November 16 Main results of the day

The amount of losses reduced by more than 27 million rubles by the employees of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure” survived the cassation! The Second Court of Cassation of General Jurisdiction upheld the decision of the Moscow City Court, which partially satisfied the claims of the opponents of the Principal of the Bureau and recovered 5.9 million rubles from the claimed 33 million rubles. In support of the claim, the Plaintiff referred to the theft of funds from an individual safe deposit box. Representing the interests of the Principal in this dispute in the court of cassation instance, Rashid Gitinov, Head of the practice, managed to refute the Plaintiff’s arguments that the Moscow City Court ignored the Plaintiff’s argument that there were more than 27 million rubles in the deposit box. This was justified by the fact that the evidence presented by the Plaintiff in support of this amount is not relevant and permissible, and the arguments of the complaint are aimed solely at revaluation of evidence, which is not within the powers of the court of cassation instance. The interests of the Principal were represented by Rashid Gitinov, Head of the practice of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure”.

The Second Court of Cassation of General Jurisdiction put the final end to the dispute and left unchanged the decision and the appeal ruling on the refusal to recognize the dismissal of the head of the Bank as illegal. The Plaintiff tried to prove that the bankruptcy trustee of a Bank, declared bankrupt, could not dismiss the chairman of the board, since she had a minor child dependent on her. Lawyers from the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure”, representing the interests of the bankruptcy trustee, once again confirmed the groundlessness of the Plaintiff’s position and proved that the norms of labor legislation in this case are not subject to application, since the termination of the activities of the management bodies of a legal entity declared bankrupt is directly provided for by the bankruptcy legislation. Therefore, in this case, the dismissal is not initiated by the employer. The interests of the Principal were represented by Ekaterina Bulygina, Senior Lawyer of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure”.