Judgment of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of 15 March 2012 № 16067/11 in the case Corporation “Aelita Software Corporation” (USA) vs The Interdistrict Inspection of Federal Tax Service № 47 for the City of Moscow
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
- Point of law: who must prove the reasonability of expenses incurred by the winning party for court representation when this party demands their reimbursement?
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of 6 March 2012 № 12505/11 in the case The company “Doroga” vs G.P.Semenenko
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
- Point of law: what are the standards of reasonable and in good faith behaviour of the chief manager of the company and how the burden of proof should be distributed if the plaintiff (shareholder of the company) submits weighty arguments of the disputed transactions being interrelated and of the chief manager of the company being in the situation of a conflict of interests?
- Dissenting opinion:
- Dedov Dmitriy
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Constitutional Court of 1 March 2012 № 5-П on the review of constitutionality of passage 2 of Art 215 and passage 2 of Art 217 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation in connection with the complaints of citizens D.V.Barabash and A.V.Iskhakov
- Court:
- Constitutional Court
- Legal issue: whether the contested provisions are constitutional, as long as they obligate the court to suspend proceedings in the event of reorganisation of the legal person which is a party to the case at hand until its legal successor is determined, and as long as they do not enable the court to take into account the circumstances of the case, including the real possibility to decide the case and enforce the decision before the reorganisation is complete?
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of 28 February 2012 № 14324/11 in the case The company “Volgograd-GSM” vs The Volzhsk City Department of Judicial Bailiffs
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of 21 February 2012 № 13104/11 in the case The company “Leramony Associates Inc” vs The company “Meinl Bank AG” et al
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
- Point of law: whether the commercial court has a right to revise the choice of court made by the parties to a contract and declare the lack of jurisdiction over the ensuing contractual dispute in the absence of defendant’s motion to that effect as well as any violation of court’s exclusive jurisdiction or public policy?
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 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 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 Supreme Commercial Court of 20 December 2011 № 12262/11 in the case of the company "Grosh&K"
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
- Point of law: the federal law which entered into force on 1 November 2010 has limited the right to file to a court an application regarding the recovery of litigation costs by 6 month term from the moment of the completion of consideration of the case. Does this rule have a retroactive force and whether it may apply to cases whose consideration has been finished before that date?
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of 20 December 2011 № 9924/11 in the case The company "Instroy" vs The company "SU-155"
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
- Point of law: whether a suit seeking to coerce the purchaser to pay the contract sum under a contract of purchase-sale of land plot falls within the jurisdiction of commercial court at the location of the land plot?
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of 13 December 2011 № 9807/11 in the case Legal Centre in the Caucasian spa "Arbitr" vs The Enterprise "Stavropolkraivodokanal"
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
- Point of law: whether arbitration courts do have powers to compulsorily impose upon parties to arbitration proceedings fines for non-payment of arbitration fees provided for by the rules of the arbitration court?
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of 13 December 2011 № 9350/11 in the case The company "Trast-S" vs The Federal Service of Court Bailiffs
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
- Point of law: whether an enforcement fee wrongly levied by a court bailiff-executor from the debtor and subsequently refunded following a suit of one of the creditors should be entirely spent to meet lawful claims of this particular creditor or the latter is entitled to only pro rata portion of the sum in question in accordance with the share of his claims within the consolidated execution procedure?
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of 25 October 2011 № 18613/10 in the case Svetlana Moiseeva, an entrepreneur vs The company "Tander"
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
- Point of law: whether the decision of a commercial arbitration court is lawful if the power of attorney of a party’s representative did not contain an explicit permission to participate in arbitration proceedings.
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.