GANBOLD UNANCH

Municipal-private partnerships, as a type of public-private partnership, are widely regarded as the best instrument for addressing a wide range of tasks related to modernizing municipal infrastructure and improving the quality of life for the local population.However,as a comparative study of Mongolian and Russian legislation has demonstrated, there are substantial differences in how these laws are implemented in practice. In Russia, local self-government bodies are given more authority to make decisions about the use of municipal property, which, according to the author, is more beneficial to the population of municipalities. However, there are some gaps in the legislation governing these relationships, which justifies discussions about the need for additional development of public-private partnerships at the local government level as well as improvements to the current system. In Mongolia, it should be associated with the expansion of powers of local self-government bodies to make independent decisions on their use, whereas in Russia, it should be related to providing a wide range of forms of their realization,which necessitate systematic normative fixation.Municipal-private partnership can find its embodiment in a variety of organizational and legal forms, each of which has a significant specificity,but all of them are characterized by the long-term nature of the relationship between private and public partners, combining their resources and proportionally distributing the risks arising in the implementation of joint projects.

The specificity of the legal regime for municipal property is determined by various factors, including features of the administrative-territorial structure, relations between different levels of public authority, the economic policy of the state, and the essential characteristics of the legal system. An analysis of Russian and Mongolian legislation showed some significant differences in consolidating the right to municipal property. Some of them are caused by varying independence levels of municipalities. In Mongolia, the combination of the principles of self-governance and public administration provides a wide range of opportunities for public authorities to participate in municipal property management. The author notes that Russia and Mongolia have a fundamentally different approaches to understanding the essence of rights to property and other objects of civil law. In Russia, the legislator tries to adhere to the distinction between property rights and rights of obligation; in Mongolia, there is a proprietary concept that allows any objects to be considered as objects of property rights. That makes possible the resolution of controversial issues regarding the ownership of municipalities on budget funds, non-documentary securities, and intellectual property rights.