AT Art. 150 APC RF (in new edition) the grounds for termination of production are determinedto business Analysis of the materials shows that this rule is used quite often by the authorities authorized to consider economic disputes. Meanwhile, there are a number of nuances to be considered in detail, since they cause certain difficulties in practice.
Common grounds
They are set to Part 1 of Art. 150 APC RF. The arbitration shall terminate proceedings upon the occurrence of the following circumstances:
- The case can not be considered in this instance.
- There is a judicial act issued on the basis ofproceedings between the same subjects on the same subject matter by the arbitral tribunal, a body of general jurisdiction or the competent structure of a foreign state and entered into force. The exceptions are cases when the execution of the decision of a foreign authority was refused.
- There is a decision of the arbitration courton the same subject, the conflict between the same participants and on the same grounds. The exceptions are situations when the arbitrator refused to issue an IL for compulsory execution or the decision was canceled.
- The claimant refused the claim, and this refusal was accepted by the court.
- The legal entity, acting as one of the parties, was liquidated.
- The citizen who was a party to the dispute died, and the law does not allow succession in this case.
- There are grounds identified in Article 194 (part 7) of the Code.
AT Part 2 of Art. 150 APC RF It is established that the proceedings are terminated upon approval of the settlement agreement. The law may provide for other circumstances.
Art. 150 APC RF with comments
The case may not be subject to review by the authority for a number of reasons. In particular, p. 1 tbsp. 150 APC RF применяется в том случае, если спор not subject to this body. For example, proceedings for recognizing a government order not conforming to constitutional provisions should be discontinued, since it is under the authority of the COP. The dispute on the recognition of a lease agreement on agricultural land as invalid in fact is a territorial conflict between the two regions, which arose in connection with the adoption of acts on changing borders. This case is solved in accordance with Art. 67 (Part 3), Sub. "a", part of the first article. 102 of the Constitution.
Exceptions
Production does not stop, but the instanceaccepts a statement in a case with the participation of a foreign entity, if an international agreement that has priority to domestic legislation provides for provisions establishing jurisdiction. In particular, the Art. 150 APC RF (with recent changes) was applied to the dispute, which was based on relations related to the international transport of goods. As a result, the Geneva Convention of May 19, 1956 applied to them.
Right to appeal
As part of the application Art. 150 APC RF judicial practice показывает, что решение о прекращении The proceedings are often taken after the applicant has a legal opportunity to file a lawsuit, and the defendant has the appropriate immunity. These cases include the following. In accordance with the provisions of Article 52 of the Code, the regional prosecutor or his deputy directs an appeal to arbitration. Equivalent officials have the same right. At the same time, the district prosecutor and his deputy may not be referred to arbitration related to challenging the decision of the governing body on bringing the legal entity to administrative responsibility. Accordingly, the production of such a statement must be terminated.
Tax disputes
В связи с определением, присутствующим в ст.11 NK, the definition of a foreign organization simultaneously covers both the legal entity itself and its units established in Russia, the latter are recognized as taxpayers. On them, according to Art. 19 NK, the duty to pay the corresponding sums to the budget as well as responsibility for the committed offenses may be imposed in the cases specified in ch. 16. As taxpayers, these entities, in accordance with Art. 137 of the Tax Code has the right to appeal against decisions of control instances of a non-regulatory nature, inaction / actions of employees, if, in their opinion, this violated their interests. Accordingly, the proceedings in such cases cannot be terminated by virtue of Art. 150 APC RF. In turn, the tax inspectorate mayto sue the buyer and the seller with the requirement to invalidate the contract concluded between them, and to recover in favor of the state the income received as a result of illegal compensation from the budget of the tax amounts paid. In this case also Art. 150 APC RF can not be applied.
The subject of the dispute
Legal assessment of inaction / action of a personmay be carried out in the course of the proceedings 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 maker according to the rules of establishing fact that has legal value, the proceedings will be terminated in accordance with the norm under consideration.
Challenging Acts
It is not allowed to use the article in the case on the recognition of a legal document invalid only on the basis of the fact that it has lost its force. Cessation of production Art. 150 APC RF carried out in this case only afterestablishing that the contested act, canceled or expired, did not violate the applicant's legitimate interests and rights. Even if the regulatory act to be promulgated was not published, but was regarded by the interested parties as valid, gave rise to legal consequences and was appealed, the application for declaring it null and void should be considered on the merits. The conclusion of the court must be present in the resolution part of the decision. The stated requirements should be considered regardless of the expiration of the validity period of the non-normative act, the fact that officials performed the procedures aimed at satisfying the claims of the claimant. If during the proceedings concerning the recognition of such a document as invalid, it is established that it is normative, the proceedings shall be terminated according to the rules Art. 150 APC RFif its appeal is not provided for by federal law. The definition should indicate the reasons for which the authorized body came to the appropriate conclusions.
Identity of claims
P. 2 tbsp. 150 APC RF sets the possibility of terminationproceedings only in cases where the right to defense was previously implemented in the process held in accordance with the principles of equality and competitiveness of participants. This provision is focused on the suppression of proceedings on identical claims. It cannot be regarded as violating freedoms and human rights.
Important point
Art.150, 151 of the APC RF, providing grounds and rules for termination of proceedings involving the same subjects, with reference to the presence of a determination of the general jurisdiction to conclude proceedings in connection with the claimant’s refusal of the stated requirements, cannot be considered contrary to the provisions of Article 118, 47 and 46 This is due to the fact that the right of a person proceeds from the principle of disposition. And he, in turn, refers to the fundamental fundamentals of civil proceedings. Accordingly, the provisions in which this right is enshrined, in particular, ordering the proceedings to be terminated if the claimant refused the requirements, cannot 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 has no right not to accept the refusal of the claim, referring only to the fact that it violates the right of the owner of the disputed material assets - the subject of the Russian Federation, and is obliged to terminate the proceedings on the basis established by paragraph four of Art. 150 APK. If the examination is scheduled in a simplified manner and after that the claimant submitted a corresponding petition, then it is studied in accordance with the provisions of Art. 227 including Art. 49 (part 5). A partial refusal does not entail the termination of proceedings in the entire case.
Liquidation of the organization
Эта процедура выступает в качестве еще одного grounds for termination of production. This provision also cannot be regarded as violating the interests and rights of individuals, because in the absence of one of the participants it is impossible to make a decision regarding his duties and legal possibilities. Liquidation of the organization is confirmed by an extract from the Unified State Register of Legal Entities. Termination of proceedings in this case does not entail the transfer of duties and rights in the order of succession. In this connection, supervisory review should be completed. At the same time, according to the practice of the Supreme Court of Arbitration, the recognition of a decision on state registration of a person as void does not in itself indicate the termination of legal capacity. It does not act as a basis for treating transactions made up to this point as insignificant. Accordingly, this does not entail the termination of the proceedings under Art. 150 APK.
Explanations
With the liquidation of one of the participants in the case,For example, if the assignment agreement is invalidated, the proceedings must be terminated completely. This is due to the fact that this procedure involves the completion of the activities of the organization without transferring duties and rights to other persons according to the rules of succession. The liquidation of the municipal body that acted as the defendant entails the termination of the case under paragraph 5 of the norm under consideration. In this case, the rule is similar to the above.
Если иностранная компания, являясь участником cases that were adjudicated by an arbitration court were temporarily removed from the register, and its founders did not inform about it, the authority considering the dispute on the annulment of the decision of the said body should take these circumstances into account.
Ликвидация одной из сторон соглашения о joint construction of a residential building is not an obstacle to the resolution of the case on the merits of the suit of the shareholder-SP for recognizing the nullity of certain paragraphs of the document, which made adjustments to this agreement. In this case, one condition must be met. In accordance with the agreement on joint activities, the company, subsequently liquidated, must be transferred all the rights and functions of the customer-developer to another person. It is necessary to take into account that the right of claim, which the shareholder has, corresponds with the obligation of the developer-customer. It is entrusted with the organization of construction of the facility, the disposal of funds allocated for the financing of capital investments, material resources, which are taken to the balance. In this case, the termination of production will create obstacles to ensure the protection of legitimate interests and the rights of the shareholder.
Death of a citizen
In the event of the death of an entrepreneur acting inas a party to the proceedings, the law provides for succession. However, for its implementation, the subject matter 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 ability to conduct business. If the subject of the dispute concerns the personal rights of a citizen, the proceedings shall be terminated under clause 6 of the rule in question.
Additionally
Termination at the preparatory stage, ina preliminary meeting, if the settlement is a reason, is not allowed. When an agreement is reached, it is approved at the hearing. In this case, rules 141 of the Code shall be observed. Only after this, the trial is terminated in accordance with Part 2 of Art. 150 APC RF. At the same time it is necessary to take into account one nuance. The termination of proceedings in connection with the approval of a settlement agreement will be considered unlawful if there are doubts about the powers of the entity that signed it.
