Judgment of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of 26 June 2012 № 17769/11 in the case The Baltic Customs Office vs The company “Optimum-Kargo”
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
- Point of law: whether it constitutes an unlawful use of the trademark on the part of an importer to place a designation which is confusingly similar to the trademark upon shipment-related documentation (such as invoice, packing list and compliance certificate)?
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of 26 June 2012 № 745/12 in the case Mikhail Kolesnikov, an entrepreneur vs The Inspection of the Federal Tax Service № 15 for the City of Moscow
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
- Point of law: whether it is admissible to recover from a State body the expenses for legal services borne by an entrepreneur in connection with considering in administrative procedure wrongful complaints of such State body against his actions as a bankruptcy trustee?
Subject areas:
Decree of the Plenary Session of the Supreme Commercial Court of 22 June 2012 № 36 “On Certain Issues Connected with the Application of Chapter III.1 of the Federal law 'On Insolvency (Bankruptcy)'”
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
Subject areas:
Decree of the Plenary Session of the Supreme Commercial Court of 22 June 2012 № 35 “On Certain Procedural Issues Connected with the Consideration of Bankruptcy Cases”
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of 21 June 2012 in the case The company “Media-Markt-Saturn” vs The Lipetsk Regional Branch of the Federal Antitrust Service
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
- Point of law: given that a judgment of appellate court, which under Art 288 (part 4) of Commercial Procedure Code is not subject to cassational appeal, has deemed the imposition of a fine for a violation of legislation on advertising to be ungrounded and therefore unlawful, but later the cassational court has confirmed the existence of the violation in the plaintiff’s conduct, what should be a lawful outcome of such collision of two court decisions, both of which have entered into legal force?
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of 21 June 2012 № 1831/12 in the case “Russian Phone Company” vs The company “Sony Ericsson Mobile Communicational Rus”
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
- Point of law: whether a choice-of-court clause in an agreement may confer the right to apply to a competent State court upon only one party and deprive the other party of the same right, thus leaving to it only the opportunity to apply to an arbitration court?
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of 21 June 2012 № 3352/12 in the case The company “KIT Finans Investment bank” vs The company “Formula pereezda”
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
- Point of law: whether the impossibility to stop spreading of fire caused by short-circuit may qualify as an insuperable force (an Act of God or major force)?
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of 7 June 2012 № 14592/11 in the case The company “TGK-9” vs The Perm Regional Branch of the Federal Antitrust Service
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
- Point of law: whether a third person, that is, a participant of the litigation who does not present separate demands as to the subject matter of the dispute, may recover litigation expenses?
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of 7 June 2012 № 16513/11 in the case Rosselkhozbank (as represented by its Maghadan regional branch) vs The company “Alisa” et al.
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of 5 June 2012 № 76/12 in the case The company “Financial and Industrial Union Sibkonkord” vs The Holding company “Sibirskii Cement” et al.
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
- Point of law: under which conditions a transaction concluded by a joint-stock company in violation of a law may be deemed to be invalid upon the suit of a shareholder as being against his rights and lawful interests?
Subject areas:
Information Letter of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of 24 May 2012 № 151 “The Review of the Practice of Consideration by Commercial Courts of the Disputes Connected with the Exclusion of a Member from a Limited Liability Company”
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
- In the opinion of the Presidium, a member may be excluded from a limited liability company only if he commits actions which knowingly inflict harm upon the company, thereby destroying trust among members and obstructing the continuation of normal activities of the company.
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of 22 May 2012 № 17395/11 in the case The Ulianovsk regional union of consumer societies vs The Ulianovsk regional branch of the Federal Service for State Registration, Cadastre and Cartography
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
- Point of law: whether the Federal law “On Participation in Shared Construction of Apartment Houses and Other Objects of Real Estate” covers the cases in which not a construction of an apartment house, but a reconstruction of an existent building takes place?
Subject areas:
Information Letter of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of 22 May 2012 № 150 “The Review of the Practice of Consideration by Commercial Courts of the Disputes Connected with the Dismissal of Bankruptcy Trustees”
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
- In this Information Letter the Presidium gave to courts a number of recommendations. It appears that they mainly aim at curbing an unduly narrow and formal approach shown by courts when resolving disputes related to the dismissal of bankruptcy trustees.
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of 22 May 2012 № 13443/11 in the case The company “MIG Story” vs The city of Kaliningrad
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
- Point of law: whether the demand of a person to recover the losses (expenses) is lawful, if they were borne as a result of his fulfilment of a decision of a public authority which was adopted following the request of the same person, but was knowingly not conforming to a law?
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of 24 April 2012 № 16404/11 in the case The company “Olimpia” vs The company “Parex banka” et al.
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
- Points of law: 1) whether the actual presence in the territory of the Russian Federation of a representative office of a foreign legal entity constitutes, under the Agreement between the Republic of Latvia and the Russian Federation on Legal Assistance and Legal Relations in Civil, Family and Criminal Matters (1993), a sufficient ground for assuming jurisdiction by a Russian commercial court with regard to a dispute involving the aforementioned foreign legal entity, or it is only the formal presence of a properly registered representative office that may constitute the necessary precondition for such assuming of jurisdiction?; or 2) whether it is essential, for the purposes of determining the jurisdiction (proper venue), that the Russian branches of the foreign legal entity did not take part in assisting the disputed transactions?
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.