© Depositphotos.com / olly18
ARBITRATION COURT OF SVERDLOVSK REGION
620075 Yekaterinburg, st. Shartashskaya, 4
www.ekaterinburg.arbitr.ru e-mail: A60.mail @ arbitr.ru
In the name of the Russian Federation
DECISION
Yekaterinburg January 21, 2014 Case No. A60-34928 / 2013
The operative part of the decision was announced on January 21, 2014.
The full text of the decision was made on January 21, 2014
The Arbitration Court of the Sverdlovsk Region, composed of Judge E.A. Pavlova, in the process of conducting the trial record, was assisted by Judge E.V. Khakhalkina, court clerk E.O. Knyazeva (before and after the adjournment) examined case No.A60-34928 / 2013 according to the individual businessman Nikolenko Anatoly Vladimirovich (TIN 662900431618, OGRN 313668222500036) to the closed joint-stock company Firm EUROSPHERA (TIN 6629012700, OGRN 1026601723400) a third party that does not state independent claims regarding the subject of the dispute, Closed Joint-Stock Company Investment EUROLUX company to recover 7200000 rubles. 00 kopecks
Procedural rights and obligations clarified. There are no challenges to the court.
The plaintiff filed a claim with the arbitration court to recover damages from the defendant in the amount of 7,200,000 rubles. 00 cop., Including lost profits in the amount of 6,900,000 rubles. 00 cop., 300,000 rubles. 00 kopecks real damage arising from the termination of the contract of sale of shares to a third party due to improper fulfillment by the registrar of his obligations to make an entry in the register of shareholders. Also, the plaintiff asks to recover from the defendant compensation for non-pecuniary damage in the amount of 70,000 rubles. 00 kopecks The requirements are based on Art. 10, 15, 151 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, Art. 27, 28, 125, 225.1 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation.
The defendant in the preliminary court hearing submitted a response to the statement of claim dated 10.31.2013, asks for the lawsuit to refuse on the grounds set forth in the recall. The review was attached by the court to the case file. The plaintiff at the hearing on December 18, 2013 provided an explanation of the grounds for the claims, attached by the court to the case file. The defendant submitted a response to the statement of claim of 04/04/2013, attached by the court to the case file. The plaintiff filed a petition for involvement in the case as a third party, not declaring independent claims regarding the subject of the dispute, the closed joint-stock company EUROLUX Investment Company. Having examined the plaintiff's application, the arbitral tribunal in accordance with Part 3 of Art. 51 Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation he was satisfied and attracted the person to participate in the case as a third party, not declaring independent claims regarding the subject of the dispute, which is reflected in the court ruling of December 23, 2013. In this case, the defendant in the case file submitted a statement to terminate the proceedings. The court accepted the application. Considering that a third party is involved in the case, who does not state independent requirements regarding the subject of the dispute, and the evidence presented is not sufficient for a full and comprehensive review of the case, the court will consider the case on the basis of Art. 158 Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation postponed until January 16, 2014.
On January 16, 2014, a third party received a response to the statement of claim, which was attached by the court to the case file.
On January 20, 2014, from the plaintiff to the break, explanations were received regarding the jurisdiction of the dispute, written explanations were attached by the court to the case file. The defendant on January 20, 2014, after the break, presented an extract from the register of shareholders of the company, according to which the closed joint-stock company Investment Company EUROLUX as of 01.01.2014 is the owner of the closed joint-stock company EUROSPHERA Company in the amount of 200 pieces, which the court joined to case materials.
Having examined at the hearing on January 21, 2014 the defendant’s statement on the termination of the proceedings in view of the fact that the case is not subject to consideration by the arbitration court, filed by the defendant earlier in the present case, the court rejected his satisfaction on the following grounds. According to Part 2 of Article 27 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, arbitration courts resolve economic disputes and consider other cases involving organizations that are legal entities, citizens engaged in entrepreneurial activities without forming a legal entity and having the status of an individual entrepreneur, acquired in the manner prescribed by law, and in cases provided for by this Code and other federal laws, with the participation of the Russian Federation, constituent entities of the Russian Federation Federation, municipalities, state bodies, local governments, other bodies, officials, entities that do not have the status of a legal entity, and citizens who do not have the status of an individual entrepreneur. The special jurisdiction of cases to arbitration courts is provided for in Article 33 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, according to which arbitration courts hear cases in disputes referred to in Article 225.1 of the Code.
According to Art. 225.1. The Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation arbitration courts hear cases in disputes related to the creation of a legal entity, its management or participation in a legal entity that is a commercial organization, as well as in a non-commercial partnership, association (union) of commercial organizations, another non-commercial organization uniting commercial organizations and (or) individual entrepreneurs, a non-profit organization having the status of a self-regulatory organization in accordance with federal law m (hereinafter - corporate disputes), including the following corporate disputes: 1) disputes related to the creation, reorganization and liquidation of a legal entity; 2) disputes related to the ownership of shares, shares in the authorized (joint-stock) capital of business companies and partnerships, shares of members of cooperatives, the establishment of their encumbrances and the exercise of the rights arising from them, with the exception of disputes arising from the activities of depositories related to accounting for rights to shares and other securities, disputes arising in connection with the division of inheritance property or the division of the common property of the spouses, which includes shares, shares in the authorized (joint-stock) capital of business entities and partnerships, units enes cooperatives; 3) disputes in claims of founders, participants, members of a legal entity (hereinafter referred to as participants of a legal entity) regarding compensation for losses caused to a legal entity, invalidation of transactions made by a legal entity, and (or) application of the consequences of invalidity of such transactions; 4) disputes related to the appointment or election, termination, suspension of authority and responsibility of persons included or included in the governing bodies and control bodies of a legal entity, as well as disputes arising from civil legal relations between these persons and a legal entity in connection with the implementation , termination, suspension of authority of these persons; 5) disputes related to the issue of securities, including the contestation of non-normative legal acts, decisions and actions (inaction) of state bodies, local authorities, other bodies, officials, decisions of the issuer's management bodies, to challenge transactions made in the process placement of equity securities, reports (notifications) on the results of the issue (additional issue) of equity securities; 6) disputes arising from the activities of holders of the register of holders of securities related to the accounting of rights to shares and other securities, with the exercise by the holder of the register of holders of securities of other rights and obligations stipulated by federal law in connection with the placement and (or) circulation of securities ; 7) disputes about convening a general meeting of participants in a legal entity; 8) disputes on appealing against decisions of governing bodies of a legal entity; 9) disputes arising from the activities of notaries to certify transactions with shares in the authorized capital of limited liability companies.
The court concluded that since in this case the plaintiff's claims relate to the share purchase and sale agreement, they stem from the activities of the registrar. This dispute in accordance with Art. Art. 225.1. The Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation is subject to review by the arbitration court. In this case, the plaintiff, based on the case file, the plaintiff at the time of the dispute consideration has the status of an individual entrepreneur, acquired in the manner prescribed by law, and this fact has not been disproved by the persons participating in the case.
Thus, this dispute is a dispute between a legal entity and an individual entrepreneur, which also testifies to the jurisdiction of the dispute to the arbitration court.
Given the above, the court did not see any reason for me to satisfy the defendant's motion to terminate the proceedings. The defendant in the court session after the break on January 21, 2014 filed a petition for the demand for evidence, in which he asked to oblige the closed joint-stock company Investment Company EUROLUX to provide information from the bank about the cash flow during the disputed period, accounting and tax reporting confirming the existence of the company a real opportunity to redeem shares at a price of 7,000,000 rubles, the decision of the general meeting of shareholders to approve the transaction.
This petition by the court was considered and rejected on the basis of Art. 66, part 5, article 159 Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. Satisfaction of this petition would entail an increase in the time limit for consideration of the case, disruption of this meeting, which contradicts the principle of procedural saving of time for the consideration of a dispute. The court found that this motion was aimed at delaying the present trial. At the same time, the defendant did not submit documents indicating the impossibility of independently obtaining the requested documents, as well as the impossibility of applying to the court earlier with this request.
Also, the defendant in the court session after the break on January 21, 2014 filed a motion for the appointment of a forensic examination, the defendant requested a forensic assessment with the following question: “What is the market value of ordinary registered shares of EUROSPHERA Closed Joint-Stock Company as of December 20, 2012 in the amount of 200 pieces. " This petition by the court was considered and rejected on the basis of part 5 of art. 159 Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. At the same time, the court also took into account the fact that the specified application for the appointment of an examination does not indicate the expert’s data (information on education, advanced training, work experience), the timing of the examination, the documents necessary for the expert to conduct the examination, the cost of the examination, to the deposit account of the arbitration court no funds were paid to pay for the services of an expert.
In addition, the defendant did not fulfill the obligation to deposit the amount of money in the prescribed amount in the prescribed amount, the court rejected this application (paragraph 4, 15 of the Decree of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation of December 20, 2006 No. 66 “On some issues of the practice of application by arbitration courts of law on examination ”). Taking into account the above, as well as the fact that the defendant did not provide evidence that he did not have the opportunity to apply to the court with this petition earlier, the court considered that this petition was aimed at delaying the present trial and rejected the petition. The parties involved in the case did not submit other additional documents in support of their claims and objections.
Having examined the case file, the arbitral tribunal ESTABLISHED:
The closed joint-stock company Firm EUROSFERA (TIN 6629012700, OGRN 1026601723400) was registered with the Inspection of the Ministry of the Russian Federation for Taxes and Levies in the City of Novouralsk, Sverdlovsk Region, on June 09, 2000. The plaintiff, believing that he is a shareholder of the closed joint-stock company Firm EUROSPHERA with 205 ordinary registered shares (39.96% of the total number of shares placed), on November 7, 2012, presented the defendant with a notice of intent to sell 200 pieces of shares to a third party - the closed joint-stock company Investment EUROLUX company. 12/20/2012 between the plaintiff (seller) and a third party (buyer), a share purchase agreement was concluded, under which the seller sells and the buyer accepts and pays ordinary registered shares of the closed joint-stock company EUROSPHERA Firm, with a nominal value of 500 rubles. for 1 pc. in the amount of 200 pieces. Sale of shares by virtue of clause 2.1 of the contract is made at a price of 7,000,000 rubles.
As a general rule, in accordance with paragraph 1 of Art. 223 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, ownership of the acquirer of a thing under a contract arises from the moment of its transfer. However, the moment of transfer of ownership of securities is established by special rules. The transfer of ownership and making an entry in the register is carried out not only by registering the sale of shares, but also by providing the registrar with a transfer order. (This conclusion is also contained in the Decision of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the North-Western District of 09.02.2009 in the case N A21-2614 / 2006). At the same time, the transfer order in itself is not a sufficient basis for the transfer of ownership of shares. This order must indicate the basis for the transfer of ownership of securities (paragraph 3.4.2 of the Regulation). The said argument is also reflected in the Decree of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of February 17, 2004 N CAS04-11 “On upholding the decision of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of 02.12.2003 N GKPI03-1295. The form of the transfer order was approved by the Decree of the Federal Securities Commission of the Russian Federation of 02.10.1997 No. 27 "On approval of the Regulation on the maintenance of the register of owners of registered securities".
01/16/2014 the plaintiff sent to the defendant transfer orders to write off 200 pieces of shares and crediting to the customer’s personal account of the closed joint-stock company EUROLUX Investment Company. At the same time, by a letter dated 04/23/2013 No. 04-16 / 10, the defendant refused to make an entry in the register of shareholders of the company, in view of the fact that the plaintiff needed to clarify the number of transferred securities and the registration number of the issue of securities. According to clause 5.1. of the said contract, the buyer has the right to unilaterally terminate this contract in case of violation by the seller of the obligation specified in clause 3.1. of this agreement, or if the acquired shares will not be credited to the customer’s personal account in the register of shareholders of Eurosfera CJSC before 02/01/2013 for reasons beyond the buyer's control (absence of shares on the personal account of the seller, presence of encumbrances on them, etc. .), and demand a penalty, in accordance with clause 4.1 of this agreement, as well as money paid for shares, having previously notified the seller in writing in 2 days.
By a notification dated February 26, 2013 No. 05, a third party notified the plaintiff of the unilateral termination of the contract for the sale of shares w / o dated 12/20/2012, due to the fact that the acquired and partially paid shares by a third party of the closed joint-stock company EUROSPHERA Firm are not credited to the personal account due to the plaintiff’s fault, in connection with the failure to submit properly executed transfer orders, which is why the third party considered the sale and purchase agreement of shares to be unfulfilled. At the same time, this letter reflects the fact that the contract is terminated in connection with the improper actions of the plaintiff. 03/26/2013 advance in the amount of 100,000 rubles. 00 kopecks in payment of the contract, he was returned by the plaintiff to the cashier of the closed joint-stock company Investment Company EUROLUX.
Based on the circumstances, the plaintiff appealed to the court with this lawsuit. Having examined the claimed claims, the court dismissed them for the following reasons.
According to paragraph 2 of Art. 15 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, losses are understood to mean expenses that a person whose right has been violated, has made or will have to make to restore the violated right, loss or damage to his property (real damage), as well as lost income that this person would have received under ordinary conditions civil circulation, if his right had not been violated (loss of profit). Consequently, in order to hold the defendant liable in the form of damages, the following circumstances are subject to proof or refutation: - the fact of damage and its size, - the fact of unlawful behavior of the defendant, - causal connection between the defendant's unlawful behavior and the damage that has occurred.
By a decision of the Arbitration Court of the Sverdlovsk Region of April 26, 2013 in case No. А60-5898 / 2013, the court declared illegal the refusal of the Closed Joint-Stock Company Firm Eurosfera to make entries on the transfer of rights to ordinary registered shares in the amount of 200 pieces from the account of Anatoly Vladimirovich Nikolenko to the account Closed Joint-Stock Company Investment Company EUROLUX in the register of shareholders of the company on the basis of a contract for the sale of shares dated December 20, 2012. and ordered the Closed Joint-Stock Company Firm Eurosfera to make an entry on the transfer of ownership of ordinary registered shares in the amount of 200 pieces from the account of Anatoly Vladimirovich Nikolenko to the account of the Closed Joint-Stock Company EUROLUX Investment Company in the register of shareholders of the company on the basis of the share purchase agreement from 12/20/2012 At the same time, as follows from the case file, by a Notice dated February 26, 2013 No. 05, a third party notified the plaintiff of the unilateral termination of the contract of sale of shares of non-cash from December 20, 2012. Thus, this notice was sent by a third party and received by the plaintiff in the present case prior to the court ruling in case No. A60-5898 / 2013.
Moreover, an advance of $ 100,000 rubles. 00 cop., Transferred by a third party, as the plaintiff points out, the plaintiff was returned last also before the decision of the Arbitration Court of the Sverdlovsk Region in case No. А60-5898 / 2013 - dated March 26, 2013. Thus, at the time of the consideration of case No. А60-5898 / 2013 plaintiff - A. Nikolenko knew about these circumstances, however, did not use the plaintiff’s right to refuse a claim in the framework of this case, provided for by Art. 49 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation and insisted on the requirements for the Closed Joint-Stock Company Eurosphere Firm (registrar) to make an entry on the transfer of rights to ordinary registered shares in the amount of 200 pieces from the account of Anatoly Vladimirovich Nikolenko to the account of EUROLUX Investment Company Closed Joint-Stock Company in the register of shareholders of the company on the basis of a contract of sale of shares dated December 20, 2012, which, according to the plaintiff in this case, is terminated on the basis of these documents.
At the same time, during the consideration of case No. А60-5898 / 2013, the court found that “considering the documents in the case in their entirety, including the plaintiff’s explanations contained in the statement of claim and in additional written explanations of the grounds of the claim, as well as the third persons from his recall, the court considers that at present there are no doubts regarding the will of the plaintiff and the third party regarding the fate of the shares belonging to the plaintiff in the amount of 200 pieces, which means that there are no obstacles to entering the register of shares ioners record of the transfer of ownership of the plaintiff’s securities to a third party on the basis of the contract of sale of shares dated 12/20/2012. "
The court also indicated that by the time the dispute was examined, “taking into account all the explanations of the plaintiff and the third party in the present case, there is no uncertainty regarding the will of the plaintiff regarding the transfer of rights to shares”. The defendant appealed to the Seventeenth Arbitration Court of Appeal with an appeal against this decision. By the decision of the Seventeenth Arbitration Court of Appeal of July 11, 2013, the decision of the Arbitration Court of the Sverdlovsk Region of April 26, 2013 in case No. A60-5898 / 2013 was left unchanged.
At the same time, A. Nikolenko at the time of consideration of the case in the court of appeal, aware of the presence of the Notice dated February 26, 2013 No. 05, the third party notified the plaintiff about the unilateral termination of the contract for the sale of b / n shares dated December 20, 2012. and return the advance of $ 100,000. 00 kopecks March 26, 2013 to a third party, also did not exercise the right to waive the lawsuit considered in the framework of case No. А60-5898 / 2013, provided to him by Art. 49 Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, and insisted on the defendant's obligation to register the transfer of rights to shares. On July 16, 2013, the plaintiff listed, as the plaintiff points out, the penalty to a third party.
Subsequently, the defendant filed a cassation appeal to the court of cassation. By a decision of the Federal Arbitration Court of the Ural District of December 18, 2013 (later all the circumstances specified), the decision of the Arbitration Court of the Sverdlovsk Region of April 26, 2013 in case No. A60-5898 / 2013 and the Resolution of the Seventeenth Arbitration Court of Appeal of July 11, 2013 on the same The case is left unchanged. At the same time, neither Nikolenko A.V., nor a third party indicated the termination of the contract even during the consideration of the case by the court of cassation, believing that there were all grounds for making an entry on the transfer of rights under the said contract.
Considering the above, the actions of the plaintiff and defendant during the course of the proceedings, given the fact that the court decision in case No. А60-5898 / 2013 was made after the notification was sent and the advance was returned, the court concludes that the actions of the parties ( the plaintiff’s relevant actions - filing a claim, insisting on requirements for making an entry on the transfer of rights to shares in all instances during the consideration of the named case, maintaining this position by a third party) indicate the existence of a contractual relationship between them regarding the purchase and sale even disputed actions (paragraph 5 of the Information letter of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated 05.05.1997 N 14 "Review of the practice of resolving disputes related to the conclusion, amendment and termination of contracts") and clearly indicate the direction of the will of the plaintiff and third party, also indicate that the actions of the plaintiff and third party are not relevant for parties that ask the court to oblige the defendant to register the transfer of rights to shares in the register.
Moreover, in the future, neither the plaintiff nor the third party issued any orders regarding documents (transfer documents) previously submitted to the respondent (for example, on recalling these orders or any other).
Moreover, according to Part 1 of Art. 16 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, judicial acts of the arbitration court that have entered into legal force are binding on state authorities, local authorities, other bodies, organizations, officials and citizens and are subject to enforcement throughout the Russian Federation. At the same time, the court decision may be executed by the defendant both voluntarily and compulsorily (presentation of a writ of execution). The defendant, executing the decision of the Arbitration Court of the Sverdlovsk Region in case No. А60-5898 / 2013, voluntarily made an entry in the register of shareholders on the transfer of rights to disputed shares from the plaintiff to a third party, as evidenced by an extract from the register of shareholders of the company, according to which the closed joint-stock company Investment EUROLUX company as of 01.01.2014 is the owner of shares of EUROSPHERA Closed Joint-Stock Company in the amount of 200 pieces. In view of the circumstances, this entry was made on the basis of the said agreement and the court decision on the said case. Thus, the legal consequences referred to by the plaintiff did not occur, and therefore there is no causal link between the behavior of the defendant and the alleged damage.
Given the above, evaluating all the evidence presented in aggregate in accordance with Article 71 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, the court did not see any reason to satisfy the stated claims (Articles 9, 65 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, Articles 15, 10 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation ) In addition, the court did not see any reason to satisfy the plaintiff’s claim for non-pecuniary damage on the following grounds. According to the provisions of the Civil Code, the grounds and amount of compensation to a citizen for non-pecuniary damage are determined by the rules provided for by Chapter 59 of the Civil Code and Art. 151 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. In accordance with Art. 151 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, if a citizen has suffered non-pecuniary damage (physical or moral suffering) by actions violating his personal non-property rights or encroaching on other intangible benefits belonging to the citizen, as well as in other cases provided for by law, the court may impose on the offender the obligation of monetary compensation for this damage .
In determining the amount of compensation for non-pecuniary damage, the court takes into account the degree of guilt of the offender and other circumstances noteworthy. The court must also take into account the degree of physical and mental suffering associated with the individual characteristics of the person who has been harmed. By virtue of h. 2 Article. 1101 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the amount of compensation for non-pecuniary damage is determined by the court depending on the nature of the physical and moral suffering inflicted on the victim, as well as the degree of guilt of the harm inflicted in cases where guilt is the basis for compensation for harm.
In determining the amount of compensation for harm, the requirements of reasonableness and justice must be taken into account. The nature of the physical and moral suffering is assessed by the court taking into account the factual circumstances in which the non-pecuniary damage was caused and the individual characteristics of the victim. According to paragraphs 1, 2 of paragraph 2 of the Decree of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of December 20, 1994 N 10 "Some issues of application of the legislation on compensation for moral harm" moral damage is understood as moral or physical suffering caused by actions (inaction) that infringe upon the citizen’s birth or by virtue of the law, intangible goods (life, health, dignity of a person, business reputation, privacy, personal and family secrets, etc.), or violating his personal non-property rights (rights about to use his own name, the right of authorship and other non-property rights in accordance with the laws on the protection of intellectual property) or violate the property rights of the citizen.
Non-pecuniary damage, in particular, may include moral distress due to the loss of relatives, the inability to continue an active social life, the loss of work, disclosure of family, medical secrets, dissemination of false information defaming the honor, dignity or business reputation of a citizen, temporary restriction or deprivation of any rights, physical pain associated with the injury, other damage to health or in connection with a disease suffered as a result of morale GOVERNMENTAL suffering, and others. For laying on the defendant's obligation to compensate for damage, including non-pecuniary damage, it is necessary to establish the fact of illegal actions of the defendant, causing harm to the plaintiff, causal relationship between the actions of the defendant and the injury to the plaintiff, the defendant's guilt. The duty to prove the first three circumstances rests with the plaintiff, the duty to prove the absence of guilt in violation of the rights of the plaintiff - to the defendant.
The plaintiff points to the presence of moral harm in the form of moral distress, an obstacle to the implementation of entrepreneurial activity (the need to obtain funds from the sale of shares for the purpose of further entrepreneurial activity). However, the fact of causing physical and moral suffering to the entrepreneur through the fault of the defendant is not confirmed.
The plaintiff did not prove that it was precisely the actions (inaction) of the defendant that prevented him from carrying out entrepreneurial activities. Any grounds provided for by Art. 151 of the Civil Code for non-pecuniary damage in this case are absent. Considering the foregoing, the court did not see any reason to satisfy the plaintiff.
In accordance with Part 1 of Art. 110 Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation legal costs incurred by persons involved in the case, in favor of which a judicial act was passed, shall be recovered by the arbitral tribunal from the side. Since the court granted the plaintiff's application for a deferral of payment of state duty in the amount of 51,000 rubles. 00 kopecks when filing a claim, in connection with which the plaintiff did not pay the state fee when filing the claim, and also considering that the plaintiff was refused to satisfy the claim, the state fee in the amount of 51,000 rubles. 00 kopecks be recoverable from the plaintiff in the federal budget of the Russian Federation on the basis of Art. 110 Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation.
Guided by Article.110, 167-170, 171 Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, arbitration court
I DECIDED:
1. The satisfaction of the claims refuse.
2. Collect from an individual entrepreneur Anatoly Vladimirovich Nikolenko in the income of the federal budget of the Russian Federation a state fee in the amount of 51,000 rubles 00 kopecks.
3. The decision in the present case shall enter into force upon the expiration of a month from the date of its adoption, unless an appeal is filed. In the case of an appeal, the decision, if it is not canceled or changed, shall enter into force on the day of adoption of the decision of the arbitration court of the appellate court. The decision can be appealed to the appeal proceedings in the Seventeenth Arbitration Court of Appeal within a month from the date of the decision (its full production). The appeal is filed in the arbitration court of appeal through the arbitration court that made the decision. An appeal may also be filed by filling out a form posted on the official website of the arbitration court on the Internet http://ekaterinburg.arbitr.ru. In case of appeal against the decision on appeal, information about the time, place and results of the consideration of the case can be obtained, respectively, on the website of the Seventeenth Arbitration Court of Appeal http://17aas.arbitr.ru.
Referee E.A. Pavlova
We offer our clients our legal services in the following areas:
1) business support;
2) protection of intellectual property;
3) litigation;
4) corporate practice;
5) real estate;
6) tax law.
Our law firm provides various legal services in various cities of Russia (including Novosibirsk, Tomsk, Omsk, Barnaul, Krasnoyarsk, Kemerovo, Novokuznetsk, Irkutsk, Chita, Vladivostok, Moscow, St. Petersburg, Yekaterinburg).
We will be glad to see you among our customers!
Call or write right now!
Phone +7 (383) 310-38-76
Email address info@vitvet.com
Law Firm "Winds and Partners"
more than just legal services
