April 24 Main results of the day

One of the remarkable traditions of the Russian bar is the custom of honoring the most respected and worthy colleagues. Today is exactly such a day — Nikita Filippov, permanent Head, founder of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure”, was solemnly awarded the gold medal named after F.N. Plevako. Gold medal named after F.N. Plevako is one of the most prestigious awards of the Russian legal community. It is awarded for outstanding achievements in the protection of constitutional rights, freedoms and legitimate interests of citizens, high professional excellence, major contribution to the development of the legal profession and human rights activities, many years of conscientious work in providing qualified legal assistance, training qualified legal personnel. Along with the medal, a certificate is issued, and the lawyer’s name is forever included in the Book of Honor of the Russian Bar.

Continuation of the victorious story of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure” in the case of the protection of copyright and related rights to a musical work!

After the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation satisfied the cassation appeal of the Bureau of Lawyers and a new hearing of the case with Channel One JSC in favor of the Principals of the Bureau of Lawyers, the Moscow City Court recovered compensation for violation of intellectual rights in connection with the illegal use of the musical work of the Principals in a television program, and also a ban was imposed on the illegal use of a musical work by the First Channel and an obligation was imposed to stop the illegal use of a musical work by deleting all materials containing such a musical work.

In addition, in favor of each client of the Bureau of Lawyers, from Channel One a court penalty was also collected for each day of failure to comply with the appeal ruling of the Moscow City Court.

It is especially important to note that the judicial case considered by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation with the participation of the Principals, whose interests were represented from the very beginning by lawyers of the Bureau of Lawyers, was included in the Review of Judicial Practice of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 3 (2023), approved by the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on November 15, 2023, which will certainly be important for law enforcement and judicial practice in a similar category of disputes.

The interests of the Principals were represented by N.V. Filippov, Head of MCBA “Bureau of Lawyers “De jure”, and R.K. Gitinov, Head of the practice of dispute resolution in the field of intellectual property.

The Arbitration Court refused the owner of the premises to bring to subsidiary liability the Principal of the Bureau – the general director of the LLC, the tenant of these premises.

The position of the Bureau’s lawyer, which the court agreed wth, was that the arrears of rent payments, as a result of which the debtor began to meet the criteria of insolvency, represented debts for rent for unauthorized areas built in the period before the Principal took the position of general director, and rental payments for the areas established by the terms of the contract were made on time and in full.

In addition, the court took into account that the Principal provided catering services, but ceased his activities due to his forced eviction from the premises he occupied, and therefore, for reasons beyond his control, was unable to fulfill his financial obligations.

The interests of the Principal in court were represented by lawyer Viktor Pokormyak and lawyer Alexandra Reznichenko.

Interim measures as the right to a license and the “life” of an enterprise!

The Court of Appeal upheld the ruling of the court of first instance on suspending the execution of the decision of the state agency to revoke the license until the court decision came into force, agreeing with the arguments of the Bureau’s lawyers that there was convincing evidence in the case confirming the real infliction of losses to budgets of different levels and society in the amount of several hundred million rubles, in case of cancellation of the measures taken. At the same time, the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation considers it sufficient for the applicant to provide evidence of the probable infliction of such losses.

The state agency was also not helped by “manipulations” with judicial practice with its participation and references to “procedural” procedural violations committed by the court of first instance, since, as lawyers of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure” noted, Russian procedural legislation establishes the principle of inadmissibility of canceling an essentially correct judicial act only on formal grounds reasons.

The interests of the Principal were represented by Rashid Gitinov, Head of the dispute resolution practice with government a bodies.

The Ninth Arbitration Court of Appeal upheld the ruling of the Moscow Arbitration Court on the refusal to satisfy the application of the bankruptcy trustee of the debtor, in which he asked to invalidate the transactions of the Acts of completed works concluded between the debtor and the Principal of the Bureau. With these Acts, the parties approved the fact of construction work; as a result of the conclusion of the Acts, it turned out that the Debtor did not complete part of the work, and therefore he had a monetary obligation in the amount of 150 million rubles to the Principal Bureau. Subsequently, this amount of the Principal’s claims was included in the register of claims of the Debtor’s creditors.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the conclusions of the court of first instance that the bankruptcy trustee, by challenging transactions involving the signing of acts, pursued only one goal – to cancel the previously issued court ruling to include the Principal’s claims in the amount of 150 million rubles in the register of claims of the debtor’s creditors.

The interests of the Bureau in the appellate court were represented by lawyer Viktor Pokormyak and trainee lawyer Alexandra Reznichenko.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the court of first instance to refuse to satisfy the requirements of the Principal’s Opponent of the Bureau under the agreement for the transfer of premises for temporary paid use, since from all the evidence presented by the Opponent, it did not follow that there was will of the Principal to extend the contract, since there were no additional agreements or new agreements were not signed directly by the Principal, and the persons indicated in the correspondence were not authorized to conclude new contracts on behalf of the Principal.

The interests of the Principal were represented by Katana Ruslan, lawyer from the practice of economic disputes.