Recent rulings by Russia’s Supreme Arbitrazh (Commercial) Court (SAC) have clarified dispute resolution procedural issues in Russian courts
Recent rulings by Russia’s Supreme Arbitrazh (Commercial) Court (SAC) have clarified dispute resolution procedural issues in Russian courts. In particular, the following resolutions were adopted:
Resolution No. 61 of the Plenum of the Russian Supreme Arbitrazh (Commercial) Court of 8 October 2012, "Ensuring publicity of arbitration proceedings"
Resolution No. 61 of the Plenum of the Russian Supreme Arbitrazh (Commercial) Court of 8 October 2012, "On certain issues arising from the establishment of a court for intellectual property rights within the system of arbitration courts "
Resolution No. 62 of the Plenum of the Russian Supreme Arbitrazh (Commercial) Court of 8 October 2012, "On certain issues related to the consideration by arbitrazh (commercial) courts of cases using summary proceedings"
This article seeks to answer the question whether Russian Arbitrazh (Commercial) courts tend to decide cases in favor of defendant versus plaintiff or state versus business. It was found that courts favors business entities in civil cases, while in administrative cases courts take decisions in favor of governmental bodies other things being equal. In addition, the plaintiff bias persists regardless of the type of the process. However, the plaintiff bias decreases with the rise of the case complexity. The article is based on the regression analysis of a random sample of 10 000 cases decided by the Russian Arbitrazh (commercial) courts in 2007—2011.
The article analyses the existing legal regulation of the problem of defi nition of concepts of “electronic document” and “electronic message”, correlation of these concepts and also the problem of authenticity and feasibility of electronic document as a means of evidence in civil and arbitrazh proceedings.
This article is focused on the role of the Arbitrazh courts (special Russian jurisdictions for the economic disputes between legal persons) in the system of the power relations. The mechanism of the mobilization of law by various economic actors is described. Further the idea about the key role of the court decision analyze in the studying of the court activities is theoretically grounded. Next part of the paper is a case-study of the competition between the different power institutions (including Arbitrazh courts) for the “extra-simple” economic disputes. The conclusions of the article are focused on the causes of the Arbitrazh court success in the competition between the various power institutions.
The article is devoted to a particular form of freedom of assembly — the right to counter-demonstrate. The author underlines the value of this right as an element of democratic society, but also acknowledges the risk of violent actions among participants of opposing demonstrations. Due to this risk, the government may adopt adequate measures restricting the right to counter-demonstrate, certain types of which are analyzed in this paper.
Development of standards of international controllability is reviewed in the article. Institutional approach is applied to development of international legal regime of Energy Charter. Definition of controllability is connected to development of international standards of dispute settlement, which are described in the article in detail. In connection with controllability, Russian interest, defense of investment in European Union and ecological investment encouragement, is reviewed in the article.
мировое управление и управляемость, Мировая экономика, международное экономическое право, энергетическая хартия, International control and controllability, International economics, international economic law, Energy Charter
международное частное право; недвижимость; ; школа бартолистов; бартолисты; теория статутов; статуарная теория/