Magazine content за Июль 2017 г.
Magazine Cover
Press to zoom

Buy a PDF


mag->month > 0 ) { ?>

mag->getMonthString();?> mag->year;?>

mag->pdf_file): ?> sess && $this->sess->isArticlePayed()):?>

Июль 2017




Daniil Volodarskiy Revisiting So-Called Liquidated Damages Reduction Claims
Case comment on the judgment of RF SC No. 51-КГ17-2 , 21 March 2017
Buy a PDF


Alexander Latyev Participation in Creditor Meetings: Substantive vs Formal Rights
Case comment on the judgment of RF SC No. 308-ЭС14-7166 (4), 17 May 2017
Buy a PDF



Rustem Miftakhutdinov The Highest Court Continues to Clarify the Rules of «Probative Ping Pong»
Case comment on the judgment of RF SC No. 306-ЭС15-8369, 17 May 2017
Buy a PDF




Dmitry Abushenko Dismissal of Actions in the Arbitrazh Process: Reflections on the Procedural Novelty
This paper examines some issues surrounding the incorporation of dismissal into the Code of Arbitrazh (Commercial) Procedure. It points to obvious shortcomings in the law-making, analyses statutory grounds and legal effects of a dismissal, and attempts an internally coherent interpretation of certain provisions in Article 127.1 of the Arbitrazh Procedure Code of the Russian Federation.
Keywords: dismissal, jurisdiction, identical dispute, identical claim, judicial immunity
Buy a PDF


Maria Erokhova Judicial Penalty in Russian Law
Practice Analysis for 2015–2017 The author describes how the new provisions of the Russian Civil Code providing for payment of the penalty (astreinte) to the aggrieved party are being applied by national courts. Different court decisions reveal most difficult questions associated with astreinte, such as the temporal scope of the new astreinte provisions of the Civil Code, the possibility of penalty reduction, relation between astreinte and claims for damages, and some other aspects. The author also analyses most common judgments on the matter and offers her conclusions. This is a Q & A article focusing on sociological analysis of legal device in qestion.
Keywords: judicial penalty, astreinte, temporal scope of the law, penalty reduction
Buy a PDF


Tatyana Boyko Protection of Minority Shareholders from Oppression by Majority Shareholders in Non-Public Companies
This paper outlines the problems of oppression of minority shareholders by a majority shareholder which may arise within non-public (close, private) companies. In this case the term oppression means an unfair prejudice towards the minority shareholders’ interests which is not necessarily leading to a breach of their rights. Special attention is given to the minority protection within a non-public company due to its specific legal nature and serious restrictions on the shareholder’s right of free exit from the company by selling their share at the market price. The author has researched the relevant legislation and case law of both USA and United Kingdom; and, based on her findings, suggests improvements to the Russian laws protecting noncontrolling interests in non-public companies. In particular, it is suggested to implement the criteria of oppression in domestic legislation as well as to provide minority shareholders with effective remedies, including mandatory buy-out of their shares, the right to direct action for damages against the majority shareholder, or the right to distribute profits (pay dividends) by court order.
Keywords: oppression, minority shareholders remedies, non-public (close, private) company, unfair prejudice
Buy a PDF


Tatyana Krasnova A Commentary on the Judicial Review of Easement Establishment as Approved by the Russian Federation Supreme Court Presidium on April, 26 2017
On April 26, 2017 the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation approved the Judicial Review of Easement Establishment for Land Parcel (hereinafter referred to as «the Review »). The Review highlights both theoretical and practical approaches to the resolution of certain problems in easement law (for example, the current legislation not requiring to comply with the mandatory pre-trial procedure for settling easement disputes) as well as disputable aspects. The author suggests paying attention to some of them, namely paragraphs 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, and 13 of the Review. Thus, the Commentary examines the following issues: the permitted construction, repair, reconstruction and operation of a linear object on the basis of an easement; the right to demand establishment of an easement — does it belong exclusively to the dominant property owner, or to both parties in an easement relationship; the admissibility of establishing an «authentic» voluntary easement; the admissibility of imposing on a servient property owner the obligation to actively perform for the benefit of a dominant property owner; and the easement conditions including payments for this right.
Keywords: easement, encumbrance of the right to real estate, linear object, payment for easement
Buy a PDF