Judgment of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of 21 February 2012 № 13104/11 in the case The company “Leramony Associates Inc” vs The company “Meinl Bank AG” et al
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
- Point of law: whether the commercial court has a right to revise the choice of court made by the parties to a contract and declare the lack of jurisdiction over the ensuing contractual dispute in the absence of defendant’s motion to that effect as well as any violation of court’s exclusive jurisdiction or public policy?
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of 14 February 2012 № 12416/11 in the case The company “Mobile TeleSystems” vs The Krasnoyarsk Region Directorate of the Federal Service for the Protection of Consumers and Human Well-Being
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
- Point of law: the legality of a provision in the contract between the mobile service company and the customer (subscriber) which allows the former to recover the indebtedness of the latter by withdrawing money from another account of the same customer created under a different (analogous) contract between him and the company.
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of 14 February 2012 № 12826/11 in the case The company “Technosib” vs The administration of Evenk municipal district of Krasnoyarsk Region et al.
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
- Point of law: whether the plaintiff who won litigation against the State must take initiative as regards the execution of the court decision or it is the duty of the State itself to do so?
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of 7 February 2012 № 11637/11 in the case The company “Leroy Merlin Vostok” vs The Interdistrict tax inspection № 9 of the Moscow Region
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
- Point of law: whether marketing (incentive) bonuses for the volume of sales and for the presence of a commodity in shops payable by suppliers to retail sellers (retail chains) constitute a payment for services and as such ought to be included into sellers’ tax base for the purposes of VAT, or those bonuses are merely a way of price determination and therefore must not be included into tax base?
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of 7 February 2012 № 11746/11 in the case The company “Diagnostic centre “Energoeffectivnost i normirovanie” vs The Institution of the Ministry of Energy Power “The Directorate for power energy efficiency and saving in South Urals”
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
- Point of law: does a sentence of a criminal court have prejudicial force (res judicata) for commercial courts, provided that the commercial dispute is between legal entities, whereas the criminal sentence has been passed with regard to a natural person who headed the branch of the plaintiff company?
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of 7 February 2012 № 13135/11 in the case The company “Atlant-M Leasing” vs Irina Kolontaenko, an entrepreneur
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
- Point of law: which circumstances enable the court to determine by whom the seller of the asset being leased under financial leasing transaction has been chosen - by the lessor or lessee?
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of 31 January 2012 № 11025/11 in the case Research-and-production company "Kombioteks" vs The company "Serum Institute of India Ltd"
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
- Point of law: whether the invention previously patented in a foreign state ought to be taken into account when determining the level of technique within the procedure of consideration of patent application with regard to a supposedly equivalent invention?
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of 31 January 2012 № 12506/11 in the case The entrepreneur Elena Samsonova vs The City of Tula et al.
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
- Point of law: whether the recognition of the actions of a public authority as being unlawful by way of procedure of Chapter 24 of the Commercial Procedure Code is a necessary precondition of the recovery of losses caused by those actions pursuant to Arts 16 and 1069 of the Civil Code?
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of 31 January 2012 № 12787/11 in the case The company "Special construction bureau "Planeta" vs The company "Geofizpribor"
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
- Point of law: whether the duty to compensate for the court expenses may be placed upon a person who formally did not participate in the case but filed an appeal against the decision of the court (since the decision affected his the rights and duties) and thus in fact acted as a person participating in the case?
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of 24 January 2012 № 11738/11 in the case The company "Elektrosignal" vs Tamara Popova, an entrepreneur
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
- Point of law: whether two suits concerning the recovery of lease payments due are identical, given that both suits have the same grounds (both have arisen out of the same circumstances) and differ solely in the amount which is being demanded from the debtor (the first suit was about the recovery of a part of the debt only)?
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of 17 January 2012 № 9898/11 in the case The company “RusPromLeasing” vs The Tax Inspection № 4 for the City of Moscow
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
- Point of law: whether thin capitalisation rules in Art 269 of the Tax Code require that the comparability of conditions in a loan contract concluded by the taxpayer as a borrower should be determined exclusively by comparing them with the provisions of other loan contracts of the same taxpayer or, rather, the conditions existent in the entire credit market should be taken into account?
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of 17 January 2012 № 14499/11 in the case The company "Kontur SPb" vs The Administration of the sea port of Sankt-Petersburg
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
- Point of law: whether mandatory rules adopted by the administration of the port and signed by its captain are a normative legal act?
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of 17 January 2012 № 11292/11 in the case The Company "RLP-Yarmarka" vs The company "Aternum"
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
- Judgment of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of 17 January 2012 № 11292/11 in the case The Company “RLP-Yarmarka” vs The company “Aternum”
Subject areas:
Decree of the Plenary Session of the Supreme Commercial Court of 22 December 2011 № 81 “On certain questions of the application of Article 333 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation”
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
- In this decree the Supreme Commercial Court has resolved a number of controversial issues relating to the reduction of contractual penalty by way of court decisions.
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Presidium of Supreme Commercial Court of 20 December 2011 № 12262/11 in the case of the company "Grosh&K"
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
- Point of law: the federal law which entered into force on 1 November 2010 has limited the right to file to a court an application regarding the recovery of litigation costs by 6 month term from the moment of the completion of consideration of the case. Does this rule have a retroactive force and whether it may apply to cases whose consideration has been finished before that date?
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.