he right of football clubs to establish local bans (the so-called “blacklists”) depends on a number of reasons. A local ban on visiting football matches can act as a measure to combat the unlawful behaviour of viewers, thus complementing the administrative responsibility of the spectators. In Russian law it is not possible to impose a ban on the sale of tickets to football matches by football clubs. The current wording of the rules of spectators’ behaviour during official sporting events does not, by default, allow supporter identity checks when entering the stadium. That also complicates the identification of spectators for being on the “blacklist”. The practice of civil suits brought by football clubs against supporters, as one of the few legal tools to influence supporters, is currently not widespread. As a result, there are no uniform approaches to resolve these disputes: the courts motivate refusals by various arguments, the validity of which can be reasonably criticised.

Sports disputes resolution has a private legal nature and therefore per se should not be based on the principles of a branch of public law such as criminal law. At the same time sport sanctions sometimes have a negative effect comparable with administrative law and even criminal law. However, does this lead to the conclusion that it is necessary to extend to sports liability the guarantees provided by criminal law principles? The use of general principles of law in sports jurisprudence, at first view, should not cause the slightest doubt. At the same time, doubts in the said conclusion may suddenly appear by the reflection of certain principles of criminal law of fundamental values. Is this indeed the case, or does the practice of sports dispute resolution (un)intentionally maintain ambiguity and selective recognition of general principles? One can give the example of the principle nulla poena sine culpa, the desire to extend it to any sporting legal order is quite obvious. The heterogeneity of the institute of sports liability demonstrates several variants of such without taking into account the fault of the subject of sport, and raises reasonable questions about the inconsistency of this example with the piety of the general principles of law. Let us turn to the practice of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), which in this brief review will allow to reveal features of the current sports jurisprudence on a global level and offer some answers to the questions we have mentioned.

The purpose of this article is to formulate recommendations for organizing network form of learning using the online component. The advantages of using the online component in the educational process are outlined. Methodology: in the process of preparing the article, the dialectical method was used, which consists in the application of methods of analysis, scientific generalization. Conclusions. The authors consider the organization of network form of learning as a promising area of joint activities of educational organizations and other organizations that have the resources necessary for the implementation of educational programs. The article formulates the key characteristics of network form of learning, analyzes changes in the regulation of issues of organizing network learning. Scientific and practical significance. Taking these aspects into account, the authors propose possible models for including the online component in the organization of network form of learning. Issues are considered in relation to higher education.

The clubs legal responsibility for the behavior of supporters is used by UEFA to in-fluence the content of sports competitions, ideally abstracted from demonstrating by spectators any non-football ideas. Nevertheless, the regulation of the national associa-tions-members of UEFA also assumes the responsibility of the clubs and, sometimes, the supporters themselves for the unacceptable behavior of the latter. The experience of regulation this issue by the Austrian Football Association demonstrates mentioned approach. Therefore, it is interesting to make a comparison: how much the regulated responsibility of supporters affects to the regulation by the association a strict liability of clubs for the behavior of fans. Using the practice of CAS, we may see a presumptive approach on the basis of an assessment of the situation by “a reasonable and objective observer” for the objective resolution of a dispute.

In this article, we present the first generalization and analysis of decisions made by Russian courts of general jurisdiction from 2009 to 2016 for the application of provisions of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, the Federal Law of November 21, 2011 No. 323-FZ ʼOn the fundamentals of protecting the health of citizens in the Russian Federationʼ, the Federal Law of July 3, 2016 No. 238-FZ ʼOn independent qualification assessmentʼ, the Federal Law of December 29, 2013 No. 273-FZ ʼOn education in the Russian Federationʼ, the Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of October 28, 2013 No. 966 ʼOn licensing educational activitiesʼ adopted to fulfill the Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of May 7, 2012 No. 599 ʼAbout measures to implement the state policy in the sphere of education and scienceʼ in the field of advanced training and (or) professional training of employed population aged from 25 to 65 years. As a result, we have made several conclusions. Firstly, if periodical advanced training is a mandatory condition for admission to work (for example, for medical workers), then courts using separate methods of protecting rights of citizens (in particular, health care), should understand the consequences of these decisions. Secondly, the imposition of administrative sanctions in accordance with Part 3 of Article 19.20 of the Code of Administrative Offences due to the non-systematic increase in the professional level of educators recommends improving the algorithm for substantiating the gross violation of license requirements. Thirdly, the legal status of a person who has concluded an agreement on advanced training differs from that of an apprenticeship contract, and the guarantees for this person are not established by Articles 203-205 but rather Article 187 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation. Therefore, courts should not qualify a contract on advanced training as an apprenticeship contract. Fourthly, if advanced training is not designated for employees as additional qualification and an employer does not have the duty to pay for this training, then the resolution of a possible dispute should be based on whether the employer's interest is realized or not. Fifthly, the impossibility of an employee to work should be objective and compulsory, which is assessed by the law enforcer based on the balance of rights and interests of both parties of the corresponding employment contract. Sixthly, the legal regulation of the independent assessment of working qualification requires its improvement and alignment with norms of the labor legislation of the Russian Federation.