Review of court practice of the Supreme Court for 2015 № 1 (affirmed by the Presidium of the Supreme Court on 4 March 2015)
- Court:
- Supreme Court
Subject areas:
Decree of the Plenary Session of the Supreme Commercial Court of 16 May 2014 № 27 “On Certain Questions of Application of Legislation on Executive Proceedings”
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
Subject areas:
Decree of the Plenary Session of the Supreme Commercial Court of 4 April 2014 № 22 “On Certain Issues of Awarding Monetary Means to Recoverer in Case of Non-Execution of Court Act”
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of 26 November 2013 № 8628/13 in the case The company “Yug and K” vs The Ministry of Finance of Karachay-Cherkessia Republic
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
- Whether the statutory mechanism of compensation for harm caused as a result of the authorities’ persistent failure to execute court decisions excludes the right to recover, additionally, the interest for the use of another’s monetary means?
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of 12 March 2013 № 8711/12 in the case Мunicipal unitary enterprise “Raizhilkombytgazstroy” vs The Administration of Alekseevsk district of Volgograd Region
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
- Whether the recovery of compensation for the failure to execute court decision within a reasonable term is an efficient compulsory measure?
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of 25 December 2012 № 8488/12 in the case The company “Business-Pravo” vs The judicial bailiff-executor Anton Minich
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
- Point of law: whether judicial bailiff-executor is obliged to respond in writing to requests from parties to execution proceedings?
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of 23 October 2012 № 7805/12 in the case The company “Fringilla Co. LTD” vs The company “Rybprominvest” et al.
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
- Point of law: legal factors on which depends the possibility of recognition and execution of a foreign (specifically, a Cypriot) court decision concerning a transaction under Russian law and between Russian legal entities.
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Constitutional Court of 14 May 2012 № 11-П on the review of constitutionality of a provision of passage 2 of part 1 of Article 446 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation in connection with complaints of citizens F.Kh.Gumerova and A.Iu.Shikunova
- Court:
- Constitutional Court
- Legal issue: whether the provision in question is constitutional, given that it does not allow (excepting the case of a mortgage) to levy execution on a dwelling apartment owned by the debtor, when such apartment is the sole place suitable for the permanent residence of the debtor and the members of his family?
- Dissenting opinion:
- Bondar Nikolay , Zhilin Gennadiy
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of 28 February 2012 № 14324/11 in the case The company “Volgograd-GSM” vs The Volzhsk City Department of Judicial Bailiffs
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of 14 February 2012 № 12826/11 in the case The company “Technosib” vs The administration of Evenk municipal district of Krasnoyarsk Region et al.
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
- Point of law: whether the plaintiff who won litigation against the State must take initiative as regards the execution of the court decision or it is the duty of the State itself to do so?
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of 13 December 2011 № 9350/11 in the case The company "Trast-S" vs The Federal Service of Court Bailiffs
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
- Point of law: whether an enforcement fee wrongly levied by a court bailiff-executor from the debtor and subsequently refunded following a suit of one of the creditors should be entirely spent to meet lawful claims of this particular creditor or the latter is entitled to only pro rata portion of the sum in question in accordance with the share of his claims within the consolidated execution procedure?
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.