in subsequent by-laws. Before their publication, both newly appointed managers and managers whose labor contracts have expired find themselves completely dependent on the discretion of the employees of the apparatus of the relevant government agency. Akhmeduev A. State-owned enterprises: functions, criteria and management mechanism / Economist No. 9. 1998, art. 77-84

State-owned enterprises are part of the state enterprise. These are enterprises owned by the state treasury.

State-owned factories, factories or farms necessarily fall under public administration. This concerns many issues, such as financial incentives for employees, pricing policy, directive planning, etc.

State-owned enterprises must necessarily enter into agreements with organizations for the supply of goods that cover the needs of the state. They have no right to refuse this. In turn, the state must also fulfill its obligations, and in particular: protect the enterprise from bankruptcy, provide benefits on government procurement, help with financing, etc.

There is no need to talk about the high economic efficiency of such enterprises, even despite the fact that they operate under the pressure of strict disciplinary liability. In fact, they are organizations that have been squeezed out of the market system of entrepreneurship and, in fact, are only budgetary.

A certain part of the state budget goes to the costs of maintaining state-owned enterprises. And this automatically leads to the fact that certain control systems are applied to them. Moreover, the number of state-owned enterprises is reduced to a reasonable minimum.
In different countries, the experience of managing such enterprises varies greatly, because the characteristics of each individual country leave their mark.

If, as a clear example, we take the experience of France or the United States and transfer it to Russia, it will immediately become clear that it will not take root here. But there is something that unites the management of state-owned enterprises in all countries. This is government through ministries. Sometimes they are joined by special commissions that function continuously. For example: the Federal Atomic Energy Commission (United States Atomic Energy Commission, AEC) in the USA existed until 1974. Later, its functions were divided between two other organizations.

In Russia, the decision to create a factory or plant on the basis of a liquidated federal state-owned enterprise is made by the Government of the Russian Federation. This is due to the entry into force of Decree of the President of the Russian Federation No. 1003, dated May 23, 1994, “On the reform of state-owned enterprises.”

The activities of a state-owned enterprise are managed by the executive body that approved the charter. However, the immediate manager of, for example, a plant has some independence and is not just an appendage to the state apparatus.

In connection with this distribution of leadership functions, the following trends should be observed at state-owned enterprises:
the presence of a competitive system for selecting personnel occupying the highest positions;
use of an independent system expert assessment;
important decisions must be made collectively;

The formation of a committee, council or commission for the management of state-owned enterprises occurs under the branch body. This is the most effective option, since the formation of such a body in the State Property Committee system does not provide knowledge distinctive features production. The commission must include more than 50% of independent and impartial specialists. These should be financiers, economists, lawyers, representatives State Committee of the Russian Federation on industrial policy, representatives of the State Committee for Antimonopoly Policy, etc.

State-owned enterprises must be located at the place of their state registration. Each of them must have a postal address. In case of a change of address, the enterprise is obliged to notify the authority responsible for state registration of legal entities.

State-owned enterprises are required to have a full corporate name, including the words “state-owned enterprise”, “municipal state-owned enterprise” or “federal state-owned enterprise”, as well as indicating the owner of the property. It can be a subject of the Russian Federation, a municipality, or the Russian Federation.

The legal activities of all government institutions are determined by Law No. 161-F3.

Among the legal entities registered and operating in accordance with the procedure established by law on the territory of the Russian Federation, there are entities that have a special, specific legal status. These include, in particular, state-owned enterprises. Let us consider further their specifics.

general characteristics

A state unitary enterprise is a legal entity that carries out operational management of the material assets entrusted to it. In legal publications it is also called a business institution. On the one hand, a state-owned enterprise is this. This is explained by the purpose of its creation. It is formed primarily to provide certain services, perform work or produce products. At the same time, most of the operating costs are covered from the budget. In addition, government agencies are the main customers.

Specifics

State institutions and enterprises have much in common. First of all, they are united by the lack of opportunity to dispose of (own) the material assets assigned to them. At its core, a state-owned enterprise is one of the forms of implementation by state authorities of their functions. A similar conclusion can be drawn regarding institutions. However, the difference between these entities is that they are formed in different areas. In particular, institutions are created in the scientific, educational, cultural sectors, in the field of social protection, healthcare, physical education, sports, and employment of citizens. A state-owned enterprise is, first of all, a participant in industrial activity. It is created, for example, to produce products of defense or other strategic importance. In this case, a state-owned enterprise is considered commercial, but an institution is not.

Legal status

As noted above, the property right of a state-owned enterprise is the right of operational management. Accordingly, it is impossible to form it on the basis of a combination of material assets classified as the property of the Russian Federation, regions or municipalities. A federal government enterprise is a legal entity with one founder. It is he who may own the material assets entrusted to operational management.

Normative base

From January 1, 1995 until the entry into force of Federal Law No. 161, the fundamentals of the legal status of state-owned enterprises were regulated exclusively by the Civil Code. This provision is specified by Article 6 (in paragraph 6) of Federal Law No. 52, which introduced the first part of the Code. It established that the relevant norms were applied to enterprises formed before the official publication of Part 1 of the Civil Code, operating under the right of economic management and operational management. Along with this Art. 113 of the Code provided that the legal status of the legal entities in question is determined not only by the provisions of the Civil Code, but also by a special law. This normative act, however, was adopted only on November 14, 2002. We are talking, in particular, about Federal Law No. 161.

Additions and amendments

According to Art. 37 Federal Law No. 161, all state-owned enterprises had to bring their charters into compliance with the law. At the same time, the deadline was set until July 1, 2003. Federal Law No. 161 specified some provisions of the Civil Code regulating the rules by which a state-owned enterprise is created and operates. This, in particular, affected articles 48-65 of the Code, as well as art. 113-115. In addition, the law prohibited the formation of subsidiaries by the legal entities in question. Article 115 has undergone the most significant changes. In accordance with the innovations, a legal entity can now be created not only on the basis of state property. This provision allows today to form a municipal government enterprise. This innovation removed the restrictions that existed previously. In particular, before the adoption of the law, the legal entities in question could be formed by government decree and exclusively on the basis of state property. Accordingly, the adopted charters had to be approved by the highest executive body. At the same time, subsidiary liability for the obligations was assigned to the Russian Federation. Liquidation and reorganization of legal entities were carried out only by government decision.

Key requirements of the law

The property of a state-owned enterprise is considered indivisible. It cannot be distributed among shares, units (contributions), including among employees. A government enterprise is a legal entity that can, in its own name, acquire and exercise legal rights (real and personal), and act as a defendant/plaintiff in court. The law requires that you have an independent balance sheet. The full name must include the phrase “State government enterprise.” This requirement applies only to legal entities created on the basis of state property. Accordingly, the names of entities formed in the Moscow Region must contain an indication of their territorial affiliation (“municipal government enterprise”). The name must also contain information about the owner (RF, region or MO). The seal of the legal entity must contain the full name in Russian and an indication of the location. It may also contain names in other (folk or foreign) languages. The location of the enterprise is determined by its state registration address. The details must indicate the postal code, locality, street, house/building, room number (if available). In the event of a change in information about the location of the enterprise, it sends a corresponding notification to the body authorized to carry out state registration of legal entities.

Nuances

It is worth noting that no other laws, except for the Civil Code and Federal Law No. 161, determine the legal status of a state-owned enterprise. This norm is directly enshrined in Article 113 (in paragraph 6) of the Code. As for the duties and rights of owners of material assets entrusted to a state-owned enterprise, the procedure for reorganization and liquidation, the legislation does not establish restrictions regarding the regulation of their other legal documents. For example, the procedure for the formation and management of government agencies is determined by government decree.

Type of ownership

Continuing the analysis of regulations governing the activities of state-owned enterprises, we can draw a certain analogy with the legal status of institutions. The first classification criterion is the form of ownership. It is the same for all state unitary enterprises (including those created in the Moscow Region) and institutions. This common feature indicates the unity of the goals of the formation of these legal entities. Both institutions and enterprises realize federal interests, which determines the peculiarities of regulatory regulation.

Founders

The composition of owners for state-owned institutions and enterprises provides for a general restriction. First of all, as mentioned above, there must be one founder. In accordance with regulatory requirements, it can be either the Moscow Region, or the Russian Federation, or a region.

Scope of legal options

According to this criterion, legal entities are classified depending on the range of rights that they are entitled to in relation to the property entrusted to them. When a subject is formed, it must be given certain legal capabilities. Property rights are necessary for the implementation of normal independent activities in accordance with the purposes of the creation. These material assets, as well as objects acquired in the course of work, become (as a general rule) the property of the subject. An exception to this provision are government institutions and enterprises. The owner, by transferring material assets to them, provides legal opportunities with some restrictions. In particular, subjects have the right to exercise operational management. When remains the main owner of material assets. This means that the enterprise can dispose of the entrusted property only with its consent. This equally applies to legal entities created by order of territorial authorities.

Owner

According to Art. 20 Federal Law No. 161, the powers of the legal owner of property transferred to a federal government enterprise in matters of creation, liquidation, and reorganization are exercised by the government. Other legal possibilities are implemented by both the Supreme Executive Institute of Government and other government agencies. Since December 1, 2007, the state corporation Rosatom has also been given the powers of owner. The rules regulating the procedure for the implementation of transferred legal opportunities by it are established by Federal Law No. 317. A corresponding addition was made to Law No. 161. The municipality of material assets transferred to a state-owned enterprise is sold by local authorities within the limits of their competence. The range of their legal possibilities is determined regulations regulating the status of these institutions.

A state-owned enterprise of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation is established by a decision of the state authority of the constituent entity of the Russian Federation, which, in accordance with the acts defining the status of this body, is granted the right to make such a decision.

A municipal government enterprise is established by a decision of a local government body, which, in accordance with the acts defining the status of this body, is granted the right to make such a decision.

In paragraphs 1-3 of Article 8 of the Law on Unitary Enterprises, regulating the powers of management bodies to establish a unitary enterprise, it is necessary to pay attention to the following:

a state-owned enterprise can now be not only federal, but also regional (subject of the Russian Federation) and municipal. The Civil Code of the Russian Federation previously allowed the creation and operation of only federal state-owned enterprises - on the basis of property in federal ownership. Corresponding changes have been made to the Civil Code of the Russian Federation with the adoption of the Law on Unitary Enterprises. In this case, there was no legislative conflict. However, the necessary changes were not made to the legislative acts establishing the powers of regional and local authorities (and containing a list of functions performed by these bodies). Thus, the exercise of the right to create state-owned enterprises of state authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and local governments is postponed, at least, until changes are made to the federal laws regulating their activities, and, at a maximum, until the completion of the ongoing reform of regional and local government.

A state-owned enterprise as a commercial structure must be self-financing. The government has determined the procedure for financing the activities of commercial enterprises, including those related to the implementation of the order plan and development plan, from its own income. This should become the norm in a market economy. Such a standard is all the more achievable when fulfilling a defense order, when it is possible to guarantee a fixed level of profitability by type of product, as provided for by the Law “On State Defense Order”.

Of course, there may be exceptions to this general rule if the enterprise is damaged by the actions of government organizations (owners) due to the creation of non-market conditions for the fulfillment of a mandatory task, as well as forced economic or administrative restrictions. In such cases, the state is obliged to compensate him for real damage, regardless of whether the enterprise has enough income to finance production or not. Funds from the budget for such compensation should be provided on a planned basis in order to achieve financial sustainability.

In addition to compensation for losses, a state-owned enterprise has the right to receive financial resources from the state for capital costs, implementation of a development plan, and maintenance of social infrastructure, but only in cases where it does not have enough of its own funds.

The main source of resources for ensuring expanded reproduction of a state-owned enterprise is income and profit. Therefore, the order of distribution of the latter is of decisive importance for the normal reproductive process.

But this issue remains complex and confusing; The Civil Code does not clarify it. It stipulates that for products: income from the use of property under economic management or operational management, as well as property acquired by a unitary enterprise, comes under economic management or operational management in the manner established by the Civil Code (Article 299.2). other laws and other legal acts for acquiring property rights. This means that the products and income of a unitary enterprise, regardless of whether the property is under economic management or operational management, belong to the founder-owner. Consequently, the procedure for distributing income of a state-owned enterprise is determined by the owner of its property.

As a result, the enterprise’s profit, received both from the implementation of the order plan and as a result of permitted independent activities, is distributed according to standards centrally established by the state body (owner). The so-called free balance of profit is withdrawn into budget revenue.

To correctly resolve the issue and justify the distribution of income and profit, it is necessary to recognize the fallacy of the very initial premise, which considers products and income as a consequence of the use of property (capital), and not the “productivity” of production factors. According to the theory of factors of production, the income of any enterprise, including a unitary one, is the result of all factors of production, i.e. labor, capital, natural resources, and entrepreneurial activity.

An indispensable condition for production efficiency is that in all enterprises each of these factors receives economic realization, and property subjects - participants in production assign a share of income corresponding to the productive power of the factor in the form of wages, interest, rent, profit, etc. Before such primary distribution, the results production (products, income) must go directly into the ownership of the manufacturer-enterprise or entrepreneur, who fulfills obligations to the owners of resources - participants in production.

This is exactly the approach implemented in Art. 136 of the Civil Code, which provides that proceeds received from the use of property belong to the person using it legally, i.e., the manufacturing enterprise or entrepreneur. It is not difficult to understand that the provisions of Art. 299.2 of the Civil Code contradict Art. 136.

When determining the procedure for distributing income of a state-owned enterprise, one must proceed from the fact that income and profit belong to it. and the owner, in turn, has the right to receive part of the profit in the form of payment for the use of property (interest on capital). This will sharply increase the interest of all participants in production in the results of management, since the owner of the property, participating in the business with his capital, the team of the enterprise - with labor, the entrepreneur - with organizational talent, receive a share of income from the total result to the extent of their efficiency.

Taking into account the above, the existing profit distribution mechanism can be improved in various directions. It is advisable to consider the possibility of alternative methods. Depending on the form of relationship with the budget, regulatory or tax distribution options are real. If the profit received from the implementation of the order plan can be distributed according to the normative method, then the profit received from carrying out independent economic activities must be distributed according to the tax option.