Ruling of the Constitutional Court of 28 June 2012 № 1252-О on the refusal to accept for consideration the complaint of the Open Joint-Stock Company “Fabrika Proizvodstva Platkov” against the violation of constitutional rights and freedoms by Articles 337 and paragraph 1 of Article 352 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, and also paragraph 1 of Article 50 of the Federal law “On Mortgage (Pledge of Immovables)”
- Court:
- Constitutional Court
- Legal issue: whether the contested provisions are constitutional, if – according to an interpretation given by courts, in particular by the Plenary Session of the Supreme Arbitrazh (Commercial) Court in its Decree of 17 February 2011 № 10 “On Certain Questions of the Application of Legislation on Pledge” - they do not permit the termination of the pledge in the event of such a change of the obligation secured thereby, which entails the increase of liability of the pledgor and the risk of his losing the pledged property.
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Constitutional Court of 27 June 2012 № 15-П on the review of constitutionality of paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 29, paragraph 2 of Article 31 and Article 32 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation in connection with the complaint of the citizen I.B.Delova
- Court:
- Constitutional Court
- Legal issue: whether the contested provisions are constitutional, since they do not imply the possibility of such restriction of person's dispositive legal capacity which is necessary for the protection of his rights because of mental disturbance and would be commensurate to his degree of ability to understand the significance of his actions and manage them, and thus deprive such citizen of the right to perform legally significant actions, including the disposal of a pension in order to satisfy his everyday needs.
- Dissenting opinion:
- Zhilin Gennadiy
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:
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:
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 № 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 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 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 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 Constitutional Court of 7 June 2012 № 14-П on the review of constitutionality of provisions of subparagraph 1 of Article 15 of the Federal law “On Procedure for Leaving the Russian Federation and Entering the Russian Federation” and Article 24 of the Law of the Russian Federation “On State Secrecy” in connection with the complaint of citizen A.N.Ilchenko
- Court:
- Constitutional Court
- Legal issue: whether these provisions justifiably restrict the right of persons, who were admitted to the State secrets and informed about the data of special importance or top-secret information, to leave the Russian Federation.
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 Constitutional Court of 5 June 2012 № 13-П on the review of constitutionality of provisions of paragraph 2 of Article 1086 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation in connection with the complaint of the citizen Iu.G.Timashev
- Court:
- Constitutional Court
- Legal issue: whether the contested provision of the Civil Code is constitutional, given that it is considered in law-application practice as enabling the plaintiff to confirm the amount of his lost earnings solely by the data contained in tax declarations, as a result of which for the individual entrepreneurs using the system of taxation in the form of unified tax on imputed income, the amount of earnings calculated thus turns to be less than their actual income, which precludes them from being compensated in full.
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:
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.