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

Judgment of the Constitutional Court of 2015 № 27-П upon the petition of citizens Karabanov and Martynov

The constitutionality of consideration of an appellate application regarding the litigation expenses in the absence of the parties to the dispute and without notifying them.
Dissenting opinion: 
Zhilin Gennadiy

Judgment of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of 4 February 2014 № 9189/13 in the case KAO Corporation vs The company “Markos”

1) whether compensation for the unlawful use of a trademark may be regarded as a penalty? 2) whether plaintiff’s expenses for court fee must be reimbursed to him in accordance with the amount of compensation he claimed for violation of his right to the trademark or in accordance with the amount that was actually awarded by the court?

Judgment of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of 9 October 2012 № 9847/11 in the case The company “TGK № 2” vs The company “ZhEU ZAVremstroy”

Point of law: whether the person who succeeded in receiving a court decision which prescribes the review of the case on the basis of new or newly discovered circumstances may claim from the opposite party the reimbursement of his expenses for court representation?

Judgment of the Presidium of Supreme Commercial Court of 18 September 2012 № 5338/12 in the case The company “Spektr” vs The Bath and Laundry Enterprise “Chaika” et al.

Point of law: whether it is possible to recover interest for the use of another’s means (Art 395, Civil Code), if the party which lost the case, has failed to reimburse timely the litigation expenses to the winner?

Judgment of the Presidium of Supreme Commercial Court of 24 July 2012 № 2544/12, № 2545/12 и № 2598/12 in the case The company “Perspektivnye Tekhnologhii” vs Tax Inspection № 3 for the City of Moscow

Points of law: 1) whether court has a right to evaluate at its own initiative the reasonability of amounts expended by the winning party for court representation, and subsequently reduce them when recovering them from the losing party? 2) whether the evaluation of the reasonability of expenses is anyhow affected by the fact that they must be recovered from the State budget?
Dissenting opinion: 
Petrova Svetlana

Judgment of the Presidium of Supreme Commercial Court of 10 July 2012 № 6791/11 in the case The company INTEKO vs The Interregional Tax Inspection for Major Taxpayers № 3

Point of law: whether expenses incurred by the plaintiff for receiving a bank guarantee, which was a precondition for receiving an injunctive relief from the court, may be included into litigation expenses?

Judgment of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of 26 June 2012 № 745/12 in the case Mikhail Kolesnikov, an entrepreneur vs The Inspection of the Federal Tax Service № 15 for the City of Moscow

Point of law: whether it is admissible to recover from a State body the expenses for legal services borne by an entrepreneur in connection with considering in administrative procedure wrongful complaints of such State body against his actions as a bankruptcy trustee?

Judgment of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of 7 June 2012 № 14592/11 in the case The company “TGK-9” vs The Perm Regional Branch of the Federal Antitrust Service

Point of law: whether a third person, that is, a participant of the litigation who does not present separate demands as to the subject matter of the dispute, may recover litigation expenses?

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"

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?

Judgment of the Presidium of Supreme Commercial Court of 20 December 2011 № 12262/11 in the case of the company "Grosh&K"

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?

 

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.