On 22 April 2015, the Supreme Court of Russia published the decision on the issue whether the Russian commercial courts apply the Agreement between the Government of the Russian Federation and the Government of the Republic of Bulgaria on the Promotion and Reciprocal Protection of Investments. The issue arose out the case regarding the dispute on transaction of a transfer of stakes in a foreign company.
Although Kyrgyzstan v. Stans Energy Corp is known as an investment arbitration case having been heard by the Moscow Arbitrazh (Commercial) court on the issue of setting aside the arbitral award there is something else interesting – on 12 March 2015 the court refused the motion on anti-enforcement injunctions in the case.
In June 2013, Russian President Vladimir Putin unexpectedly announced the creation of a new ’super’ Russian Supreme Court that would merge the Supreme Commercial (Arbitrazh) Court and the Supreme Court. In this article, Mikhail Samoylov, senior associate at KIAP Attorneys at Law, discusses some of the features of this notable development.
Background: The claimant, a foreign-company, applied to a court for an application for the recognition and enforcement of the judgment of the High Court of Justice of England. The defendant, a company domiciled in Russia, objected and alleged that defendant had not notified him of litigation. Moreover, the defendant thought if the agreement between Russia and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland on recognition and enforcement of judgments of its states is absent, the court should dismiss the application.
As far as it is known SMP Bank, among others bank, was sanctioned by the U.S. as political tension over Ukraine escalates on March, 2014, as the result Visa Inc. and MasterCard Inc. are cutting off services to the bank.
Unsurprisingly, the cardholders could not perform the operation using bank cards issued by SMP Bank.
One of the cardholders of the bank was Alexander Moskovkin who could not pay for goods using the bank card. Mr Moskovkin decided that MasterCard violated his rights as a consumer and he filed a lawsuit in the Meshansky District Court of Moscow against MasterCard (the defendants are MasterCard Europe (Belgium) and MasterCard LLC (Moscow)). (Case № 2-13647/2014 (in Russian)).
The lawsuit based on the provisions both of the Russian Law on consumer rights (article 15) and of the Civil Code of Russia (articles 151, 1099,1101). These articles provide basis for recovery of non-pecuniary loss if consumers rights were violated.
Mr Moskovkin seeks a non-pecuniary loss in 100 Rub (approximately $ 2, 7).
Logo MasterCard (c) MasterCard
UPD. 15/10/2014. The court dismissed the claim against MasterCard.
Between company A. (Russia) and company В. (a foreign company) there was a distribution contract (hereinafter – Contract). According to the contract, any disputes arising out of the contract shall be resolved in English court.
Company A. had breached the contract, as a result company B. filed a lawsuit in the Senior Courts of England and Wales. Also company B. filed a motion granting them the opportunity to provide proper notice of the defendant about the procedure. The Senior Courts of England and Wales issued a Writ allowing to notify the defendant about the trial by company B. according to the English civil procedural rule.Company B. had notified the defendant about the trial via DHL.