Unity and differentiation in the regulation of the legal status of budget and state-owned institutions

The typology of institutions as non profit organizations ?consuming? budget financing and participating in social and political life of the state is gaining strength. The state solves the problems of restructuring the budget sector of economy and develops a new concept of interaction with different types of institutions, including budget and state-owned ones. After adoption of new Federal Law the sphere of legal regulation of their legal personality has lost its uniformity. The issue of balance between the rules of different branches of law concerning budget and state-owned institutions became urgent. Analyzing the rules involved in the regulation of relations concerning these kinds of state (or municipal) institutions the author comes to the conclusions about inadmissibility of isolation of the budget law rules from the civil law rules which continue to be a priority for such institutions. The author distinguishes between budget and state-owned institutions according to the property independence features, objectives of the additional activities generating income, scope of responsibility for debts and obligations. Unlike budget institutions, the status of legal person for state-owned organizations performs official function, ensuring the participation of these subjects in property, tax, administrative, labour relations. Meanwhile, civil law should also regulate state-owned institutions activities. The rules of subsidiary liability of the founder act as the guarantor of responsibility for these institutions. However, their efficiency is doubtful because of strict procedure of sanctioning the payment of monetary obligations established by a financial authority for state-owned institutions, which excludes the possibility to penalize the institutions’ funds.