Request to postpone the hearing. Administrative procedural law Rules with a noun and the preposition “in connection”

Reasons for initiating proceedings due to new and newly discovered circumstances may be reports from citizens, officials of state bodies and local government bodies (Article 415 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). Such messages can be addressed directly to the prosecutor or the court, as well as to other authorities or published in the media. The direct discovery of data indicating the presence of newly discovered and new circumstances during the preliminary investigation and during judicial consideration of cases serves as the basis for initiating proceedings on the initiative of the prosecutor or the court. The proceedings are initiated by the prosecutor, who, having checked the message received by him or directly established newly discovered circumstances, makes an appropriate decision, after which he carries out the appropriate check, requests a copy of the verdict, resolution or ruling of the court and a certificate of their entry into legal force. If new circumstances are discovered, except for circumstances arising from decisions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation and the European Court of Human Rights, the prosecutor issues a decision to initiate proceedings due to new circumstances and investigates them or entrusts such an investigation to an investigator. During the investigation, any investigative actions can be carried out: interrogating witnesses, seizing documents, conducting examinations, etc. in compliance with the requirements established by the Code of Criminal Procedure. At the same time, during the investigative verification of new circumstances, new charges cannot be brought and actions aimed at limiting the constitutional rights of a person cannot be taken: detention, arrest, seizure of property, etc. The convicted person and his defense attorney may take part in investigative actions. Upon completion of the verification of newly discovered circumstances or the investigation of new circumstances, the prosecutor, having established the grounds for resuming judicial proceedings in a criminal case, draws up a conclusion on this and sends the criminal case to the court, attaching a verdict containing the newly discovered circumstances, or materials from the investigation of new circumstances. Having not seen any grounds for resuming judicial proceedings in a criminal case, the prosecutor, by his resolution, terminates the proceedings initiated by him, which are brought to the attention of interested persons. The Code of Criminal Procedure does not provide a list of these persons, but in any case, their number must include the convicted person and the person who sent the message to the prosecutor's office that served as the basis for initiating proceedings. The prosecutor's decision to refuse to resume proceedings in the case may be appealed to a court competent to decide the issue of resuming proceedings in the case. The Code of Criminal Procedure has established a special procedure for judicial proceedings under new circumstances in cases where the basis for it is a decision of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, which established the inconsistency of the law applied in the case with the requirements of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, or a decision of the European Court of Human Rights, which established violations of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and fundamental freedoms. In these cases, the Chairman of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation makes a submission to the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on the review of court decisions in connection with the discovered inconsistency of these decisions with the decisions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation or the European Court of Human Rights. The Presidium reviews the submission within one month. The resolution adopted by the Presidium based on the results of the consideration is sent within three days to the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, the person in respect of whom the decision was made, the prosecutor and the Commissioner of the Russian Federation at the European Court. The prosecutor's conclusion on the need to resume proceedings in the case due to new or newly discovered circumstances, depending on the level of the court that made the contested court decision, is considered in the following instances: sentences and decisions of the magistrate - in district courts; sentences, rulings and decisions of the district court - by the presidium of the regional court; sentences, rulings, decisions of courts at the regional level - by the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation; sentences, rulings, decisions of the garrison military court - by the district (naval) military court; sentences, rulings, decisions of the district (naval) court - by the Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation; sentences, rulings, decisions of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases or the Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, issued as a court of first instance, by the Cassation Collegium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation; rulings of the Judicial Collegiums of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, issued by them as a court of second or supervisory instance, - by the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. The previous consideration of a criminal case by cassation procedure or by way of supervision is not an obstacle to its consideration by the same court due to new or newly discovered circumstances. The prosecutor participates in the court hearing, as well as, at their request, the convicted person, the acquitted person, their legal representatives and defense attorneys, the victim and his representatives and other interested parties. In a district court, a court hearing begins with a speech by the prosecutor, justifying his conclusion to cancel the decision of the magistrate, after which other participants in the process present at the hearing can speak with an explanation. After listening to their statements, the district court judge leaves to make a decision. In the collegiums of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, the presidium of the regional court, and the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, the court hearing begins with the report of one of the judges on the case materials. After the judge, the prosecutor speaks, who supports his conclusion on the need to overturn court decisions due to new or newly discovered circumstances. After the speech of the interested parties present at the meeting who wished to give explanations in connection with the prosecutor’s conclusion, the members of the panel of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation retire to a meeting to make a ruling, and the members of the presidium, having removed the parties from the meeting room, make a decision. If a court considering a case based on new or newly discovered circumstances finds sufficient grounds to cancel court decisions, it, having canceled them, if there is evidence to terminate the criminal prosecution of the convicted person, terminates the case. If the question is raised about the worsening of the situation of the convicted (acquitted) person or if, in order to resolve the issue of improving his situation, additional study of the case materials is required at the court hearing, the court, having canceled the contested court decisions, sends the case for a new trial. Having seen no grounds for resuming the proceedings, the court rejects the prosecutor's conclusion. After court decisions are annulled due to new or newly discovered circumstances and the case is sent for a new trial, criminal proceedings are carried out in accordance with the general procedure, including appealing newly made court decisions.

Article 215. Obligation of the court to suspend proceedings in the case

Commentary on Article 215

Suspension of a case is a temporary termination by the court for an indefinite period of proceedings in a civil case, due to the occurrence of circumstances provided for by law that prevent the consideration of the case on the merits.

The basis for suspension is a certain group of legal facts. These facts are characterized by the fact that they: a) are objective in nature, i.e. their occurrence and termination does not depend on the will and discretion of the court or persons participating in the case; b) are exhaustively specified in the law; c) the end time of their action is not known exactly either to the court or to the persons participating in the case.

Suspension of proceedings in a case is possible only on the grounds specified in Art. 215 – 216 Civil Procedure Code. Therefore, the court, when suspending proceedings in a case, does not have the right to refer to other circumstances not specified in the law.

If one or more grounds arise that give the court the right to suspend proceedings in the case, both the court and the persons participating in the case may take the initiative in suspending it by filing a corresponding petition.

Suspension of proceedings can take place at any stage of the process (except for the stage of initiating a case). Most often, the issue of suspension arises at the stage of judicial proceedings. However, when preparing a case for trial, the judge may also be faced with a circumstance due to which the case can or should be suspended. Now the issue of suspending the case must be resolved at a preliminary court hearing (see commentary to Article 152). In relation to the stage of execution of judicial acts, the Code of Civil Procedure establishes slightly different grounds (see Articles 436 – 437 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Articles 39 – 40 of the Federal Law “On Enforcement Proceedings”).

The suspension of a civil case has significant differences from the adjournment of a case. They are as follows:

a) the grounds for suspending the proceedings are fully specified in the law. The grounds for postponing the case are only partially indicated in the Code of Civil Procedure, since it is simply impossible to list all of them;

b) the grounds for suspension are due to objective reasons that do not depend on the will and discretion of the parties and the court (for example, the death of a citizen who was a party; military actions; incapacity of a party, etc.). The adjournment of a case, as a rule, is caused by subjective reasons (for example, a party’s request for additional evidence; the defendant’s desire to file a counterclaim; the failure of any of the participants in the process, etc.);

c) the proceedings are suspended for an indefinite period. True, the legislator clarifies that the duration of the suspension of the case cannot exceed the period of validity of the circumstance that served as the reason for the suspension of the proceedings. For example, if the proceedings were suspended due to a party being declared incompetent, then, after a legal representative has been appointed for that party, the proceedings must be resumed. The case is always adjourned for a certain period of time. Therefore, when postponing a case, the court is always obliged to indicate the time (day and hour) of the next court hearing;

d) when the proceedings in the case are suspended, the performance of any procedural actions on it is excluded. The process seems to freeze. Adjournment of the case, on the contrary, is aimed at performing certain procedural actions (collecting additional evidence, giving the defendant the opportunity to prepare a counterclaim or invite a lawyer, etc.);

e) a court decision to suspend the case must be made in writing. The court usually makes a decision to postpone the case orally and enters it into the minutes of the court session;

f) the decision to suspend proceedings can be appealed to a higher court, as it interferes with the further progress of the civil process. The decision to postpone is not subject to appeal, since the period of time for which the case is postponed is relatively short and the process is considered ongoing.

Suspension of proceedings in a case simultaneously suspends the running of all unexpired procedural deadlines (Article 110 of the Code of Civil Procedure). From the day the proceedings are resumed, the procedural deadlines continue. In cases where a case is adjourned, procedural time limits are not suspended.

Specified in Art. 215 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the circumstances apply not only to the plaintiff and the defendant, but also to third parties filing independent claims regarding the subject of the dispute (Article 42 of the Code of Civil Procedure), since their procedural position is similar to the position of the plaintiff.

Since the chapter on suspension of proceedings has general significance for all civil cases, its provisions can be applied by the court in any type of civil proceedings.

The grounds for suspending the proceedings are divided into mandatory (Article 215 of the Code of Civil Procedure) and optional (Article 216 of the Code of Civil Procedure).

The first reason obliging the court to suspend the proceedings is the death of a citizen or the reorganization of a legal entity that was a party to the case.

If a citizen who participated in the case as a party (or a third party with independent claims) has died, then the case is suspended upon presentation to the court of the death certificate of the citizen issued by the registry office. Suspension of proceedings in a case is also possible when a citizen is declared dead in a special proceeding (see commentary to Chapter 30). And in this case, the fact of death must be registered with the registry office.

In the event of the death of a citizen, procedural succession is possible only on the basis of succession in the field of material legal relations. Therefore, if controversial material legal relations do not allow for legal succession (for example, on the collection of alimony, on compensation for harm caused to a citizen’s health, on reinstatement at work, etc.), the suspension of the proceedings should not take place. Within the meaning of Art. 215 of the Code of Civil Procedure, assignment of claims and transfer of debt may be grounds for postponement, but not suspension of a civil case.

It should be said that par. 2 tbsp. 215 of the Code of Civil Procedure was declared inconsistent with the Constitution by Resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated 01.03.2012 N 5-P to the extent that it, while establishing the mandatory suspension by the court of proceedings in a case in all cases of reorganization of a legal entity that is a party to the case, does not imply the court establishing the need for such suspension and the opportunity to continue the proceedings, taking into account an assessment of all the circumstances of the particular case.

Liquidation of a legal entity (Article 61 of the Civil Code) is not a basis for suspending a civil case, since in this case its rights and obligations do not pass to other persons by succession. Protection of the rights of creditors during the liquidation of an organization is carried out in accordance with Art. 64 Civil Code.

Suspension of proceedings in a case is also permitted if a citizen (plaintiff, defendant, third party with independent claims) is declared incompetent or partially capable on the grounds specified in Art. 29 and 30 Civil Code. The court that is considering the case against these persons must be presented with copies of court decisions declaring them, respectively, incompetent or partially capable.

When deciding whether to suspend proceedings in a case, the court must first find out whether the guardianship and trusteeship authority has appointed a guardian for an incapacitated person and a trustee for a person with limited legal capacity. If such persons are appointed, they are invited by the court to participate in the case. There is no need to suspend the proceedings here. If the issue of appointing a guardian or trustee is not resolved, the proceedings should be suspended.

Suspension of proceedings in a case involving a person with limited legal capacity is not allowed if the subject of the dispute in court is a civil or other material legal relationship that is not related to the monetary income of the person with limited legal capacity, or if the person with limited legal capacity must bear independent property liability for transactions, as well as answer for a claim on compensation for the harm caused to them (Article 30 of the Civil Code).

Paragraph 4 art. 215 of the Code of Civil Procedure names three extreme situations in which both the defendant and the plaintiff (or a third party with independent claims) may find themselves in the course of civil proceedings. These include: a) participation of the defendant or plaintiff in hostilities; b) their performance of tasks during a state of emergency or martial law; c) performance by one of the parties of any tasks in a military conflict.

However, the decision to suspend the proceedings depends on who exactly is in the war zone or in the territory where a state of emergency or martial law has been declared. If the defendant is there, the court is obliged to suspend the proceedings. Suspension of proceedings is not necessary only when the defendant sends a statement to the court agreeing to consider the case in his absence. If the plaintiff takes part in a military conflict or finds himself in a territory where a state of emergency or martial law has been declared, the court has the right to suspend the proceedings only at the request of the plaintiff. Otherwise, the suspension of proceedings would entail a violation of the plaintiff’s right to judicial protection. The suspension of proceedings should be carried out in the interests of the parties, and not to their detriment.

In Art. 215 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not specify whether the parties must have the status of military personnel and serve in certain military formations. It seems that having the status of a military man and completing military service in military formations is not necessary. A citizen can take part in combat operations or perform any tasks in a state of emergency or martial law without being a military personnel (for example, he can be a combat soldier, a medical worker, be in a partisan detachment, perform the duties of a rescuer, etc.).

Emergency and martial law in accordance with the Federal Code of Law of 05/30/2001 N 3-FKZ “On a State of Emergency” (as amended on 03/07/2005) and the Federal Law of 01/30/2002 N 1-FKZ “On a Martial Law” (as amended by 12/28/2010) are introduced by decrees of the President of the Russian Federation with their subsequent approval by the Federation Council of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation. The dates and timing of the introduction of emergency and martial law, the territories in which they are introduced (the entire territory of the Russian Federation or individual areas), are the grounds that give the court the right to issue a ruling to suspend proceedings in a civil case (see also: Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of March 31 .1994 N 280 “On the procedure for establishing the fact that military personnel and other persons have performed tasks in a state of emergency and during armed conflicts and providing them with additional guarantees and compensation” (as amended on February 25, 2009)).

The court is obliged to suspend the proceedings in cases where a decision on the case cannot be made due to the fact that another case in civil, administrative or criminal proceedings has not been considered. The reason for suspension in this case is that the decision in another civil, administrative or criminal case has prejudicial significance. For example, a civil plaintiff for some reason did not file a civil claim before the end of the preliminary investigation in a criminal case (Part 2 of Article 44 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) and is filing this claim in civil proceedings. The court that accepted this claim is obliged to suspend its consideration until the criminal case is considered on its merits and the verdict passed on it enters into legal force. Or the plaintiff filed a claim for compensation for damage caused to his health. Proceedings in this case should also be suspended until the issue of the percentage of loss of professional ability by the plaintiff and the assignment of a pension is resolved administratively, since the determination in a civil case of the amount of lost earnings for the recovery of which is filed depends on these facts claim

A civil case is suspended on the grounds under consideration not because some civil, administrative or criminal case is pending in another court, but because for this reason it is impossible to resolve the suspended civil case, since the circumstances of these cases are interrelated. At the same time, nothing is said about the possibility of suspending proceedings in a civil case if the arbitration court is considering any case, the decision on which will have prejudicial significance for this civil case (see part 3 of article 61 of the Code of Civil Procedure and part 3 of article 69 APK). We believe that the suspension of civil proceedings in this case will correspond to the meaning of paragraph. 5 tbsp. 215 Code of Civil Procedure. However, it should be borne in mind that filing, for example, complaints by way of supervision against a court decision that has entered into legal force in another civil case cannot serve as a basis for suspending proceedings, even if this decision may have prejudicial significance for the case under consideration (see: Review of judicial practice of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation for the fourth quarter of 2002).

It is impossible to suspend proceedings in a civil case if some facts are being verified by the prosecutor's office or other non-judicial body.

The suspension of the case as a result of the court's appeal to the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation with a request regarding the compliance of the law to be applied with the Constitution is a new basis for the suspension of proceedings in the case. About the actions of the court in such a situation, detailed explanations are given in the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated October 31, 1995 N 8. Thus, paragraph 3 of this Resolution states that in case of uncertainty as to whether the applied or subject to application is in accordance with the Constitution in a specific case, the law, the court, based on the provisions of Part 4 of Art. 125 of the Constitution, requests the constitutionality of this law. Such a request in accordance with Art. 101 of the Federal Law “On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation” can be made by a court of any instance. The court issues a reasoned ruling on the need to appeal to the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation. The request itself is made in writing in the form of a separate document. In a request to verify the constitutionality of the law applied or to be applied, the court must indicate the exact name, date of adoption, source of publication and other data about the legislative act subject to verification, as well as the reasons for which it came to the conclusion about sending the specified request. The request should be accompanied by the text of the law to be verified and a translation into Russian of all documents and other materials written in another language.

In connection with the appeal to the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation with a request to verify the constitutionality of the law applied or subject to application, the proceedings in the case or the execution of the decision made, based on the requirements of Art. 103 of the Federal Law “On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation” is suspended until the request of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation is resolved, which must be indicated in the court’s ruling.

Article 216. The right of the court to suspend proceedings in a case

Commentary on Article 216

In Art. 216 of the Code of Civil Procedure lists the so-called optional (i.e., non-mandatory) grounds for suspending proceedings in a civil case. The peculiarity of these grounds is that they may not always prevent consideration of the case on its merits. Therefore, in cases where one of the circumstances specified in the article does not have a serious impact on the progress of the civil case, the court has the right not to suspend, but only to postpone the consideration of the case for a certain period. For example, a party may be in a treatment facility for anywhere from a few days to a few months. In the first case, it is more expedient to postpone the case, since the court may well consider it within the period established by law. In the second case, it is better to suspend the case, since the exact time of the party’s discharge from the medical institution is often impossible to determine. Thus, the question of suspending the proceedings on the grounds specified in Art. 216 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it referred to the discretion of the court. The disputing parties also have the right to request the suspension of proceedings on these grounds. But even in this case, the final decision on whether to suspend proceedings is made by the court.

Paragraph 2 art. 216 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides for the possibility of suspending proceedings in connection with the party’s stay in a medical institution. Within the meaning of this norm, the basis for suspension should be a serious illness (its nature does not matter) requiring long-term treatment in a hospital setting. Proof of this must be a certificate from the medical institution confirming these facts, as well as the impossibility of the sick party’s personal appearance at the court hearing. In this regard, the provision of the previous legislation that the suspension of proceedings is also possible during outpatient treatment of a party if, due to the nature of the illness, she is unable to appear in court, should be considered no longer in force. Consequently, outpatient treatment can only be grounds for postponing a civil case for a certain period.

The search for a defendant in civil cases can only be carried out if the following conditions are met:

First of all, the court must establish the fact that the defendant’s place of residence is unknown. This fact is usually confirmed by the receipt of a summons to the court with a note from the post office or housing maintenance office stating that they have no information about the defendant’s place of residence;

a search for a defendant may be announced by the court only in cases specified in the law. According to Art. 120 of the Code of Civil Procedure these include cases on the requirements: a) to protect the interests of the Russian Federation, its constituent entities and municipalities; b) for the collection of alimony and c) for compensation for damage caused by injury, other damage to health or as a result of the death of the breadwinner.

In all these cases, the court is obliged to announce a search for the defendants if their whereabouts are unknown. A search for a defendant may be announced by the court both at the stage of preparing the case and at the stage of trial.

However, the issue of suspending cases of these categories depends on the discretion of the court, since the court has the right to consider the case on its merits and in the absence of the defendants. It is not necessary to suspend the proceedings while simultaneously putting the defendants on the wanted list due to the desire of the legislator to speed up the issuance of a court decision. Of course, the search for defendants in these cases in accordance with Art. 64 of the Federal Law “On Enforcement Proceedings” can also be carried out at the stage of enforcement proceedings, which can also be suspended on this basis. However, such a delay in the search process, combined with the suspension of enforcement proceedings, would not fully meet the task of quickly and effectively protecting the rights and interests of the plaintiffs.

As a general rule, an examination should be appointed by a judge when preparing a case for trial (clause 4, part 1, article 150 of the Code of Civil Procedure). If for some reason the court did not do this, then the question of ordering an examination may arise in the event of a trial.

The production of many examinations often involves a large expenditure of time and effort of the expert or experts. This especially applies to complex, additional and repeated examinations (Articles 82, 87 of the Code of Civil Procedure). In order to exclude the time for conducting an examination from the period for consideration of a civil case, the court has the right, when making a ruling on the appointment of an examination, to suspend the proceedings in a civil case until the day the expert (experts) submit their conclusions.

In all cases related to the upbringing of children, the court is obliged to instruct the guardianship and trusteeship authorities to examine the living conditions of parents, adoptive parents, guardians and other persons who intend to exercise educational functions in relation to the child.

The court must give instructions to the guardianship and trusteeship authorities to give an opinion in the following cases related to the upbringing of children:

about the child’s place of residence if the parents live separately (clause 3 of article 65 of the IC);

on the exercise of parental rights by a parent living separately from the child (clause 2 of Article 66 of the Family Code);

on the elimination of obstacles to communication with the child of his close relatives (clause 3 of Article 67 of the Family Code);

on the return to the parents of a child not detained on the basis of law or a court decision (clause 1 of Article 68 of the Family Code);

on the return of the ward to the guardians (trustees) from any persons holding the child without legal grounds (clause 2 of Article 150 of the Family Code);

on the return to the adoptive parent of a child held by other persons not on the basis of the law or a court decision (clause 3 of Article 153 of the Family Code);

on deprivation of parental rights (clause 1 of article 70 of the Family Code);

on restoration of parental rights (clause 2 of article 72 of the Family Code);

on restriction of parental rights (clause 1 of article 73 of the Family Code);

on the abolition of restrictions on parental rights (clause 1 of Article 76 of the Family Code);

on the establishment of adoption (clause 1 of article 125 of the IC);

on the abolition of adoption (clause 1 of article 140 of the SK).

It is advisable to give instructions to the guardianship and trusteeship authority in these cases at the stage of preparing the case for trial. However, if the court for some reason did not do this, the question of the need for the guardianship and trusteeship authority to conduct an examination of the living conditions of the child and those applying for his upbringing, and to issue an opinion on the results of the examination will inevitably arise during the court hearing.

Taking into account that the examination often requires considerable time, which can disrupt the time frame for consideration of the case, the legislator has given the court the right to decide for itself whether the proceedings in the case should be suspended or whether it should be limited to just postponing it.

The purpose of sending a letter of request is to collect evidence located outside the venue of the upcoming trial. Typically, orders are issued by the judge as part of the preparation of the case for trial. In this case, the judge has the right to suspend the proceedings by making a ruling during a preliminary court hearing, about which a protocol must be drawn up. The need to send a letter of request may also arise at the stage of trial (see subparagraph “d”, paragraph 28 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation dated June 24, 2008 N 11).

The execution of letters rogatory, as a rule, is associated with a large amount of time required for sending documents by mail, the court (the executor of the letter rogatory) performing procedural actions specified in the order, etc. It takes a particularly long time to execute letters rogatory sent to foreign courts in accordance with international treaties (see Article 407 of the Code of Civil Procedure). Therefore, in all cases where the execution of orders will involve a significant amount of time, the court has the right to suspend the proceedings.

Article 217. Time limits for suspension of proceedings

Ensky District Court of Ensk

MOTION FOR TERMINATION OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE The Ensky District Court of Ensk is processing a case based on the claim of U. and

0. to P. and the Editorial Board of the magazine on the protection of honor, dignity and business reputation.

I believe that the case should be dismissed on the following grounds:

1. The dispute arises from business activities.

The plaintiffs base their claims on the fact that on June 7, 2003, a program called “The Tale of the Siberian Land” was broadcast on the air of Channel N JSC, the purpose of which, according to the plaintiffs, was “to discredit them in the eyes of the public and government agencies as leaders enterprises and representatives protecting the rights and legitimate interests of both residents of the village and the founders of JSC “N”.

The dispute is based on facts relating to the business activities of the plaintiffs, who have the authority of managers and founders of JSC “N”.

2. The parties are business entities.

P. is an individual entrepreneur who has entered into an agreement with CJSC “N”. O. is a director of JSC “N”, U. is a member of the board of directors of JSC “N”.

Thus, this dispute concerns business reputation in the field of entrepreneurial activity.

According to Article 220 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, the court terminates the proceedings in the case if the case is not subject to consideration and resolution in civil proceedings on the grounds provided for in paragraph 1 of Part 1 of Article 134 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation.

In accordance with clause 1, part 1, article 134 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, the application is not subject to consideration and resolution in civil proceedings, since the application is considered and resolved in another judicial procedure.

As follows from the norm of clause 5, part 1, article 33 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, cases on the protection of business reputation in the field of entrepreneurial and other economic activities are assigned to the special jurisdiction of arbitration courts.

Based on the above, I request:

proceedings on the claim of U. and O. against P., the editors of the magazine for the protection of honor, dignity and business reputation are terminated due to the lack of jurisdiction of the dispute by a court of general jurisdiction.

In the arbitration court, one judge considered three cases between two parties, arising from one another.

1. The plaintiff filed a claim for the recovery of unjust enrichment, expressed as follows. The plaintiff, at his own expense, carried out major repairs to the roof of an extension to an apartment building; the defendant did not participate in the expenses, as a result of which he unjustly enriched himself at the expense of the plaintiff.

The court rejected the claim, arguing that the extension was common property, a meeting of the owners of the premises was not held, therefore, the repairs were carried out in violation of the norms of housing and civil legislation. Logical? Certainly. But!!!

Among other things, the court indicated that the work carried out constituted an unauthorized construction, although none of the parties pointed out this circumstance in their arguments or asked to be recognized as such. This is where the second case began.

2. The defendant, who won the previous case, filed a lawsuit in which he asked to demolish the unauthorized construction - a pitched roof - and erect the flat roof that was there previously. The case was heard by the same judge. Since the court had previously recognized the roof as an unauthorized construction, the claim was upheld. Fair? Quite.

3. During the consideration of the second case, it was established that the plaintiff, who demanded to remove the roof, unauthorizedly erected a brick wall to replace stained glass windows, and this was done without the participation of all owners of the premises, that is, the situation is similar. It is unclear why a counterclaim was not filed.

After the decision in the second case came into force, the losing party filed a lawsuit for the demolition of an unauthorized building - a brick wall. Among other things, it was established that this wall was erected earlier than the roof.

The case ends up again with the same judge (what a blessing!).

The case is being considered on its merits; several meetings have passed until a construction and technical examination was appointed in one of them.

During the inspection, residents saw the expert and several other people with him, after which they reported their suspicions to the management organization. Having learned what was going on, several owners turned to the federal court with their demands - to oblige both organizations to bring everything back to its original state.

On top of that, one of the owners sent an application to the arbitration court to join as a third party with independent demands in the case under consideration.

During the next hearing, the court considered the petition of one of the parties who did not agree with the results of the examination and filed a petition to summon an expert to the court. And at the same time, the application of the owner, an individual, was considered. To resolve these issues, the court retired to the deliberation room, after which it issued the following “verdict.”

The petition to summon an expert to court was rejected, the individual was involved as a third party, after which the proceedings in the case were terminated due to the lack of jurisdiction of the arbitration court.

At the same time, the court pointed to Article 28 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, according to which citizens who are not registered in the manner prescribed by law as individual entrepreneurs can be participants in the arbitration process only in specially provided cases specified in Part 4 of Article 27 and Article 33 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation .

Art. 33 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation establishes special jurisdiction of arbitration courts. The cases listed in Part 1 of this rule of law are considered by the arbitration court, regardless of whether the parties to the legal relations from which the dispute or claim arose are legal entities, individual entrepreneurs or other organizations and citizens.

Citizens are citizens, but initially the plaintiff is a legal entity. It is unclear why the court discontinued the proceedings. It turns out that the court specifically attracted an individual to participate in the case in order to terminate the proceedings. If he had rejected the owner's application, would the case have been considered further?

But then the court contradicts itself: the previous case - an absolute analogue of this one - was subject to consideration, while the next one was not. Where is the logic???

Do you think you are Russian? Were you born in the USSR and think that you are Russian, Ukrainian, Belarusian? No. This is wrong.

Are you actually Russian, Ukrainian or Belarusian? But do you think that you are a Jew?

Game? Wrong word. The correct word is “imprinting”.

The newborn associates himself with those facial features that he observes immediately after birth. This natural mechanism is characteristic of most living creatures with vision.

Newborns in the USSR saw their mother for a minimum of feeding time during the first few days, and most of the time they saw the faces of the maternity hospital staff. By a strange coincidence, they were (and still are) mostly Jewish. The technique is wild in its essence and effectiveness.

Throughout your childhood, you wondered why you lived surrounded by strangers. The rare Jews on your way could do whatever they wanted with you, because you were drawn to them, and pushed others away. Yes, even now they can.

You cannot fix this - imprinting is one-time and for life. It’s difficult to understand; the instinct took shape when you were still very far from being able to formulate it. From that moment, no words or details were preserved. Only facial features remained in the depths of memory. Those traits that you consider to be your own.

System and observer

Let's define a system as an object whose existence is beyond doubt.

An observer of a system is an object that is not part of the system it observes, that is, it determines its existence through factors independent of the system.

The observer, from the point of view of the system, is a source of chaos - both control actions and the consequences of observational measurements that do not have a cause-and-effect relationship with the system.

An internal observer is an object potentially accessible to the system in relation to which inversion of observation and control channels is possible.

An external observer is an object, even potentially unattainable for the system, located beyond the system’s event horizon (spatial and temporal).

Hypothesis No. 1. All Seeing Eye

Let's assume that our universe is a system and it has an external observer. Then observational measurements can occur, for example, with the help of “gravitational radiation” penetrating the universe from all sides from the outside. The cross section of the capture of “gravitational radiation” is proportional to the mass of the object, and the projection of the “shadow” from this capture onto another object is perceived as an attractive force. It will be proportional to the product of the masses of the objects and inversely proportional to the distance between them, which determines the density of the “shadow”.

The capture of “gravitational radiation” by an object increases its chaos and is perceived by us as the passage of time. An object opaque to “gravitational radiation”, the capture cross section of which is larger than its geometric size, looks like a black hole inside the universe.

Hypothesis No. 2. Inner Observer

It is possible that our universe is observing itself. For example, using pairs of quantum entangled particles separated in space as standards. Then the space between them is saturated with the probability of the existence of the process that generated these particles, reaching its maximum density at the intersection of the trajectories of these particles. The existence of these particles also means that there is no capture cross section on the trajectories of objects that is large enough to absorb these particles. The remaining assumptions remain the same as for the first hypothesis, except:

Passage of time

An outside observation of an object approaching the event horizon of a black hole, if the determining factor of time in the universe is an “external observer,” will slow down exactly twice - the shadow of the black hole will block exactly half of the possible trajectories of “gravitational radiation.” If the determining factor is the “internal observer,” then the shadow will block the entire trajectory of interaction and the flow of time for an object falling into a black hole will completely stop for a view from the outside.

It is also possible that these hypotheses can be combined in one proportion or another.