The Institute of Precedent

Dates

Judgment of the Constitutional Court of 19 November 2013 № 24-П on the review of constitutionality of part one of Article 10 of Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, part 2 of Article 24, part 2 of Article 27, part 4 of Article 133 and Article 212 of Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation in connection with complaints of citizens Borovkov and Morozov

Court:: Constitutional Court; Constitutionality of rules which permit the closure of criminal case due to the adoption of a law which decriminalised the pertinent offence, but do not require the consent of the person concerned, given that such person objects against the closure of the case without judicial review of the legality and justifiability of those suspicions or charges that have been brought against him.

Court:: Supreme Commercial Court; Whether the judicial decisions that were already rendered may be reversed on the ground of a judgment of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court which provides that “this interpretation of legal rules is universally binding and subject to application at consideration of analogous cases by commercial courts”, but at the same time says nothing as to the retroactive force of such interpretation?

Court:: Supreme Commercial Court

Court:: Constitutional Court; The right of a court – either at its own initiative or upon the motion of the victim of crime - to remand a criminal case to the prosecutors for the purposes of removing obstacles to its judicial consideration in the event when facts testify to the commission by the accused of a more grave crime than he was actually indicted for by the prosecutors.
Dissenting opinion:: Kazantsev Sergey

Court:: Supreme Court

Court:: Constitutional Court; The constitutionality of rules which preclude the victim of crime from having recourse to court with the demand to award compensation for the violation of his right to criminal proceedings within a reasonable term, if as a result of criminal investigation instituted upon his application the suspects and the accused were not identified.
Dissenting opinion:: Zhilin Gennadiy

Court:: Constitutional Court; The constitutionality of provisions which prevents compulsory treatment of a person, who committed a crime of middle gravity in the state of insanity, in spite of continuous social danger from such person
Dissenting opinion:: Gadzhiev Gadis

Court:: Supreme Commercial Court; Points of law: 1) whether findings having pre-judicial significance should be set out in reasoned part of court decision or only in the resolutive one? 2) how the burden of proof should be apportioned by a court if there are reasons to believe that a party to the dispute, an offshore company, abuses the law – namely, it hides its affiliation with a party to an earlier dispute having pre-judicial significance, with the purpose of overcoming pre-judicial effect of the previous decision by appearing as a new party in the later dispute on the same issues.

Court:: Supreme Commercial Court; Whether the recovery of compensation for the failure to execute court decision within a reasonable term is an efficient compulsory measure?

Court:: Supreme Commercial Court

Court:: Supreme Commercial Court; Point of law: whether judicial bailiff-executor is obliged to respond in writing to requests from parties to execution proceedings?

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?

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?

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

Court:: Supreme Commercial Court; Point of law: whether a dispute arising out of a lease contract which was secured by suretyship of a natural person, not having the status of individual entrepreneur, may fall nonetheless within the jurisdiction of commercial courts?

1 2 34 5 6 7 →

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.

The Institute of Precedent

Judgment of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of 12 November 2013 № 13817/10 in the case Sberbank vs The company “Eksima”

Judgment of the Constitutional Court of 2 July 2013 № 16-П on the review of constitutionality of provisions of part one of Article 237 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation in connection with the complaint of B.Gadaev and the request of Kurgan Regional Court

Decree of the Plenary Session of the Supreme Court of 27 June 2013 № 21 “On the Application by Courts of General Jurisdiction of the Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms from 4 November 1950 and the Protocols Thereto”

Judgment of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of 26 March 2013 № 14828/12 in the case Condominium "Skakovaya 5" vs The company "Arteks Corporation"

Judgment of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of 12 March 2013 № 8711/12 in the case Мunicipal unitary enterprise “Raizhilkombytgazstroy” vs The Administration of Alekseevsk district of Volgograd Region

The Information Letter of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of 26 February 2013 № 156 “A Survey of the Practice of Consideration by Commercial Courts of Public Policy Clause as a Ground for Refusal to Recognise and Enforce Foreign Court Decisions and Arbitral Awards”

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

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”

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”

Judgment of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of 13 November 2012 № 9007/12 in the case The company SABMiller RUS vs The company “Aleksandrit” et al.