Ruling of the Constitutional Court of 4 February 2014 № 221-О on the refusal to accept for consideration the petition of the citizen Riskina against the violation of her constitutional rights by paragraph 2(4) of Article 54 of the Federal law “On Mortgage (The Pledge of Immovables)”
- Court:
- Constitutional Court
- Whether the contested provision is constitutional, as soon as it prohibits changing the initial selling price of the mortgaged property if its market value has changed
Subject areas:
Review of court practice on civil cases related to the settlement of disputes on the performance of credit obligations (as affirmed by the Presidium of the Supreme Court on 22 May 2013)
- Court:
- Supreme Court
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of 25 December 2012 № 10292/12 in the case The company “Jacobson Heritage Development” et al. vs The company “Karat”
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
- Point of law 1: whether the floating pledge (“pledge of goods in circulation”, Art 357, Civil Code) may have priority over a common (or “firm”) pledge (the pledge of individually specified items) in the event of there being competing claims which flow from these two kinds of security interests (liens)?
Subject areas:
Ruling of the Constitutional Court of 28 June 2012 № 1252-О on the refusal to accept for consideration the complaint of the Open Joint-Stock Company “Fabrika Proizvodstva Platkov” against the violation of constitutional rights and freedoms by Articles 337 and paragraph 1 of Article 352 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, and also paragraph 1 of Article 50 of the Federal law “On Mortgage (Pledge of Immovables)”
- Court:
- Constitutional Court
- Legal issue: whether the contested provisions are constitutional, if – according to an interpretation given by courts, in particular by the Plenary Session of the Supreme Arbitrazh (Commercial) Court in its Decree of 17 February 2011 № 10 “On Certain Questions of the Application of Legislation on Pledge” - they do not permit the termination of the pledge in the event of such a change of the obligation secured thereby, which entails the increase of liability of the pledgor and the risk of his losing the pledged property.
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of 7 June 2012 № 16513/11 in the case Rosselkhozbank (as represented by its Maghadan regional branch) vs The company “Alisa” et al.
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of 10 April 2012 № 15085/11 in the case The company “Russian Forest Group” vs Sberbank
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
- Point of law: 1) how is limited the right of the pledgeholder to reduce 10-days period of time which the law gives him in order to cease the sale of the object of pledge by performing the obligation which has been secured by the pledge? 2) whether an executive note of the notary is required for the purposes of compulsory levy of execution on the object of pledge (securities), given that the depositary and pledgeholder are different persons?
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.