VEDOMOSTI. THE LAW ON CHALLENGING SANCTIONS-BUSTING DEALS HAS BEEN BLOCKED BY THE COUNCIL OF FEDERATION. IN THE COURSE OF THE AMENDMENTS, IT CONTAINED A

The Council of the Federation has rejected the law allowing prosecutors to sue in courts to invalidate deals concluded in violation of the Russian counter-sanctions. According to him, there was a "legal and technical error" in the text, due to which, on the contrary, the law now allows to exclude prosecutors from a number of procedures in court.

The law expanding prosecutorial powers was passed by the State Duma in its third reading on June 8. Before its adoption in the second key reading, the text of the document was subjected to serious revision. Amendments to the Arbitration and Civil Procedure Codes were supposed to allow prosecutors, among other things, to apply to courts to invalidate transactions made in violation of legislation establishing retaliation for the unfriendly acts of foreign governments.

In the original version of the draft law, submitted to the State Duma by the government back in June 2021, there was no provision that the prosecutor may intervene in the courts on claims related to sanctions.

In the current wording of p. 5, Article 52 of the Arbitration Procedural Code (APC), prosecutors may intervene in any of the cases mentioned in p. 1, Article 52 of the APC. It lists the cases in which a representative of the supervisory authority may apply to the court. ​

The law has completely updated the wording of Part 5 of the APC, said the representative of the Prosecutor General Zavalunov. As a result, it contains no reference to Part 1 of Art. 52 of the APC, but mentions specific cases in which the prosecutor may apply to the court. Elena Gladysheva, the managing partner of the law firm "RI-consulting" explains the logic of the error: "We are talking about a technical-legal error in connection with the amendments made to Part 5, Article 52 of the Code of Arbitration Procedure of the Russian Federation. In the current version, part 5 of the Article in question allows prosecutors to intervene in any cases specified in p. 1, Article 52 of the APC RF. The proposed wording of Part 5 does not refer to Part 1 of Article 52 of the APC RF, but mentions specific elements, the list of which is less than that set out in Part 1. Given that the current law is applied literally, it follows from Part 5 of the proposed revision that prosecutors have the right to intervene only in those categories of cases that are specified explicitly in Part 5.


That is, reading the proposed wording literally, we can conclude that the prosecutor has no right to intervene in a case at any stage under the categories of cases specified in Part 1, Article 52 of the APC RF. Obviously, the legislator did not pursue such a goal by proposing changes to the provisions of Article 52 of the APC RF, so it was rightly rejected for a minor revision and correction of a technical error," - noted the lawyer.

Other publications
VEDOMOSTI. LARGEST SUGAR PRODUCER FOUND GUILTY OF CREATING SPECULATIVE DEMAND
VEDOMOSTI. LARGEST SUGAR PRODUCER FOUND GUILTY OF CREATING SPECULATIVE DEMAND

17.02.2023

Earlier the FAS started anti-cartel inspections of the largest sugar producers - Rusagro Group LLC, Rusagro-Center LLC, Prodimex LLC, GC Dominant LLC, Trade House Dominant LLC and ChekhovSugar LLC, as well as the Union of Sugar Producers of Russia non-profit organization. The FAS also audited market...

THE COURT REJECTED CREDITOR'S APPLICATION TO CHALLENGE THE TRANSACTION OF ASSETS WITHDRAWAL FROM THE LOSS CENTER
THE COURT REJECTED CREDITOR'S APPLICATION TO CHALLENGE THE TRANSACTION OF ASSETS WITHDRAWAL FROM THE LOSS CENTER

13.02.2023

The Supreme Court has consolidated the issue of qualification of transactions in bankruptcy proceedings. The application of the concept of "higher standard of proof" must be justified and cannot be applied arbitrarily. Managing Partner of RI-Consulting, Advocate Elena Gladysheva, evaluates the...

ADVOKATSKAYA GAZETA. FORMALISM IS INADMISSIBLE. THE SUPREME COURT HAS CLARIFIED TO THE COURTS THAT A CHANGE IN THE LEGAL ENTITY FORM SHOULD NOT DEPRIVE A FORMER SHAREHOLDER OF HIS PROPERTY
ADVOKATSKAYA GAZETA. FORMALISM IS INADMISSIBLE. THE SUPREME COURT HAS CLARIFIED TO THE COURTS THAT A CHANGE IN THE LEGAL ENTITY FORM SHOULD NOT DEPRIVE A FORMER SHAREHOLDER OF HIS PROPERTY

11.01.2023

Elena Gladyysheva, Advocate, Managing Partner of RI-Consulting, and Vladimir Krylov, Senior Lawyer, Head of Corporate Law Department of RI-Consulting on case No. A40-213998/2021. The Russian Supreme Court clarified to lower courts the rules of compensation for losses in the case when a former...

Office in Moscow Phone: +7 (495) 632-14-50. Duty Lawyer (24/7): +7 (985) 307-31-76. E-mail: info@ri-consulting.ru Address: 22 Baumanskaya str., office 201