Windfall tax for major companies to be introduced in Russia

Garant Free Online Demo

Legal information system for your company.
Simply click on the button Start working and the system Legislation of Russia in English will be available for unlimited time.

Daily Monitoring of the Legislation

Monitoring of the Federal Legislation dated 26.09.2006

Decision of the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation No. 3498-4 GD of September 22, 2006 on the Amnesty for the Persons Having Committed Crimes During Antiterrorist Operations on the Territories of the Subjects of the Russian Federation of the Southern Federal District



To achieve civil peace and accord, the State Duma of the Russian Federation declared an amnesty for the persons having committed crimes during antiterrorist operations on the territories of the subjects of the Russian Federation of the Southern Federal District. The given amnesty is the seventh one from the moment of the beginning of the antiterrorist operation in the Northern Caucasus.

The amnesty applies to both participants of illegal armed formations having abandoned illegal activities on the voluntary basis and having handed over the arms and to servicemen of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation (other bodies envisaging military services) having committed crimes during the mentioned antiterrorist operations.

Criminal cases will not be initiated for these persons, and the ones already initiated will be closed. The persons convicted for crimes committed during the antiterrorist operation in the Northern Caucasus will be released and cleared of the criminal history.

The amnesty does not apply to the persons having committed heavy and specially heavy crimes (murder, incurring deliberately heavy damage to health, kidnapping, rape, terrorism, armed riot and other), to servicemen having sold arms and ammunition to participants of armed gangs, persons having committed repeated crimes, as well as to foreign citizens and stateless persons.

The Decision is entered into force from the day of its official publication.

Decision of the Presidium of the Higher Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation No. 1075/06 of August 29, 2006



According to Article 965 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the insurer having paid out the insurance reimbursement obtains the claims right of the insurant within the limits of the paid out amount to the person responsible for the losses reimbursed as a result of insurance (subrogation).

The Presidium of the Higher Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation did not agree to the position of the cassation instance court stating an absence of grounds to satisfy the claims of the insurance organisation having paid out the insurance reimbursement to the insurant that was put forward directly to the insurer of the trespasser whose civil liabilities are insured by virtue of the Federal Law on obligatory insurance of civil liabilities of owners of transport vehicles.

According to the explanations of the Presidium of the Higher Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation, the subrogation implies a substitution of the person in the obligation by virtue of the law (Article 387 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation), therefore, the right having transferred to the insurer is implemented by him while observing the rules regulating relations between the insurant and the person responsible for the losses.

Having paid out the insurance reimbursement to the victim, the insurance organisation assumes his position in relations because of the incurred damage and obtains the right to claim reimbursement of damage.

Thus, in pursuance of Item 4 of Article 931 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the insurance organisation having paid out the insurance reimbursement to the insurant may put forward a claim directly to the insurer having insured the civil liabilities of the trespasser.

Decision of the Presidium of the Higher Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation No. 2979/06 of July 18, 2006



According to Item 1 of Article 7 on the trade marks, service marks and the names of the places of origin of commodities, the trade marks may not include symbols similar to the trade marks of other persons pertaining to similar commodities with an earlier priority to such an extent that they may be confused.

The Presidium of the Higher Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation invalidated the earlier judicial acts having refused the organisation challenging a refusal of the body in charge of the patent disputes to satisfy the denial of registration of the trade mark.

The court of enforcement instance explained that if there is a conflict of two similar but not identical trade marks registered for different commodities and services, the first trade mark requires for its protection that the similarity to the later trade mark and the danger of confusing it with this trade mark must be established by the court. In this case, the danger of confusion is present if one of the trade marks may be taken for the other, or if the consumer understands that this is not the same trade mark but supposes that both of them belong to the same enterprise. Such danger may depend on several circumstances: first, on the distinguishing properties of the trade mark with an earlier priority; second, on the similarity of the compared trade marks; third, on the similarity of commodities and services identified with the trade mark.

The distinguishing properties of the trade mark may depend on the length of its use and, hence, recognition by consumers, as well as the use by the person of a series of trade marks containing the main element of the given trade mark.

If the compared depiction, beside the identical element, has a distinctive element, when the coinciding element is dominating, one may take into account whether the given distinctive element is associated among consumers with the word conveying some sense.

Besides, the Presidium explained that protection of the right for the trade mark covers not only the objects identified by it, but also the similar ones not mentioned in the copyright document.

Inconsistencies in the adopted classification of commodities and services do not affect their similarity. The similarity is recognised from the fact that commodities, because of their nature or destination, may be referred by consumers to the same source of origin.

When establishing similarity of commodities, one should take into account also the following circumstances: type of commodities, their consumer properties and functional destination (volume and goal of use), type of the material they are made of, opportunities to supplement or replace each other, terms of their sale (including the common place of sale, sale through the retail or wholesale network), circle of consumers, traditional or prevailing use of commodities.

Contact Us

Leave us a message