On behalf of the Russian Federation

RESOLUTION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

of July 23, 2018 No. 35-P

On the case of check of constitutionality of part one of article 208 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation in connection with claims of citizens T. V. Ivanova, I. M. Mitin and E. V. Shkotov

Constitutional court of the Russian Federation as a part of the Chairman V. D. Zorkin, K. V. Aranovsky's judges, A. I. Boytsova, N. S. Bondar, G. A. Gadzhiyev, Yu. M. Danilov, L. M. Zharkova, S. M. Kazantsev, S. D. Knyazev, A. N. Kokotov, L. O. Krasavchikova, S. P. Mavrin, N. V. Melnikov, Yu. D. Rudkin, O. S. Hokhryakova, V. G. Yaroslavtsev,

being guided by Article 125 (part 4) Constitutions of the Russian Federation, Item 3 parts one, parts three and the fourth Article 3, Article part one 21, Articles 36, 47.1, 74, 86, 96, 97 and 99 Federal constitutional Laws "About the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation",

considered in meeting without carrying out hearing case on check of constitutionality of part one of Article 208 GPK of the Russian Federation.

Reason for consideration of the case were claims of citizens T. V. Ivanova, I. M. Mitin and E. V. Shkotov. The basis to consideration of the case was the found uncertainty in question of whether there corresponds to the Constitution of the Russian Federation the legislative provision disputed by applicants.

As all claims concern the same subject, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, being guided by article 48 of the Federal constitutional Law "About the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation", connected cases on these claims in one production.

Having heard the message of the judge-speaker V. G. Yaroslavtsev, having researched the submitted documents and other materials, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation

established:

1. According to Article 208 GPK of the Russian Federation according to the statement of the claimant or debtor the court which considered case can make indexation of the sums of money collected by court on the date of execution of the judgment (part one); the application is considered in judicial session; persons participating in case are informed on time and the place of judicial session, however their absence is not obstacle to permission of question of indexation of the awarded sums of money (part two); the private complaint (part three) can be made about determination of court about indexation of the awarded sums of money.

1.1. By determination of the Vologda city court of the Vologda region of December 1, 2017 (it was not appealed and took legal effect) to the citizen T. V. Ivanova it is refused allowance of the application about indexation of the money (112 829 rub 88 kopeks) which is subject to collection in its advantage on account of compensation of property harm under sentence of the same court of October 1, 2013. At the same time the court recognized that the possibility of application of consumer price index on food and nonfoods, and also paid services for the purpose of indexation of the sums of money collected by court, stipulated in Article 208 GPK of the Russian Federation, was fixed by the Law RSFSR of October 24, 1991 No. 1799-1 "About indexation of cash incomes and savings of citizens in RSFSR", which, however No. 122-FZ "About modification of legal acts of the Russian Federation and recognition voided some legal acts of the Russian Federation in connection with adoption of the Federal Laws "About modification and amendments in the Federal Law "About the General Principles of the Organization of Legislative (Representative) and Executive Bodies of the Government of Subjects of the Russian Federation" and "About the General Principles of the Organization of Local Self-government in the Russian Federation" since January 1, 2005, and now regulations by which it is necessary to be guided is declared invalid in connection with adoption of the Federal Law of August 22, 2004, making calculation of indexation, no.

Disclaimer! This text was translated by AI translator and is not a valid juridical document. No warranty. No claim. More info