Judgment of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of 9 October 2012 № 7628/12 in the case Citizen Korneev et al. vs Uniastrum Bank
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
- Point of law: whether it is possible to institute a group action under Chapter 28.2 of the Commercial Procedure Code, if the plaintiff and the persons, in whose interests he files a suit, are not participants of the same legal relation, because their demands as to the recovery of losses are based on independent contracts, the losses differ in terms of their amounts and composition, and the plaintiff lacks the status of individual entrepreneur?
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of 9 October 2012 № 9847/11 in the case The company “TGK № 2” vs The company “ZhEU ZAVremstroy”
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
- Point of law: whether the person who succeeded in receiving a court decision which prescribes the review of the case on the basis of new or newly discovered circumstances may claim from the opposite party the reimbursement of his expenses for court representation?
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of 9 October 2012 № 6499/12 in the case The company “Chimagropromtorg” vs The state scientific institution “Elets experiment station for potato”
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
- Point of law: whether the term for submission of cassational complaint in electronic form has been missed, given that the complaint came into the personal account of the user (a party to proceedings) on the final day provided by law for submitting it to cassational court, but the court has actually received it on the next day only?
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Plenary Session of the Supreme Commercial Court of 8 October 2012 № 62 “On Certain Issues of Consideration by Commercial Courts of Cases in Simplified Procedure”
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Plenary Session of the Supreme Commercial Court of 8 October 2012 № 58 “On Certain Issues of the Practice of Application of the Federal Law “On Advertising” by Commercial Courts”
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Plenary Session of the Supreme Commercial Court of 8 October 2012 № 61 “On the Ensuring of Transparency in Commercial Proceedings”
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Plenary Session of the Supreme Commercial Court № 59 and Judgment of the Plenary Session of the Supreme Commercial Court № 60 of 8 October 2012
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
- Both judgments elucidate the issues connected to the creation of the Court for Intellectual Property Rights within the system of commercial courts.
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of 2 October 2012 № 6040/12 in the case The company “Vítkovice Power Engineering” vs BinBank
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
- Point of law: whether guarantor (a bank) may refuse paying to the beneficiary under bank guarantee with reference to the fact that the principal failed to perform his contractual duty of returning advance payments to the beneficiary due to reasons which evolved without principal’s fault.
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of 2 October 2012 № 6272/12 in the case The company “Prigranichie” vs The Company “Vostok-Avto-Bir”
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
- Point of law: admissibility of the plaintiff’s argument that respondent’s vehicles could not cross the border of the Russian Federation without using the transportation facilities belonging to the plaintiff.
Subject areas:
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 № 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 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 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:
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.