Decision of the Supreme Commercial Court of 21 February 2012 № 14589/11
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
- Point of law: whether the Order of the Ministry of Culture of 25 August 2010 is lawful to the extent in which it places upon the commercial entities the duty to store a large number of various documents (enumerated in the Order) and prescribes periods for their storage?
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 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 Constitutional Court of 9 February 2012 № 2-П on the review of constitutionality of a provision of part 8 of Article 325 of the Labour Code of the Russian Federation in connection with the complaint of the citizen I.G.Trunova
- Court:
- Constitutional Court
- Legal issue: the provision in question guarantees to the members of staff of the organizations belonging to the State or local governments who work in the Far North and similar localities a compensation of expenses for their return trip to the place of statutory leave. Does such guarantee extend also to persons working for private employers, and if not, whether such distinction is constitutional?
- Dissenting opinion:
- Aranovskiy Konstantin , Kazantsev Sergey
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 Constitutional Court of 7 February 2012 № 1-П on the review of constitutionality of the first part of Article 2 of the Federal law of 12 February 2001 № 5-ФЗ “On Making Changes and Additions to the Law of the Russian Federation “On the Social Protection of the Citizens Affected by the Radiation As a Result of the Catastrophe of Chernobyl APP” in connection with the complaint of the citizen V.V.Avdonin
- Court:
- Constitutional Court
- Legal issue: whether the system of compensations as established by the contested provision should extend to disabled persons from the ranks of the police on the same footing as to those from the ranks of the military, and if not, whether such inequality would be constitutional?
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 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 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 № 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 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:
Ruling of the Constitutional Court of 17 January 2012 № 174-О-О on the refusal to accept for consideration the complaint of the citizen Iu.R.Iudin against violation of his constitutional rights by Articles 301 and 312 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation
- Court:
- Constitutional Court
- Legal issue: whether the contested provisions are constitutional, since they do not envisage the right of the convicted person and his advocate to have access to a dissenting opinion of a member of the panel of judges?
- Dissenting opinion:
- Gadzhiev Gadis , Zhilin Gennadiy , Knyazev Sergey , Kleandrov Mikhail
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:
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.