Analytics Legal analytics

Select services and industries:

Select the period:

—
21
July
2016

Moving unitary enterprises to the contract system

In the final days of the spring session of the State Duma of the Russian Federation, an important law was passed aimed at strengthening control over procurement by state and municipal unitary enterprises. In this research report, we examine the key provisions of that legislation and its legal consequences for unitary enterprises.
Alexander Sitnikov, Managing partner
24
June
2016

Overturning the enforcement of a judgment: is it possible to collect interest?

According to Part 1 of Article 325 of the Arbitration Procedure Code, if the enforcement of an act is repealed, in whole or in part, and a new judicial act adopted, on a full or partial denial of the claim, or the claim is left without consideration, or the proceedings were terminated, the defendant is returned all that was recovered from him in favour of the plaintiff on the repealed, or modified in the relevant part, judicial act. In the application of the rule of law, courts have said there were issues related to the accrual of interest for the use of funds in the case when these funds were transferred to the claimant, after the entry into force of the judicial act, but later the judicial act was abolished through a cassation appeal. Answers to these questions were given by the court when resolving a particular dispute.
Alexander Sitnikov, Managing partner
Evgeniy Rodin, Partner, Head of "Resources. Industry. Restructuring"
21
June
2016

Public procurement: protecting the exclusive rights of copyright holders

We present, for your information, a collection of articles on issues in the field of exclusive rights protection for copyright holders in the course of public procurement.
Alexandra Vasyukhnova, Partner, Head of Technology and Investment group
10
June
2016

FAQ on structuring concession projects

Last year, the Federal Law “On Concession Agreements” turned 10 years old. Despite such a significant amount of time, and the volume of implemented projects, questions on structuring concession projects have not diminished. Conversely, with the national economy’s growing needs for infrastructure projects using private investments, and expanding the sphere of application of the concession model, the complexity of concession projects has increased. The more knowledge and experience participants have concerning concession projects, the better they will be able to improve them. This practical experience with concession law creates subsequent questions, the answers to which are not always found in the legislation.
Irina Nikolaeva, Junior associate, Energy practice
29
April
2016

FAS will not pay interest on illegal fine

The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation has confirmed that current legislation does not provide for the possibility of reimbursing interest on borrowed funds used to pay administrative fines unlawfully levied by the Russian Federal Antimonopoly Service.
Alexander Sitnikov, Managing partner
13
April
2016

Changes to the APC RF were made at the initiative of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation

On 29 October 2014, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation introduced to the State Duma a draft federal bill No. 638178-6 “On Amendments to the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation and in the second part of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation”. The bill not only makes significant changes to the existing provisions of the Arbitration Procedure Code, but also offers an innovation, previously unknown in arbitration procedural law, the institute of summary procedure.
Alexander Sitnikov, Managing partner
Evgeniy Rodin, Partner, Head of "Resources. Industry. Restructuring"
17
February
2016

Changes to anti-offshore legislation in early 2016

On the 15th of February 2016, Russian President Vladimir Putin signed Federal Law No. 32 “On Amendments to Parts One and Two of the Tax Code and the Federal Law – On Amendments to Parts One and Two of the Tax Code (regarding the taxation of profits of controlled foreign companies and income of foreign organizations). “ This law amends existing Russian anti-offshore legislation. We present here the most interesting amendments, which should be taken into account when working with affiliated foreign companies and non-corporate tax planning tools.
Yuriy Ivanov, Head of Tax practice
21
January
2016

“To know everything” (Continued)

In 2014, the Astrel Publishing House, as the legal owner of the trademark “I want to know everything”, prohibited the AST-PRESS KNIGA Publishing House to publish a book in its “Baby’s Library” series that carried the working “I want to know everything” on its cover page. Astrel also sought to recover compensation for the illegal use of its trademark to the tune of 2.9 million rubles. However, the dispute over trademark “I want to know everything” continues.
Alexandra Vasyukhnova, Partner, Head of Technology and Investment group
8
December
2015

Unfair competition: discrediting, misleading, and incorrect comparison

Coming into force on 05 January 2016 will be a number of significant changes to the Federal Law of 26 July 2006 No 135-FZ “On Protection of Competition”, also known as the “fourth antimonopoly package”. Among the amendments was a change to the existing Article 14 of the Law on Protection of Competition – by the addition of the new Chapter 2.1, dealing with unfair competition. The new Chapter 2.1 of the Law on the Protection of Competition has seven distinct prohibitions on unfair competition, as well as points to the openness of the list of forms of unfair competition. This analytical review is devoted to three separate formulations of unfair competition, standing out as a result of the adoption of the new amendments – discrediting, misrepresentation, and incorrect comparison – as well as the court practice that preceded the amendments, and the possible effect of the adoption of these amendments on law-enforcement practice.
Alexander Sitnikov, Managing partner
23
November
2015

New developments in patent cases in pharma

In November 2015 the Arbitration court of Moscow region rejected the originator's patent claim against the local drug manufacturer. Following the decision of the Supreme Arbitration Court in well-known Imatinibum case in 2009 the Arbitration court of Moscow region decided that no patent infringement may occur prior to state registration of a pharmaceutical product. Furthermore, the court gave several potentially important interpretations of IP regulations applied to pharmaceutical products. The relevant conclusions of the court may influence the future development of IP practice in pharmaceutical sector in Russia.
Alexander Sitnikov, Managing partner
Alexandra Vasyukhnova, Partner, Head of Technology and Investment group
21
July
2016

Tightening of administrative responsibility for violation of legislation on the contract system

Before its spring session ended, the State Duma of the Russian Federation adopted Federal Law dated 3 July 2016 No. 318-FZ “On Amendments to the RF Administrative Offences Code”. This law increased the number of actions that can be considered as administrative offenses, involving the violation of procurement procedures, as established by the legislation on the contract system, as well as the tightening of administrative responsibility for specific violations.
Alexander Sitnikov, Managing partner
24
June
2016

Exclusive rights of copyright owner during a tender: law enforcement practice

In this review, we consider when requirements for owning exclusive rights may be made for a tender participant, and what opportunities are there for the protection of the copyright owner’s exclusive rights, when these are violated as a result of a tender.
Alexandra Vasyukhnova, Partner, Head of Technology and Investment group
21
June
2016

Analytical overview of key issues in the field of real estate, land, and construction

The VEGAS LEX Law Firm has released a collection of publications in the years 2015-2016, on current issues in the field of real estate, land, and construction.
Igor Chumachenko, Partner, Head of Real Estate, Land & Construction practice
17
May
2016

Legal or contractual penalty – dispute resolved by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation

The Civil Code establishes two types of penalties for untimely performance of obligations – contractual and legal.In practice, there appear disputes related to the different interpretations of the legality of reducing the size of legal penalties, agreed upon by parties to an agreement. According to one position, such a reduction is possible because of the discretionary nature of civil legislation. The second opinion holds that the legal penalty is a minimum amount due for the delay in the fulfilment of obligation, and therefore its reduction is not possible. Recently, the Supreme Court has eliminated the legal uncertainty in this matter when considering a specific dispute.
Alexander Sitnikov, Managing partner
Evgeniy Rodin, Partner, Head of "Resources. Industry. Restructuring"
19
April
2016

The Supreme Court is against illegal tax control over price levels

On 11 April 2016, the Judicial Chamber on Economic Disputes of the Supreme Court issued a ruling on Case No. A63-11506/14, and with that, sided with the taxpayer in a dispute with the tax authorities. The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation stated that the territorial tax authorities, within cameral and field tax audits, are not allowed to control the market price levels in transactions between related parties.
Alexander Sitnikov, Managing partner
Yuriy Ivanov, Head of Tax practice
24
February
2016

Disputes in IT: precedents set in 2015

In this analytical review, we present for your consideration information on the five most interesting legal disputes in the field of IT in the year 2015.

Alexandra Vasyukhnova, Partner, Head of Technology and Investment group
16
February
2016

Retail Generation: guaranteeing supplier should pay for electricity not demanded by buyers

On the right of retail electric power producers to recover from guaranteeing suppliers of unjust enrichment in the form of revenues received by the network from “surplus” electricity.

Alexander Sitnikov, Managing partner
Evgeniy Rodin, Partner, Head of "Resources. Industry. Restructuring"
Yuriy Tatarinov, Head of Energy practice
18
December
2015

Review of practice: Decisions of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on the Protection of Competition in 2015

We are nearing the end of 2015. Over the past year, the Supreme Court ruled on over 400 judicial acts related to violations of antitrust laws, and bringing companies to administrative responsibility for such violations. Some of the acts, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation supported and confirmed by already existing legal positions, while for others, it formulated new approaches to certain issues of antitrust legislation. This research report consists of a description of the most significant and interesting, in our opinion, decisions made by the Supreme Court in 2015.
Alexander Sitnikov, Managing partner
24
November
2015

Unfair competition: precedents of 2014–2015

The Federal Law dated 05.10.2015 No. 275-FZ “On Amendments to the Federal Law – On Protection of Competition, and certain legislative acts of the Russian Federation”, better known as the “fourth antimonopoly package”, highlighted the issues of unfair competition in a separate chapter. This chapter contains a more detailed description of the forms of unfair competition, based on previous law enforcement practice of bringing legal entities to accountability for such violations. In this regard, we have analyzed court practice on the question of unfair competition for the years 2014–2015. This review presents the most interesting and principle decisions that can set the direction of future court practice on unfair competition.
Alexander Sitnikov, Managing partner
Alexandra Vasyukhnova, Partner, Head of Technology and Investment group
9
October
2015

The actual owner of the housing facilities should be responsible for paying for electricity

In Case No. A73-6824/2014, the Supreme Court considered a non-standard situation in which the supplier of last resort filed a claim for the recovery of electrical energy debts directly against the owner of the property, referring to the fact that the transactions involving the transfer of the said property, via a lease to a third party, had been recognized by the courts as invalid.
Alexander Sitnikov, Managing partner
Evgeniy Rodin, Partner, Head of "Resources. Industry. Restructuring"
Pages: Prev. 1 2 3 4 5 ... 10 Next

Apply to participate

Agreement

Apply to participate

Оценка:

Agreement
By continuing to use this site, you consent to the VEGAS-LEX Law Firm, Moscow, to the processing of cookies and relevant user data (IP address, location information, OS type and version, browser type and version, device type and screen resolution, source of access to the site, operating system and browser language, behavior on the site) for the purpose of functioning of the site, conducting statistical research and web analytics, including using third-party services. If you do not want your data to be processed, change the appropriate settings of your browser or leave the site.
More info Accept