Document from CIS Legislation database © 2003-2017 SojuzPravoInform LLC

RESOLUTION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

of January 23, 2007 No. 1-P

On the case of check of constitutionality of provisions of Item 1 of Article 779 and Item 1 of Article 781 of the Civil code of the Russian Federation in connection with claims of Agency of Corporate Safety limited liability company and the citizen V. V. Makeev

Constitutional court of the Russian Federation as a part of the chairman N. S. Bondar, judges G. A. Gadzhiyev, A. L. Kononov, L. O. Krasavchikova, S. P. Mavrin, Yu. D. Rudkin, A.YA. Plums, V. G. Strekozova, B. S. Ebzeev, V. G. Yaroslavtsev,

with participation of representatives of Agency of Corporate Safety LLC - the CEO N. Yu. Strekozova and Candidate of Law Sciences S. I. Kovalyov, the citizen V. V. Makeev and his representatives - lawyers M. M. Zakharina and Yu. A. Larin, the permanent representative of the State Duma in the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation E. B. Mizulina, the representative of the Federation Council - the doctor of jurisprudence E. V. Vinogradova, the plenipotentiary of the President of the Russian Federation in the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation M. V. Krotov,

being guided by Article 125 (part 4) Constitutions of the Russian Federation, Item 3 parts one, parts three and the fourth Article 3, Item 3 parts two of Article 22, Articles 36, 74, 86, 96, 97 and 99 Federal constitutional Laws "About the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation",

considered case on check of constitutionality of provisions of Item 1 of Article 779 and Item 1 of Article 781 of Civil Code of the Russian Federation in open session.

Reason for consideration of the case were claims of Agency of Corporate Safety LLC and the citizen V. V. Makeev to violation of constitutional rights and freedoms Item 1 of Article 779 and Item 1 of Article 781 of Civil Code of the Russian Federation. The basis to consideration of the case was the found uncertainty in question of whether there correspond the Constitutions of the Russian Federation challenged by applicants of legislative provision.

As both 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 A. L. Kononov, opinion of the specialist - Candidate of Law Sciences D. I. Stepanov, speech of the representatives invited in meeting: from the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation - the vice-chairman of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation V. L. Slesarev, from Federal chamber of lawyers - the lawyer K. I. Sklovsky, having researched the submitted documents and other materials, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation established:

1. According to Item 1 of Article 779 and Item 1 of Article 781 of Civil Code of the Russian Federation according to the services agreement the contractor shall render services (to make certain actions or to perform certain activities) on the instructions of the customer, and the customer shall pay the services rendered to him in terms and according to the procedure which are specified in the services agreement.

1.1. Constitutionality of the called legislative provisions is challenged in the claim of Agency of Corporate Safety LLC to which by the decision of Arbitration Court of the city of Moscow of August 11, 2004 left without change by the resolution of Federal Arbitration Court of the Moscow district of December 21, 2004 it was refused collection from administration of the settlement "Rising" of the Istra district of the Moscow region of the money which was due to it as to the contractor according to the services agreement for services in representation of interests of administration in Arbitration Court of the Moscow region, namely unpaid part of remuneration which amount was determined by the agreement in the amount of 3 percent from the amount of the won claim and which was subject to payment in case of adoption of the decision by court for benefit of the customer.

The Arbitration Court of the city of Moscow recognized that the requirement of the contractor for the services agreement about remuneration payment is not subject to satisfaction if it is proved by the term of the contract putting the size and obligation of fee into dependence on the judgment or state body which will be accepted in the future.

Agency of Corporate Safety LLC asks to recognize the provisions of Item 1 of Article 779 and Item 1 of Article 781 of Civil Code of the Russian Federation applied in its case - taking into account the sense given them by law-enforcement practice, - violating the rights and freedoms guaranteed by Articles 8, 19 (part 1), 34 (part 1), 35, 46 (part 1) and 55 (parts 2 and 3) Constitutions of the Russian Federation.

1.2. The similar requirement contains in the claim of the citizen V. V. Makeev. As appears from the materials brought into the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, the Arbitration Court of the city of Moscow satisfied with the decision of December 24, 2002 the claim of the Moscow city Bar to Presidential Property Management Department of the Russian Federation about debt collection for rendering legal assistance according to the services agreement. As the third party on case the court involved the lawyer V. V. Makeev to whom legal servicing under the agreement was entrusted.

Full text available with active License only!

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

Effectively work with search system

Database include more 36000 documents. You can find needed documents using search system. For effective work you can mix any on documents parameters: country, documents type, date range, teams or tags.

Get help

If you cannot find the required document, or you do not know where to begin, go to Help section.

In this section, we’ve tried to describe in detail the features and capabilities of the system, as well as the most effective techniques for working with the database.

You also may open the section Frequently asked questions. This section provides answers to questions set by users.

Search engine created by SojuzPravoInform LLC. UI/UX design by Intelliants.