Monitoring of the Federal Legislation dated 17.06.2010

Decision of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation No. 13-P of June 8, 2010 on the case Concerning Verification of the Constitutionality of Item 4 of Article 292 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation in Connection with the Complaint of V.V. Chadaeva

In some instances the consent of the bodies in charge of guardianship is required for selling (for other kind of alienation) of residential premises. It is required when at the premises minor family members of the owner thereof reside who are under guardianship or are without parental custody (and this is known to the guardianship body).
The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation has found such regulation unconstitutional, insofar as it does not enable to protect (in particular judicially) violated rights of some children.
Here, those of them are meant who are not formally under guardianship and are not without parental custody (according to the data available to the authorities) but they were actually without parental custody at the time of alienation of the residential premises they resided in.
In such situation, one cannot exclude the possibility that parent acts to the detriment of a minor|s interests. So an adequate procedure of their judicial protection is necessary.
The order of alienation of residential promises when the consent of the guardianship body is only required in the two cited instances is not in itself at variance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation.
According to the explanation of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, it has been established subject to the presumption of parents| fair behavior and enables to observe the balance of interests of both children and their parents who are owners of the residential premises.
The laws do not envisage that under certain living circumstances a child|s living conditions cannot be deteriorated in principle, if the parents do their best to minimize them. Where there is a dispute, a court shall eventually resolve the issue if the balance of interests has been disrupted.

Decision of the Plenary Session of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 16 of June 15, 2010 on the Practice of Application by Courts of the Law of the Russian Federation on Mass Media

Explanations have been prepared as to the application of the rules of the Law on Mass Media, in particular of those regulating liability.
Special attention has been paid to dissemination of information in the Internet. Internet sites are not subject to mandatory registration as a mass medium. However, if the founder expresses such wish, the request thereof may not be rejected. If such registration has been made, the dateline must cite, among other things, the registration body and registration number. Accordingly, it is necessary to follow the procedure for updating these data. It is not necessary to obtain a licence for dissemination of data through Internet sites. On the whole, the law|s requirements shall be applied in such instances subject to the specifics of information dissemination through such networks.
The most disputable point is the placement of messages at forums of Internet sites. If a site is registered as a mass medium and comments of its readers are placed without their preliminary editing (for example, at the forum thereof), the editorial board shall not be held liable for its content. If the authorities make an application in connection with an abuse, the editorial board is entitled to delete or edit them. The availability of such application will be taken into account, if the claims are made with a court.
A separate section of explanations concerns censorship and the need for preliminary coordination of materials or messages. Particularly, such demand made by the founder of a mass medium is lawful, if it is provided for by the charter of the editorial board (by the agreement used instead of it). Otherwise, the interference thereof shall be deemed unlawful. An appropriate demand of an official (who has been interviewed) addressed to a reporter shall not be deemed censorship. If the editor in chief or the founder are liable for the materials| content, their demand as to preliminary coordination thereof shall be lawful. If not, any interference into the editorial board|s professional independence or into that of a reporter shall be deemed unlawful.
The law establishes an exhaustive list of grounds for the refusal to register a mass media.

Letter of the Federal Tax Service No. SHS-37-3/4144@ of June 15, 2010 on the Data Required for Estimation of Tax on Minerals| Extraction for May, 2010

As from January 1, 2007, the rate of tax on minerals| extraction which is equal to 419 roubles per 1 ton of extracted oil which is dehydrated, desalted and stabilized shall be multiplied by the coefficient showing the movement of world oil prices (Kts) and by the coefficient showing the working-out degree of a specific subsoil plot (Kv).
Data for estimation of tax on minerals| extraction for May, 2010 are cited. As the average price level of Urals oil in the Mediterranian and Potterdam crude oil markets is 73.04 US dollars per barrel and the average exchange rate of the US dollar to the rouble in the cited tax period is 30.3582, the Kts shall be 6.7509 (in the previous tax period the Kts was equal to 7.5345). The Kv value shall be independently estimated by a taxpayer.
Thus, in connection with the reduction of oil prices, the rate of tax on minerals| extraction in respect of oil has reduced as compared to the previous tax period.
Data for estimation of tax on minerals| extraction for April, 2010 are stated in Letter of the Federal Tax Service of Russia No. SHS-37-3/1895 of May 19, 2010.