Ruling of the Constitutional Court of 16 July 2015 № 1787-О on the refusal to admit for consideration the petition of the local organisation of Jehovah's Witnesses of Birobidzhan
- Court:
- Constitutional Court
- Whether the contested rules admit the possibility of several contradicting court decisions on the recognition of certain texts as being extremist, and whether there was be a duty to bring the respective religious organisation to participation in the case?
- Dissenting opinion:
- Gadzhiev Gadis
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of 26 March 2013 № 14828/12 in the case Condominium "Skakovaya 5" vs The company "Arteks Corporation"
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
- Points of law: 1) whether findings having pre-judicial significance should be set out in reasoned part of court decision or only in the resolutive one? 2) how the burden of proof should be apportioned by a court if there are reasons to believe that a party to the dispute, an offshore company, abuses the law – namely, it hides its affiliation with a party to an earlier dispute having pre-judicial significance, with the purpose of overcoming pre-judicial effect of the previous decision by appearing as a new party in the later dispute on the same issues.
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:
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.