The Institute of Precedent

Dates

Judgment of the Presidium of Supreme Commercial Court of 24 July 2012 № 2544/12, № 2545/12 и № 2598/12 in the case The company “Perspektivnye Tekhnologhii” vs Tax Inspection № 3 for the City of Moscow

Court:: Supreme Commercial Court; Points of law: 1) whether court has a right to evaluate at its own initiative the reasonability of amounts expended by the winning party for court representation, and subsequently reduce them when recovering them from the losing party? 2) whether the evaluation of the reasonability of expenses is anyhow affected by the fact that they must be recovered from the State budget?
Dissenting opinion:: Petrova Svetlana

Court:: Constitutional Court; Legal issue: whether it is true that the contested provisions permit to arbitrarily establish the territorial jurisdiction of cases concerning the complaints against the decisions and actions (or failure to act) of the officials of investigative agencies and by so doing contradict the Constitution?

Court:: Supreme Commercial Court; By this judgment the Plenary Session of the Court clarified its own earlier explanations regarding court notices, and gave additional explanations as to litigation expenses.

Court:: Supreme Commercial Court; Point of law: whether expenses incurred by the plaintiff for receiving a bank guarantee, which was a precondition for receiving an injunctive relief from the court, may be included into litigation expenses?

Court:: Constitutional Court; Legal issue: whether there is a violation of the constitutionally guaranteed right of everyone to have his case heard in the court and by the judge within whose competence the case is placed by law, if a person is denied his right to jury trial on the ground that other persons accused within the same criminal case do not have the right to jury trial, so that with regard to them the case must be considered by a panel consisting of three professional judges of a federal court of general jurisdiction?
Dissenting opinion:: Aranovskiy Konstantin

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?

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?

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?

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?

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.

Court:: Constitutional Court; Legal issue: whether the provision in question is constitutional, given that it does not allow (excepting the case of a mortgage) to levy execution on a dwelling apartment owned by the debtor, when such apartment is the sole place suitable for the permanent residence of the debtor and the members of his family?
Dissenting opinion:: Bondar Nikolay , Zhilin Gennadiy

Court:: Supreme Commercial Court; Points of law: 1) whether the actual presence in the territory of the Russian Federation of a representative office of a foreign legal entity constitutes, under the Agreement between the Republic of Latvia and the Russian Federation on Legal Assistance and Legal Relations in Civil, Family and Criminal Matters (1993), a sufficient ground for assuming jurisdiction by a Russian commercial court with regard to a dispute involving the aforementioned foreign legal entity, or it is only the formal presence of a properly registered representative office that may constitute the necessary precondition for such assuming of jurisdiction?; or 2) whether it is essential, for the purposes of determining the jurisdiction (proper venue), that the Russian branches of the foreign legal entity did not take part in assisting the disputed transactions?

Court:: Supreme Commercial Court; The amendments affect the powers of the Plenary Session and Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court to develop the law which they exercise by way of working out ‘legal positions’ (interpretations) binding upon courts.

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

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?

1 2 3 4 56 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 Supreme Commercial Court of 24 July 2012 № 2544/12, № 2545/12 и № 2598/12 in the case The company “Perspektivnye Tekhnologhii” vs Tax Inspection № 3 for the City of Moscow

Judgment of the Constitutional Court of 20 July 2012 № 20-П on the review of constitutionality of the provisions of part 1 of Article 125 and part 1 of Article 152 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation in connection with the complaint of the citizen R.G.Mishina

Judgment of the Presidium of Supreme Commercial Court of 10 July 2012 № 6791/11 in the case The company INTEKO vs The Interregional Tax Inspection for Major Taxpayers № 3

Ruling of the Constitutional Court of 28 June 2012 № 1274-О on the complaint of the citizen A.A.Baikulov against the violation of his constitutional rights by paragraphs 2 and 3 of part 2 of Article 30 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation

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

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”

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

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

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

Judgment of the Constitutional Court of 14 May 2012 № 11-П on the review of constitutionality of a provision of passage 2 of part 1 of Article 446 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation in connection with complaints of citizens F.Kh.Gumerova and A.Iu.Shikunova

Judgment of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of 24 April 2012 № 16404/11 in the case The company “Olimpia” vs The company “Parex banka” et al.

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.