• A
  • A
  • A
  • ABC
  • ABC
  • ABC
  • А
  • А
  • А
  • А
  • А
Regular version of the site
Search

Judgment of the Constitutional Court of 6 December 2013 № 27-П on the review of constitutionality of the rules of Article 11 and paragraphs 3 and 4 of the fourth part of article 392 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation in connection with the request from the presidium of Leningrad Circuit military court 

How should proceed a court which has the task of reviewing a civil case on the grounds of emergence of new circumstances if two incompatible new circumstances are present simultaneously, namely, contradictory legal opinions of the Constitutional Court of Russia and European Court of Human Rights as to whether applicable rules of Russian law are conformant to the Constitution of Russia, on the one hand, and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, on the other?

Judgment of the Constitutional Court of 2 December 2013 № 26-П on the review of constitutionality of paragraph 2 Article 4 of the Law of Chelyabinsk Region “On the Transportation Tax” upon request of the Legislative Assembly of Chelyabinsk Region 

Legal issues: 1) whether regional legislator, proceeding from the budget opportunities of the region and with due regard to federal legislation, may establish or abolish tax benefits, in particular for pensioners? 2) whether the Constitutional Court of Russia may overcome a decision of a regional charter court, by which the contested rule has been deemed non-conformant to the charter (or constitution) of the region?
Dissenting opinion: 
Gadzhiev Gadis

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”

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?

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

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?

 

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.