Judgment of the Plenary Session of the Supreme Commercial Court of 8 October 2012 № 62 “On Certain Issues of Consideration by Commercial Courts of Cases in Simplified Procedure”
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Plenary Session of the Supreme Commercial Court of 8 October 2012 № 61 “On the Ensuring of Transparency in Commercial Proceedings”
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Presidium of Supreme Commercial Court of 4 September 2012 № 3809/12 in the case The Prefecture of the Southern Administrative District of Moscow vs The company “London Bridge Market”
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
- Point of law 1: what is the proper judicial remedy against the violation of rights of the owner of a land plot, if a lessee has built a permanent structure on it without consent of the owner and subsequently registered his ownership with respect to such structure?
Subject areas:
Decree of the Plenary Session of Supreme Commercial Court of 12 July 2012 N 43 “On Making Changes in the Judgment of the Plenary Session of Supreme Commercial Court of the Russian Federation of 17.02.2011 N 12 “On Certain Questions of the Application of the Commercial Procedure Code of the Russian Federation in the version of the Federal Law of 27.07.2010 N 228-FZ “On Making Changes in the Commercial Procedure Code of the Russian Federation”
- 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.
Subject areas:
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
- 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?
Subject areas:
Decree of the Plenary Session of the Supreme Commercial Court of 23 March 2012 № 12 “On Making Amendments to the Decree of the Plenary Session of the Supreme Commercial Court of the Russian Federation of 30 June 2011 № 52 “On the Application of Provisions of the Commercial Procedure Code of the Russian Federation in the Event of Reversal of Judicial Acts on the Grounds of New or Newly Discovered Circumstances”
- 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.
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 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 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:
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:
1
2
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.