AT Art. 150 of the agrarian and industrial complex of the Russian Federation (in new edition) The grounds for discontinuing the production ofbusiness. Analysis of the materials shows that this norm is used by instances authorized to deal with economic disputes, quite often. Meanwhile, there are a number of nuances that are subject to detailed consideration, since they cause certain difficulties in practice.
They are installed in Part 1 of Art. 150 of the APC of the RF. The arbitration shall terminate the proceedings upon the occurrence of the following circumstances:
AT Part 2 of Art. 150 of the APC of the RF it is established that the proceedings in the case are terminated upon the approval of the settlement agreement. The law may provide for other circumstances.
The case may not be subject to review by the authorities for a number of reasons. In particular, n. 1 tbsp. 150 of the APC of the RF apply if the disputeis not subordinate to this body. For example, a proceeding on recognizing a government order not in accordance with constitutional provisions should be terminated, as it is in the competence of the COP. The dispute over the recognition of a lease agreement for agricultural land is invalid in fact is a territorial conflict between the two regions that arose in connection with the adoption of acts on changing borders. This case is decided in accordance with Art. 67 (part 3), sub. "a", part one of Art. 102 of the Constitution.
Production does not stop, and the instanceaccepts a statement on the case with the participation of a foreign entity if an international treaty that has a priority to domestic law provides for provisions that establish jurisdiction. In particular, the Art. 150 of the agrarian and industrial complex of the Russian Federation (with the latest amendments) was applied to the dispute, which was based on relations related to the international carriage of goods. As a consequence, they were subject to the Geneva Convention of 19.05.1956.
Within the framework of application Art. 150 agrarian and industrial complex of the Russian Federation judicial practice shows that the decision to terminate theproduction is often taken after ascertaining whether the applicant has a legal opportunity to file a claim, and the defendant has the appropriate immunity. The following cases are classified as such. According to the provisions of Article 52 of the Code, the prosecutor of the region or his deputy sends the appeal to arbitration. Equivalent officials have the same right. At the same time, the district prosecutor and his deputy appeal can not be sent to arbitration connected with challenging the decision of the management body to bring the legal entity to administrative liability. Accordingly, the proceedings for such an application should be terminated.
In connection with the definition, which is present in Art.11 of the Tax Code, the definition of a foreign organization simultaneously covers both the legal entity itself and its units established in the territory of Russia, the latter are recognized as taxpayers. On them, according to Art. 19 of the Tax Code, may impose an obligation to pay the appropriate amounts to the budget, as well as liability for committed offenses in the cases specified in Ch. 16. As taxpayers, these entities, in accordance with Art. 137 of the Tax Code, have the right to appeal decisions of supervisory bodies of non-normative nature, inaction / actions of employees, if, in their opinion, their interests were violated. Accordingly, the proceedings in such cases can not be terminated by virtue of Art. 150 of the APC of the RF. In turn, the tax inspection canto file a claim against the buyer and seller with a request to invalidate the agreement concluded between them and to recover in the state's favor the income received as a result of illegal compensation from the budget of the tax amounts paid. In this case also Art. 150 of the APC of the RF can not be applied.
Legal assessment of inaction / act of a personmay be carried out in the proceedings of the case together with other circumstances essential for its resolution, but not independently. In particular, if an individual entrepreneur goes to court with a claim to recognize him as a bona fide drawer in accordance with the rules for establishing a fact having a legal value, production will be terminated in accordance with the rule in question.
It is not allowed to apply the article in the case on recognizing a legal document as inoperative only on the grounds of the fact that it has lost its force. Termination of production by Art. 150 of the APC of the RF in this case only afterestablishing that the impugned act, canceled or expired, did not violate the legitimate interests and rights of the applicant. Even if the normative act to be published was not published, but was regarded by the interested parties as having force, generated legal consequences and was appealed, the application for invalidation should be examined on the merits. The conclusion of the court must be present in the operative part of the judgment. The claimed requirements should be considered irrespective of the end of the period of the non-normative act, the fact that the officials committed the procedures aimed at satisfying the claims of the plaintiff. If, during the proceedings concerning the recognition of such a document as invalid, it will be established that it is normative, production is terminated by the rules Art. 150 of the APC of the RF, if its appeal is not provided for by federal legislation. The definition should indicate the reasons for which the authorized body reached the relevant conclusions.
P. 2 tbsp. 150 of the APC of the RF establishes the possibility of terminationproduction only in those cases where the right to protection was previously realized in the process held in accordance with the principles of equality and competitiveness of participants. This provision is aimed at suppressing proceedings on identical claims. It can not be regarded as violating freedom and human rights.
Art. 150, 151 of the Code of Administrative Procedure of the Russian Federation providing for grounds and rules for termination of proceedings with the participation of the same entities, with reference to the existence of a definition of a general jurisdiction to complete the proceedings in connection with the refusal of the claimant from the claimed claims, can not be considered to contradict the norms 118, 47 and 46 of the Constitution. This is due to the fact that the person's right is based on the principle of disposability. And he, in turn, refers to the fundamental foundations of civil litigation. Accordingly, the provisions in which this right is fixed, in particular, ordering to stop the proceedings, if the claimant has refused the claims, can not be regarded as violating the constitutional freedoms and interests of the applicant, described in the complaint. Here it is necessary to note the following point. The court does not have the right not to accept the refusal of the claim, referring only to the fact that it violates the right of the owner of disputable material assets - the subject of the Russian Federation, and is obliged to stop the proceedings on the grounds established by the fourth paragraph of the article. 150 agroindustrial complex. If the review is appointed in a simplified procedure and after that the plaintiff has filed a relevant application, it is examined, in accordance with the provisions of Art. 227 taking into account art. 49 (part 5). Partial refusal does not entail discontinuing the proceedings throughout the entire case.
This procedure acts as one moregrounds for discontinuing production. This provision also can not be regarded as violating the interests and rights of persons, since in the absence of one of the participants it is impossible to decide on his duties and legal possibilities. Liquidation of the organization is confirmed by an extract from the Unified State Register of Legal Entities. The termination of the proceedings in this case does not entail the transfer of duties and rights in the order of succession. In this regard, the supervisory process is also to be completed. However, according to the practice of the Supreme Arbitration Court, the recognition of a decision to register a person as invalid does not in itself indicate a termination of legal capacity. It does not serve as a basis for considering transactions that have been made before this moment, as insignificant. Accordingly, this does not entail termination of the proceedings under Art. 150 agroindustrial complex.
When one of the participants in the case is liquidated,For example, when a cession agreement is declared invalid, the production must be terminated completely. This is due to the fact that this procedure involves the completion of the organization without transferring duties and rights to other persons by the rules of succession. The liquidation of a municipal body acting as a defendant shall entail termination of the case under clause 5 of the rule in question. In this case, a rule similar to the one above applies.
If a foreign company, being a participantThe case, which was tried by the arbitral tribunal, was temporarily excluded from the register, and its founders did not notify the court, the authority considering the dispute over the cancellation of the decision of the said body must take these circumstances into account.
Elimination of one of the parties to the agreement onjoint construction of a residential building is not an obstacle to the resolution of the merits on the merits of a shareholder-IP on recognition of the nullity of individual paragraphs of the document, which were amended in this agreement. One condition must be satisfied. In accordance with the agreement on joint activities, the company, subsequently liquidated, must be transferred to all rights and functions of the customer-developer to another person. It should be noted that the right of claim, which the equity holder has, corresponds to the obligation of the developer-customer. It is entrusted with the organization of the construction of the structure, the disposal of funds allocated for the financing of capital investments, with material means that are taken on the balance sheet. In this case, the cessation of production will create obstacles to securing the protection of legitimate interests and the rights of the equity investor.
In the event of the death of an entrepreneur whoAs a party to the proceedings, the law provides for succession. However, for its implementation, the subject of the dispute should not concern personal rights. In accordance with the Civil Code, as well as other norms, their transfer to other persons is not allowed. Among these rights, among other things, is the legal opportunity to conduct business. If the subject of the dispute concerns the personal rights of a citizen, the proceedings shall be terminated in accordance with paragraph 6 of the rule in question.
Termination of the case at the stage of preparation, inpreliminary meeting, if the settlement is a basis for an agreement, is not allowed. Upon reaching an agreement, it is approved within the framework of the hearing. In this case, the rules of Article 141 of the Code must be observed. Only after that the proceedings are terminated in accordance with Part 2 of Art. 150 agrarian and industrial complex of the Russian Federation. In this case, it is necessary to take into account one nuance. The termination of proceedings in connection with the approval of an amicable agreement will be considered unlawful if there are doubts as to the authority of the entity that signed it.