Decree of the Plenary Session of the Supreme Commercial Court of 23 March 2012 № 14 “On Particular Issues of the Practice of Resolution of Disputes Connected with the Challenging of Bank Guarantees”
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of 22 March 2012 № 12613/11 in the case Shavkat Satarov vs The company “Uralskii Priborostroitelnyi zavod” et al.
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
- Point of law: whether the corporate law concept of “affiliation” is applicable to natural persons who formally do not engage in entrepreneurial activities?
Subject areas:
Ruling of the Constitutional Court of 22 March 2012 № 447-О-О on the refusal to accept for consideration the complaint of the citizen M.V.Lykosov against the violation of his constitutional rights by Articles 96 and 97 of the Federal constitutional law "On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation"
- Court:
- Constitutional Court
- Legal issue: whether the contested rules (as recently amended) are in conformity with part 4 of Article 125 of the Constitution, as long as they allow a citizen to bring a complaint to the Constitutional Court only against the violation of his constitutional rights and freedoms by a law which had been already applied to his case and on the condition that the consideration of this case by the court was finished?
- Dissenting opinion:
- Gadzhiev Gadis
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of 20 March 2012 № 14989/11 in the case The company “IunitPrestizh” vs The company “Uiut-Stroi” et al.
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
- Point of law: if in the course of judicial proceedings it has been found that the defendant behaved in an unscrupulous manner, in particular, if he refused to disclose the necessary information, whether the plaintiff should then prove the facts he stated to be true, or the burden of proving or, rather, refuting them should be shifted upon the defendant?
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of 15 March 2012 № 16067/11 in the case Corporation “Aelita Software Corporation” (USA) vs The Interdistrict Inspection of Federal Tax Service № 47 for the City of Moscow
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
- Point of law: who must prove the reasonability of expenses incurred by the winning party for court representation when this party demands their reimbursement?
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of 6 March 2012 № 12505/11 in the case The company “Doroga” vs G.P.Semenenko
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
- Point of law: what are the standards of reasonable and in good faith behaviour of the chief manager of the company and how the burden of proof should be distributed if the plaintiff (shareholder of the company) submits weighty arguments of the disputed transactions being interrelated and of the chief manager of the company being in the situation of a conflict of interests?
- Dissenting opinion:
- Dedov Dmitriy
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Constitutional Court of 1 March 2012 № 6-П on the review of constitutionality of a provision of passage 2 of subparagraph 2 of paragraph 1 of Article 220 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation in connection with the complaint of the Attorney for Human Rights in the Russian Federation
- Court:
- Constitutional Court
- Legal issue: the constitutionality of the contested provision, as interpreted by the current court practice, which refuses to grant tax deduction for the purposes of personal income tax to a parent who has incurred expenses for acquiring for his non-adult child the ownership to a dwelling (an apartment) situated in the territory of the Russian Federation.
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Constitutional Court of 1 March 2012 № 5-П on the review of constitutionality of passage 2 of Art 215 and passage 2 of Art 217 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation in connection with the complaints of citizens D.V.Barabash and A.V.Iskhakov
- Court:
- Constitutional Court
- Legal issue: whether the contested provisions are constitutional, as long as they obligate the court to suspend proceedings in the event of reorganisation of the legal person which is a party to the case at hand until its legal successor is determined, and as long as they do not enable the court to take into account the circumstances of the case, including the real possibility to decide the case and enforce the decision before the reorganisation is complete?
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of 28 February 2012 № 15935/11 in the case The bank “Zenit” vs Serghei Birkle, the bankruptcy trustee of the company “Tvins-Kaliningrad”
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
- Point of law: if a bankruptcy creditor submits to the bankruptcy trustee of the debtor company the evidence that a debtor company transaction is suspect, whether the bankruptcy trustee must challenge such transaction in court?
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of 28 February 2012 № 14324/11 in the case The company “Volgograd-GSM” vs The Volzhsk City Department of Judicial Bailiffs
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of 28 February 2012 № 14850/11 in the case The company “Farn-Trade” vs The company “Prosto” et al.
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
- Points of law: 1) what are the requirements to the procedure of publication and dissemination of notifications concerning a public sale? 2) whether the consent of lessor is mandatory in case of the transfer of the right to lease of the state or municipal property?
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Constitutional Court of 28 February 2012 № 4-П on the review of constitutionality of para 11 of Art 12 of the Federal law “On General Principles of Organisation of Legislative (Representative) and Executive Bodies of State Power of the Constituent Entities of the Russian Federation” in connection with the complaint of citizen T.I.Romanova
- Court:
- Constitutional Court
- Legal issue: whether the contested regulation is constitutional, given that it served as a ground for the exclusion of a deputy of legislative (representative) body of State power of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation from a party group in the regional parliament and for the pre-term termination of his powers is case of his leaving the political party on whose list of candidates he had been elected and whose group in parliament he is a member of?
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of 28 February 2012 № 12436/11 in the case The company “Konsortium-PIK” et al. vs The Federal Service for Intellectual Property, Patents and Trademarks
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
- Point of law: whether a designation which is confusingly similar to an international nonproprietary name may be registered as a trademark?
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Constitutional Court of 27 February 2012 № 3-П on the review of constitutionality of passage 2 of para 14 of Article 15 of the Federal law “On the Status of the Military Personnel” in connection with the complaints of citizens A.N.Khmara and V.N.Shum
- Court:
- Constitutional Court
- Legal issue: the constitutionality of the contested provision under which former members of military personnel in need of dwelling have been denied a money compensation on the ground that only those were entitled to such compensation who had been registered for this purpose before 1 January 2005.
Subject areas:
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:
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.