Judgment of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of 25 December 2012 № 8488/12 in the case The company “Business-Pravo” vs The judicial bailiff-executor Anton Minich
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
- Point of law: whether judicial bailiff-executor is obliged to respond in writing to requests from parties to execution proceedings?
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of 25 December 2012 № 10292/12 in the case The company “Jacobson Heritage Development” et al. vs The company “Karat”
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
- Point of law 1: whether the floating pledge (“pledge of goods in circulation”, Art 357, Civil Code) may have priority over a common (or “firm”) pledge (the pledge of individually specified items) in the event of there being competing claims which flow from these two kinds of security interests (liens)?
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Constitutional Court of 24 December 2012 № 32-П on the review of constitutionality of individual provisions of Federal Laws “On General Principles of Organization of Legislative (Representative) and Executive Bodies of State Power of the Subjects of the Russian Federation” and “On Fundamental Guarantees of Electoral Rights and the Right to Participate in a Referendum of Citizens of the Russian Federation” in connection with the request of a group of deputies of the State Duma
- Court:
- Constitutional Court
- Legal issue: 1) the constitutionality of norms which require from the candidates for the office of the head of the subject of the Federation to receive support from between 5 or 10 percent of the elected officials of local self-government; 2) the constitutionality of the norm which permits the President of the Russian Federation to consult by his own initiative the political parties, which nominate candidates, as well as self-nominees.
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of 11 December 2012 № 9604/12 in the case The company “Sibir Tranzitnefteprovod” vs The company “Karkade”
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
- Point of law: from which moment should start the term for filing a complaint to cassational court if earlier an appellate court has refused to restore the missed term for appeal?
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of 11 December 2012 № 4340/12 in the case The company “Stroygarant” vs The company “Real Estate Agency “Zhilishnyi Vopros”
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
- Point of law: which judicial instance should reconsider a case on the basis of new circumstances – the court which adopted the judicial act to be reconsidered or the higher instance court which subsequently endorsed that act?
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Constitutional Court of 6 December 2012 № 31-П on the review of constitutionality of Para 4 of Article 33 and Subparagraph “а” of Item 3 of Section 1 of Article 37 of the Federal Law “On the State Civil Service of the Russian Federation” in connection with the complaint of L.A.Pugieva
- Court:
- Constitutional Court
- Legal issue: the constitutionality of regulations which do not prohibit the dismissal of pregnant women who are civil servants, as opposed to their counterparts working under labour contracts?
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Constitutional Court of 5 December 2012 № 30-П on the review of constitutionality of the provisions of Para 5 of Article 16 of the Federal Law “On the Freedom of Conscience and on Religious Associations” and Para 5 of Article 19 of the Law of the Republic of Tatarstan “On the Freedom of Conscience and on Religious Associations” in connection with the complaint of the Commissioner for Human Rights in the Russian Federation
- Court:
- Constitutional Court
- Legal issue: whether the contested norms constitute an undue intervention by the State into the freedom of religion and the freedom to gather peacefully and without arms, given that these rules prescribe to conduct public religious ceremonies in the procedure established for conducting meetings, manifestations and demonstrations?
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of 4 December 2012 № 8989/12 in the case The company Almaz-Antey vs The Kirov Regional Directorate of the Federal Service for State Registration, Cadastre and Cartography
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
- Point of law: whether a transaction on the transfer of assets from a subsidiary to its mother company without any consideration is admissible?
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of 4 December 2012 № 11277/12 in the case The company “Melnitsa XXI vek” vs The Russian Author’s Society (RAO)
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
- Point of law: how specific should be the subject of a license contract concluded under Art 1243 of the Civil Code between the user of a musical composition (licensee) and the accredited organization for the management of rights on the collective basis (RАО), in order to be recognised as being agreed upon?
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Constitutional Court of 30 November 2012 № 29-П on the review of constitutionality of Section 5 of Article 244.6 and Section 2 of Article 333 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation in connection with the complaints of A.G.Kruglov, A.V.Margin, V.A.Martynov and Yu.S.Shardyko
- Court:
- Constitutional Court
- Legal issue: whether contested rules are constitutional, as long as they do enable a participant to court dispute to use his procedural rights, because they do not impose upon appellation court a duty to notify him about the place and time of considering his special appeal?
- Dissenting opinion:
- Zhilin Gennadiy
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of 27 November 2012 № 8651/12 in the case The entrepreneur Guliamov vs The Astrakhan Directorate of Federal Migration Service
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
- Point of law: whether a court may substitute an administrative fine imposed upon entrepreneur with the suspension of activity (considered by law as a more strict punishment), based only on the entrepreneur’s own desire?
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of 27 November 2012 № 9021/12 in the case The company “Mosoblavtodor” vs The company “Rosgosstrah”
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
- Point of law: whether debtor ought to perform properly his obligation to pay, even though he did not have information on the new bank account of the creditor.
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of 27 November 2012 № 8039/12 in the case The company “Joint Enterprise “Pamiat” vs The Volgograd Regional Branch of the Federal Antitrust Service
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
- Point of law: the meaning of the requirement that a request of the antitrust body to submit documents should be “reasoned”.
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Constitutional Court of 26 November 2012 № 28-П on the review of constitutionality of Section 1 of Article 16.2 and Section 2 of Article 27.11 of the Administrative Offences Code of the Russian Federation in connection with the complaint of the Limited Liability Company “Avesta”
- Court:
- Constitutional Court
- Legal issue: whether the constitutional rights of the applicant (a legal entity) were violated by the rules of legislation, which make the amount of fine for the failure to declare a commodity at customs dependent upon such insufficiently clear notion as market value of this commodity in the Russian Federation?
- Dissenting opinion:
- Knyazev Sergey , Melnikov Nikolay , Aranovskiy Konstantin
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of 20 November 2012 № 8953/12 in the case The company “Oktiabrskoe pole” vs The company “Trading house “Perekrestok”
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
- Point of law: whether the seller of a magazine, in which an object of intellectual property right (specifically, a photo) was placed may be held liable for it?
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.