The Bankruptcy of State Enterprises in Ukraine through the Prism of the practice of the European Court of Human Rights
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The market economy, on the principles of which the Ukrainian society develops, assumes that business entities are created, develop and as a result of miscalculations in the management system may cease to exist.On the legal plane, the process of termination of the enterprise occurs by the recognition of insolvency and the passage of the procedure of bankruptcy.State-owned enterprises are not an exception.They can also be an inefficient business entity and require legal registration for the termination of activities.Taking into account the topicality, the article's aim was defined in accordance with the already considered cases.Namely: the Ukraine's state enterprises bankruptcy through the European Court of Human Rights prism.One took into account all the peculiarities concerned with the topical issue.In the research the analysis of real cases of declaring bankruptcy of Ukrainian state enterprises was carried out from the plane of human rights protection taking into account the practice of the European Court of Human Rights.The analysis of peculiarities of establishing the procedure for the disposition of property and repayment of obligations of state-owned enterprises in accordance with court decisions was carried out.It is established that since 2019 there is no legislative possibility of recognition of bankruptcy of state enterprise, which on the one hand minimizes misconduct towards state enterprises and deprives the possibility of abuse, and on the other hand -complicates the process of terminating the existence of inefficient state enterprises that cause damage to the state and through the law, unsettlement cannot be eliminated.The practical significance of the obtained results is the advisability of taking into account the experience of human rights protection in the process of bankruptcy proceedings against state-owned enterprises.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".