Decision of the Supreme Commercial Court of 1 October 2012 № ВАС-6474/12 upon the application of Jan Topol, a citizen of Czech Republic
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
- Point of law: the legality of prohibition imposed by Rospatent upon appointing advocates as representatives of non-residents (both natural and legal persons) in patent disputes, whereas residents are permitted to hire advocates as well as patent attorneys.
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Presidium of Supreme Commercial Court of 25 September 2012 6616/12 in the case The company “FinansEkspert” vs The company “Energotehmash”
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
- Point of law: if a preliminary contract of lease of a piece of real estate had been concluded prior to the conclusion of a mortgage contract as to the same real estate, whether the real estate in question remains encumbered by lease in case of bankruptcy of the pledgor (lessor), and whether it is possible to judicially compel the pledgeholder to conclude contract of lease?
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Presidium of Supreme Commercial Court of 25 September 2012 № 5944/12 in the case The Deputy Military Prosecutor of the Western Military Circuit et al. vs The Moscow Regional Directorate of the Federal Agency for the Management of State Property et al.
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
- Point of law: whether restitution of a land plot as a consequence of invalidity of a purchase-sale contract is admissible, if after the conclusion of the contract the right of common share ownership to the land plot has been gained by owners of an apartment house built on this site?
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Presidium of Supreme Commercial Court of 18 September 2012 № 5338/12 in the case The company “Spektr” vs The Bath and Laundry Enterprise “Chaika” et al.
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
- Point of law: whether it is possible to recover interest for the use of another’s means (Art 395, Civil Code), if the party which lost the case, has failed to reimburse timely the litigation expenses to the winner?
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Presidium of Supreme Commercial Court of 18 September 2012 № 3933/12 in the case The company “Rostelecom” (as represented by its Krasnoyarsk branch) vs Tatiana Pertsovkina, an entrepreneur
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
- Point of law: whether the proven fact of unauthorised third party access to Internet by means of customer’s login and password, which were obtained unlawfully, may justify the customer’s refusal to pay for Internet services?
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Presidium of Supreme Commercial Court of 11 September 2012 № 5939/12 in the case The company “Hame s.r.o” (Czech Republic) vs The company “Ruzkom” et al.
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
- Point of law: whether a factory violates an exclusive right to another’s trademark, when it packages its own goods with the packing, on which a designation, confusingly similar to this trade mark, has been put not by the factory itself, but by a third person (the supplier of the packing)?
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Presidium of Supreme Commercial Court of 4 September 2012 № 3809/12 in the case The Prefecture of the Southern Administrative District of Moscow vs The company “London Bridge Market”
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
- Point of law 1: what is the proper judicial remedy against the violation of rights of the owner of a land plot, if a lessee has built a permanent structure on it without consent of the owner and subsequently registered his ownership with respect to such structure?
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Presidium of Supreme Commercial Court of 30 July 2012 in the case The company “Russian Railways” (RZhD) vs The Directorate of the Federal Antitrust Service for Rostov Region
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
- Point of law: whether it is a violation of antitrust legislation that the booking clerks of RZhD, alongside with selling railway tickets, were also rendering services on voluntary insurance, without receiving purchaser’s consent to such services and without explaining to him the conditions of insurance contract and the rules of its conclusion?
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Presidium of Supreme Commercial Court of 24 July 2012 № 2544/12, № 2545/12 и № 2598/12 in the case The company “Perspektivnye Tekhnologhii” vs Tax Inspection № 3 for the City of Moscow
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
- Points of law: 1) whether court has a right to evaluate at its own initiative the reasonability of amounts expended by the winning party for court representation, and subsequently reduce them when recovering them from the losing party? 2) whether the evaluation of the reasonability of expenses is anyhow affected by the fact that they must be recovered from the State budget?
- Dissenting opinion:
- Petrova Svetlana
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Presidium of Supreme Commercial Court of 17 July 2012 № 17528/11 in the case The company “Les” vs The Federal Customs Service of the Russian Federation
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
- Point of law: whether it is possible to recover a contributory compensation of moral harm (i.e., harm to company’s reputation) from a State body which adopted an unlawful decision against the company?
Subject areas:
Decree of the Plenary Session of Supreme Commercial Court of 12 July 2012 N 43 “On Making Changes in the Judgment of the Plenary Session of Supreme Commercial Court of the Russian Federation of 17.02.2011 N 12 “On Certain Questions of the Application of the Commercial Procedure Code of the Russian Federation in the version of the Federal Law of 27.07.2010 N 228-FZ “On Making Changes in the Commercial Procedure Code of the Russian Federation”
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
- By this judgment the Plenary Session of the Court clarified its own earlier explanations regarding court notices, and gave additional explanations as to litigation expenses.
Subject areas:
Decree of the Plenary Session of the Supreme Commercial Court of 12 July 2012 N 42 “On Certain Questions Regarding the Resolution of Disputes Connected to Suretyship”
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
- In this explanatory Judgment the Court has elucidated an array of issues concerning suretyships.
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Presidium of Supreme Commercial Court of 10 July 2012 № 17713/11 in the case The company “The Silver of Maghadan” vs The Interdistrict Tax Inspection № 1 for Maghadan Region
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
- Point of law: is it lawful to have in an export contract, under which silver is sold abroad, a clause establishing a “price corridor” in the form of admissible deviations from the price of the silver in the world market?
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Presidium of Supreme Commercial Court of 10 July 2012 № 6791/11 in the case The company INTEKO vs The Interregional Tax Inspection for Major Taxpayers № 3
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
- Point of law: whether expenses incurred by the plaintiff for receiving a bank guarantee, which was a precondition for receiving an injunctive relief from the court, may be included into litigation expenses?
Subject areas:
Decision of the Supreme Commercial Court of 3 July 2012 N ВАС-4065/12
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
- Point of law: whether an explanatory letter of the Federal Antitrust Service, which says that it is unlawful to create the subject of public sale (tender) by putting together works on preparation of project documentation and works on the organisation of construction, conforms to the law.
Subject areas:
Have you spotted a typo?
Highlight it, click Ctrl+Enter and send us a message. Thank you for your help!
To be used only for spelling or punctuation mistakes.