The most essential interpretation relates to delimitation of jurisdiction between general and commercial courts in economic disputes and other civil-law cases: the Supreme Court believes that a natural person may be a part to commercial proceedings only if he is registered as an individual entrepreneur or his participation (without the status of individual entrepreneur) in commercial proceedings was directly provided for by a federal law.

Besides, there is an important provision regarding family law: if a parent receives an “extra-high” income, as a result of which he will have to pay the amount of alimony exceeding “reasonable needs” of his child, it does not testify to the violation of interests of any party to the alimony arrangement, because such circumstance is not on the list of circumstances, under which the determination of the alimony in lump sum is possible. Thus, the Supreme Court rejected the idea of limiting the amounts of alimony by “reasonable needs” of the child; in other words, the determination of alimony as a percentage of parent’s income shall remain to be a dominant approach in cases of child support (excepting the situations when lump sum is explicitly permitted by a statute).