Ruling of the Supreme Court Judicial Division for Economic Disputes of 20 February 2017 № 306-ЭС16-16518
- Court:
- Supreme Court
- Whether the procurator (public prosecutor), when applying to a court in the interest of an uncertain class of persons, should use the mandatory extrajudicial dispute settlement procedure before?
Subject areas:
Review of court practice of the Supreme Court for 2014 № 1 (affirmed by the Presidium of the Supreme Court on 24 December 2014)
- Court:
- Supreme Court
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Plenary Session of the Supreme Commercial Court of 18 July 2014 № 50 “On Reconciliation of the Parties in Commercial Procedure”
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
Subject areas:
Decree of the Plenary Session of the Supreme Commercial Court of 4 April 2014 № 23 “On Certain Issues of the Practice of Application by Commercial Courts of Legislation on Expert Examination”
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
Subject areas:
Decree of the Plenary Session of the Supreme Commercial Court of 25 December 2013 № 99 “On Procedural Terms”
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of 12 November 2013 № 13817/10 in the case Sberbank vs The company “Eksima”
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
- Whether the judicial decisions that were already rendered may be reversed on the ground of a judgment of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court which provides that “this interpretation of legal rules is universally binding and subject to application at consideration of analogous cases by commercial courts”, but at the same time says nothing as to the retroactive force of such interpretation?
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Plenary Session of the Supreme Commercial Court of 2 July 2013 № 50 “On Making Changes to the Judgment of the Plenary Session of the Supreme Commercial Court of the Russian Federation of 8 October 2012 № 60 “On Certain Questions Arising in Connection with the Creation of Court for Intellectual Property Rights within the System of Commercial Courts”
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
Subject areas:
The Information Letter of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of 26 February 2013 № 156 “A Survey of the Practice of Consideration by Commercial Courts of Public Policy Clause as a Ground for Refusal to Recognise and Enforce Foreign Court Decisions and Arbitral Awards”
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of 11 December 2012 № 9604/12 in the case The company “Sibir Tranzitnefteprovod” vs The company “Karkade”
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
- Point of law: from which moment should start the term for filing a complaint to cassational court if earlier an appellate court has refused to restore the missed term for appeal?
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of 11 December 2012 № 4340/12 in the case The company “Stroygarant” vs The company “Real Estate Agency “Zhilishnyi Vopros”
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
- Point of law: which judicial instance should reconsider a case on the basis of new circumstances – the court which adopted the judicial act to be reconsidered or the higher instance court which subsequently endorsed that act?
Subject areas:
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 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 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 № 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 № 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:
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.