CIVIL LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY OF HIGHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS

ГРАЖДАНСКО-ПРАВОВАЯ ОТВЕТСТВЕННОСТЬ ВЫСШИХ УЧЕБНЫХ ЗАВЕДЕНИЙ

Раимов Эльбек Бахадырович

старший преподаватель кафедры «Юридических наук» Национального университета Узбекистана имени Мирзо Улугбека,

Республика Узбекистан, г. Ташкент

ABSTRACT

This article analyzes the scientific theoretical basis of the origin of civil legal liability of higher education organizations. In addition, the characteristics of the implementation of property and non-property liability measures against higher education organizations were studied.

АННОТАЦИЯ

В статье анализируются научно-теоретические основы возникновения гражданско-правовой ответственности высших учебных заведений. Кроме того, были изучены особенности реализации мер имущественной и неимущественной ответственности в отношении высших учебных заведений.

Keywords: civil tort, non-property penalty, organizational liability.

Ключевые слова: гражданское правонарушение, неимущественное взыскание, организационная ответственность.

As noted in legal literature, civil liability is understood as the application of legal measures of influence provided for in civil legislation or contracts, provided for by state coercive force in the event of voluntary non-fulfillment, aimed at eliminating the consequences of a civil offense, including full compensation for damage or mitigating these consequences, and manifested in depriving the offender or subjects held liable by law of certain subjective rights or imposing additional civil obligations or causing other adverse negative consequences [1].

This definition is notable for its broad interpretation of civil liability, which is aimed at covering all aspects. According to N. Egamberdieva, a crime is a crime for a legal entity, and it is logically incorrect for an organization (a crime entity) to commit a crime. However, when determining the issue of civil liability of legal entities, it is necessary to take into account the fact that the crime was committed by its employees in the process of exercising the rights and obligations of the legal entity itself [2].

It is advisable to divide non-property sanctions applied to a university that committed a crime into such types as organizational and preventive measures of a personal nature. Non-property responsibilities of the first type are applied, for example, in connection with encroachment on the business reputation of the organization, which consists in the obligation of the higher education institution - the defendant - to refute information that does not correspond to the truth disseminated in the media. Experience shows that this responsibility is most widespread on the eve of the activities of admissions committees of higher education institutions and during the academic year. This is explained by the competition of educational institutions in the market of educational services. Along with personal responsibilities, property responsibilities are applied to the university in this case. For example, the damage caused to the higher education institution as a result of the student(s) refusing to conclude a ready-made contract after the dissemination of incorrect information by a competing university about its unstable position in the market of educational services is subject to compensation.

Termination of the contract by the university due to its serious violation should be distinguished from refusal to conclude the contract. Such refusal does not always serve as a preventive measure. If it is applied in connection with the violation of the rights of the subject of the contract, it cannot be considered liability. It is worth recalling that Article 707 of the Civil Code allows not only the customer, but also the executor - a higher educational institution - to unilaterally refuse to perform a contract for the provision of educational services for a fee. Preventive responsibilities are aimed at stopping the university from acting in violation of the rights of third parties, imposing restrictions on the implementation of its own rights, or imposing restrictions on the implementation of prohibitions established by law. An example of such sanctions is the recognition of an agreement (part of an agreement) concluded by the university as invalid. Such recognition may be justified, for example, by contractual terms that violate the rights of the consumer in relation to the rules established by current laws or other legal acts in the field of consumer protection.

In the author opinion, preventive measures include the suspension of the entrepreneurial activity of a higher educational institution, which will harm educational activities until a court decision is made on this issue. At the same time, the basis for suspending such activities, in the author opinion, may be not only the obstacle to the provision of appropriate quality educational services, but also the emergence of a threat to the life and health of its employees. We consider that only the founders (founders) of a higher educational institution have the right to apply this protective measure. It is he who determines the list of types of activities that the university has the right to carry out and the conditions for their implementation [3].

If a higher educational institution does not eliminate the reasons that served as the basis for suspending entrepreneurial activities, the founder (founders) have the right to apply to the court for the compulsory termination of such activities. In this case, the court may decide to terminate the entrepreneurial activity of the university. In turn, a higher education institution has the right to appeal to the court against the actions of the founder (founders) to suspend entrepreneurial activity, as well as against the court decision to liquidate it.

Civil penalties, as a measure of adverse consequences, entail two types of deprivation of the offending higher education institution: first, it may be deprived of certain rights due to their improper implementation; second, it may be imposed with the termination or continuation of a previously arising obligation (compensation for damages, payment of a penalty, return of property for which there is no legal basis, etc.).

By their purpose, property liability is punitive and restorative. The first, first of all, includes a fine (penalty), which is applied regardless of the presence of material damage. For example, according to the provisions of Article 19, Clause 5 of the Law "On Protection of Consumer Rights", if the executor fails to perform the contract on time or it becomes clear that the contract will not be performed within the established period, the consumer has the right to withdraw from the contract for the performance of work, the provision of services and demand compensation for the damage caused. The contract may also provide for the payment of a fine in this case.

Legal measures of influence, such as the recovery of damage or the return of property illegally taken from someone else's possession, are aimed directly at restoring the property status of the victim. It is widely recognized that higher educational institutions are responsible for fulfilling their obligations under the contract for the provision of paid educational services [4, p. 450].

If a higher education institution fails to provide educational services within the standard period for mastering the educational program (programs) of higher education in the direction of education (specialization) established in the contract, it shall be considered a violation of the obligation to provide educational services. Failure by the university to properly fulfill its obligations to provide educational services is understood as any indicator that violates the license requirements or deviates from the duration and/or sequence of subjects and courses established in the state educational standard of higher professional education in the relevant direction and in the contract for training or specialization, or paid educational services.To solve the general problem of improper provision of educational services in higher education institutions, it is necessary to ensure the appropriate quality of the services provided.It is clear that in the event of non-fulfillment or improper fulfillment by a higher education institution of its obligations under a contract for the provision of paid educational services, students (legal representatives) have the right to demand the following at their discretion:

• reimbursement of funds spent on education in full or in part;

• free elimination of the consequences of improper fulfillment of the contract, in particular, free implementation of training and (or) educational activities that were allowed to be properly performed;

• full or in part reimbursement of the costs of studying at another university;

• a corresponding reduction in the cost of educational services.

It is recommended that the university submit a claim for free elimination of the consequences of improper execution of the contract for the provision of educational services, both individually (by legal representatives) and collectively, based on the decision of a group of students. If the higher education institution refuses to voluntarily meet the demands of students (their legal representatives), they have the right to appeal to the court.

Reference:

1. Муаллифлар жамоаси. (2017). Фуқаролик ҳуқуқи. Дарслик. Тошкент: ТДЮУ.
2. Эгамбердиева, Н. (2005). Фуқаролик-ҳуқуқий жавобгарликнинг асослари ва шакли: юрид. фан. номз. Дисс. Тошкент.
3. Kaplin, W. A., & Lee, B. A. (2013). The law of higher education: Student version. John Wiley & Sons.
4. Dadaboeva, D. A. (2021). Civil-legal regulation of educational services. ACADEMICIA: An International Multidisciplinary Research Journal, 11(8), 448-453.