The Order’s bailiffs of Narva were obligated to take charge of economic welfare of the town with the aim of defense maintenance. As one part of this task, the bailiffs were engaged in Livonian-Russian trade, including the control of the fulfillments of the Grand Master’s prohibitions on the sale of sensitive goods, normally horses. At a time of escalation in Livonian-Russian relations the Masters did not allow the trade of “big or important” horses, i.e. those horses could be used for military purposes. At the same time, sources show that the Order’s prohibitions were constantly violated not only by Russian and Livonian merchants, but also by representatives of the town authorities, in particular of Reval, therefore the bailiffs of Narva had quite large powers and had a right to put horses under arrest (as well as other goods, if they were excluded for export), in case the merchants did not have official documents allowing the export of such goods. However, even with such official documents, the bailiff could leave the horse in Livonia if he found it suitable for military purposes. Considering the fact that there were no other requirements except the ceiling price for an exported horse the horses bought in Reval often stayed at the border and the concluded deals cancelled. At the moment, the question of engagement of bailiffs of Narva in the system of Livonian-Russian trade relations is actually missed by researchers. This article outlines the role of bailiffs in the horse trade with Russia, and also traces the evolution dynamics of theOrder’s prohibitions over a period of the 15th century. Following on from the materials of the Tallinn city archive (fund230, BB 52 I, BD 8) the author reasons that the significant role of bailiffs in the Livonian-Russian trade was dictated not only by the near-border position of the town, but also by the specific relations settled between the Livonian Order andNarva in the 15th century.

The article dwells upon the key factors which shaped the approach of Viscount Castlereagh, the British  Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1812 – 1822), with respect to the Polish question in the run-up to the Congress of Vienna 1814 – 1815, the evolution of the diplomat’s attitude towards this  problem,  as  well as  the   diplomatic   struggle   between the British Foreign Secretary and his European counterparts over the post-war organization of the territories inhabited by the Poles.

The research task consists in the attempt to  analyse  the  conceptual   framework of the Foreign Office’s attitudetowards the post-war  territorial  settlement  of the Polish lands, as well as Castlereagh’s personality factor, that was of significant importance in the course of his diplomatic struggle over the Polish cause with the Great Powers’ representatives, especially with Alexander the Great.

The article’s novelty consists in the attempt to place the Foreign Secretary’s position at the centre of the analysis of a crucial issue considered at the Congress of Vienna, and to touch upon the influence of Castlereagh’s political background and some domestic and foreign factors that influenced his position.

As a result, the author draws the conclusion that the final settlement of the Polish question was successful for Castlereagh and beneficial for the United Kingdom in spite of the difference between the final decisions and the demands of the Foreign Secretary that were expressed  on  the eve of the Congress. Besides, there is a continuity between Castlereagh’s views on the European territorial settlement and the “just equilibrium” concept, set forth by W. Pitt the Younger: a necessary condition for its realisation was the prevention of accession of Polish lands to only one Great Power. Moreover, the author emphasises the unprecedented for then British Foreign Secretaries involvement in the continental problems, which coincided with the decisive European events. 

The article  deals  with  the  specificities of the definition  of  the  notion  of shadow economy, with  core  factors  of its  development  and  applied  methods of measuring  of  its  size  are  analyzed. An assessment of the current state, dynamics of the development and sectoral distribution of the shadow sector of the economy of EU countries is provided. Special attention is given to modern trends that positively or negatively influence the issue of fighting shadow economy in EU countries. Key methods of fighting shadow economy that are applied in EU countries are analyzed and the question of their effectiveness is considered.

The article deals with the financial organization of the Royal houses in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Principality of Liechtenstein. Attention is also paid to the legal side of allocating funds for the existence of monarchical institution. The author reveals the sources of funding,individual items of income and expenses, provides data on the amount of funds allocated for the last financial year andthe current taxation procedures in relation to the reigning monarchs. In addition, the article describes the powers of themonarchs of the countries in question and the level of their political influence. Of interest is the fact that countries adopt completely different approaches to the issue of material support for their rulers. This is due to the different historicalways of forming state institutions in these countries, as well as the significance and functions of the sovereign at thepresent stage. The British monarchy is one of the richest in Europe. The Royal family has both public funds allocated annually and private property and assets. The main source of subsidies from the budget is the Crown Estate, which was actually transferredby the monarch to the executive authorities more than two hundred years ago. At the same time, funds allocated to the Royal family in the Netherlands are strictly regulated. They are distributed among three groups of expenditures, theamount of funding for each of which is strictly limited. Public funds are also allocated to provide for only four members of the Royal family, whose right to public funding is enshrined in the country’s Constitution. The Principality of Liechtenstein is a unique case, since the ruling family does not receive any funds for its existence from the country’s budget. The princely house is completely self-sufficient due to large assets, income from land ownership and its own banking business. The author analyzes and reveals the relationship between the financial situation of the monarchs of the countries under consideration, their level of dependence on state allocations and the political power they exercise.