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.
- 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?
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Constitutional Court of 8 November 2012 № 25-П on the review of constitutionality of a provision of part 1 of Article 79 of the Federal Constitutional Law “On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation” in connection with the complaint of the joint-stock company “Transnefteprodukt”
- Court:
- Constitutional Court
- Legal issue: whether courts must follow a constitutional interpretation of a legislative provision, given in a judgment of the Constitutional Court, if this interpretation was issued after the adoption by a court of first instance of a decision in the case in which such provision was subject to application, but before the consideration of the case by superior courts?
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Constitutional Court of 7 November 2012 № 24-П on the review of constitutionality of part 1 of Article 2 of the Federal law of 12 February 2001 № 5-ФЗ “On Making Changes in and Amendments 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 the interpretation given to its provisions in the law-application practice after the entering into force of the Judgment of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of 20 December 2010 № 21-П, in connection with the complaint of the citizen R.Inamov
- Court:
- Constitutional Court
- Legal issue: whether the contested provisions, as interpreted by law-application practice in the wake of the Judgment of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of 20 December 2010 № 21-П, are conformant to the Constitution, as long as they serve as a ground for refusal of calculating the amount of monetary compensation to disabled persons from the ranks of military personnel who took part in the liquidation of Chernobyl catastrophe, on the basis of their money allowance with due regard to the degree of the loss of their work capacity?
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of 30 October 2012 № 8035/12 in the case The Department of Town Planning and Architecture of the City of Perm vs the Federal Bureau for Technical Supervision
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
- Points of law: 1) may a court refuse to affirm an amicable agreement which contains conditions not related to the dispute at hand? 2) whether court should issue a separate ruling in the event of such refusal?
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of 23 October 2012 № 7805/12 in the case The company “Fringilla Co. LTD” vs The company “Rybprominvest” et al.
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
- Point of law: legal factors on which depends the possibility of recognition and execution of a foreign (specifically, a Cypriot) court decision concerning a transaction under Russian law and between Russian legal entities.
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Constitutional Court of 16 October 2012 № 22-П on the review of constitutionality of the rules of part 2 of Article 2 and part 1 of Article 32 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation in connection with the complaint of the citizen S.A.Krasnoperov
- Court:
- Constitutional Court
- Legal issue: whether part 1 of Article 32 of the Criminal Procedure Code violates the constitutional right to the State protection (including the judicial one) of rights and freedoms as long as this Article precludes the consideration by Russian courts of an application submitted in the procedure of private accusation, concerning the commission by a Russian citizen of a crime against another citizen of Russia outside of the territory of the Russian Federation?
- Dissenting opinion:
- Knyazev Sergey
Subject areas:
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 № 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 № 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:
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 4 September 2012 № 3809/12 in the case The Prefecture of the Southern Administrative District of Moscow vs The company “London Bridge Market”
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
- Point of law 1: what is the proper judicial remedy against the violation of rights of the owner of a land plot, if a lessee has built a permanent structure on it without consent of the owner and subsequently registered his ownership with respect to such structure?
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.