Judgment of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of 19 January 2017 № 1-П regarding the constitutionality of execution of the European Court of Human Rights judgment of 31 July 2014 in the case “OAO Neftyanaya kompaniya "YUKOS" vs Russia”
- Court:
- Constitutional Court
- The constitutional feasibility of execution of the European Court of Human Rights judgment – to the extent it puts Russia under obligation to pay €1.87 billion to former shareholders of “Yukos” by way of compensation for unlawfully levying tax penalties for the years 2000 and 2001 and execution fees.
- Dissenting opinion:
- Yaroslavtsev Vladimir , Aranovskiy Konstantin
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Constitutional Court of 19 March 2014 № 6-П in the case of verification of constitutionality of an international treaty, which has not yet entered into force, between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Crimea on the admission of the Republic of Crimea into the Russian Federation and on the creation within the Russian Federation of new subjects
- Court:
- Constitutional Court
- The constitutionality of the international treaty, which has been signed on 18 March 2014 but has not yet entered into force, between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Crimea on the admission of the Republic of Crimea into the Russian Federation and on the creation within the Russian Federation of new subjects – the Republic of Crimea and the federal city Sevastopol
Subject areas:
Information letter of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of 25 February 2014 № 165 “A Survey of Judicial Practice on Disputes Connected with Deeming Contracts to be Not Concluded”
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of 12 November 2013 № 10508/13 in the case The company “Snoras Bank” vs The Investment company “The World of Fantasy”
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
- The laws of which country should apply in the Russian court to the demands of a foreign bank which is in a state of bankruptcy?
Subject areas:
Information Letter of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court from 9 July 2013 № 158 “A Survey of Court Practice on Certain Issues Connected with the Consideration by Commercial Courts of Cases with Participation of Foreign Persons”
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
Subject areas:
Review of court practice of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation for the first quarter of the year 2013 (affirmed by the Presidium of the Supreme Court on 3 July 2013)
- Court:
- Supreme Court
Subject areas:
Decree of the Plenary Session of the Supreme Court of 27 June 2013 № 21 “On the Application by Courts of General Jurisdiction of the Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms from 4 November 1950 and the Protocols Thereto”
- Court:
- Supreme 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 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 9 July 2012 № 17-П on the review of constitutionality of the Protocol of Accession of the Russian Federation to Marrakesh Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation - an international treaty of the Russian Federation not entered into force
- Court:
- Constitutional Court
- Legal issue: whether this Protocol contradicts the Constitution of the Russian Federation — 1) as far as the procedure for its adoption is concerned, and 2) as to the contents of its provisions as far as the latter: а) entail the extension to the Russian Federation of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes which envisages the establishing and functioning of Dispute Settlement Body within the World Trade Organisation, and also b) establish specific obligations of the Russian Federation with regard to the admission to rendering legal services in the territory of the Russian Federation.
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of 21 June 2012 № 1831/12 in the case “Russian Phone Company” vs The company “Sony Ericsson Mobile Communicational Rus”
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
- Point of law: whether a choice-of-court clause in an agreement may confer the right to apply to a competent State court upon only one party and deprive the other party of the same right, thus leaving to it only the opportunity to apply to an arbitration court?
Subject areas:
Decision of the Supreme Commercial Court of 11 April 2012 № ВАС-308/12
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
- Point of law: whether the amount of the State duty to be paid for the adoption of a decision concerning an objection against the issuance of a patent may be different for residents and non-residents?
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Constitutional Court of 27 March 2012 № 8-П on the review of constitutionality of paragraph 1 of Article 23 of the Federal law “On the International Treaties of the Russian Federation” in connection with the complaint of citizen I.D.Ushakov
- Court:
- Constitutional Court
- Legal issue: whether an international treaty of the Russian Federation (or a part thereof) which affects the rights, freedoms and duties of man and the citizen and at the same time establishes the rules, other than those envisaged by a law, may apply temporarily, provided that such a treaty was not officially published?
- Dissenting opinion:
- Zhilin Gennadiy , Gadzhiev Gadis
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of 18 October 2011 № 6478/11 in the case “Afro-Asia Consulting Inc.” vs Friedel Gerhard Wilms (Germany)
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
- Points of law: 1) whether an arbitration clause contained in a contract may be still valid after the expiry of the term of such contract, provided that the parties to it have made it clear by their behavior that they regard the contract as being in force in spite of the expiry of its term; 2) whether it is open for an arbitration court to determine the applicable law, or the court must in all cases apply the law which is referred to in the arbitration clause.
Subject areas:
Judgment of the Presidium of Supreme Commercial Court of 4 October 2011 № 6417/11 in the case Parex banka vs The company "Univermag Moskva"
- Court:
- Supreme Commercial Court
- Point of law: does the law contain any special requirements as to the choice of law clause, especially its terminology? Should the clause, in order to be valid, refer to particular statutes?
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.