Proceedings in connection with the case. Theory of everything

Reasons for initiating proceedings due to new and newly discovered circumstances may be messages 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 with the attachment of 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 proceedings in the case, the court rejects the prosecutor's conclusion. After the cancellation of court decisions due to new or newly discovered circumstances with the referral of the case for a new trial, criminal proceedings are carried out in accordance with the general procedure, including appealing newly made court decisions.

A person is weak, and therefore constantly needs self-affirmation.

Today we have a communication failure, we are already working on this, everything will get better very soon.

These statements are united by using the same combination. And in each case it is different. Let's look into this problem together.

There is no need for a comma between words

“In this regard” - is a comma necessary between words?

When we are dealing with the combination “in connection with this,” we must analyze all possible cases of placing a comma. It's worth practicing this. Next, we offer you special texts that can be used specifically for this purpose.

Text No. 1

Read the text. What role does this combination play?

Few people know that the first abbreviations, or abbreviations, appeared a long time ago - along with writing. Abbreviations, which were present in large quantities in the text, were a necessity, since the material on which the books were written was expensive. Even more expensive was the work of a copyist, who worked for months on just one book; in connection with this, standard abbreviations began to appear, which every educated person should have known. These were usually proper names of famous people, frequently used verbs, and the most famous biblical and church words.

There were two ways to abbreviate: either by the first and last letter (in this case, a special title was placed above the abbreviation), or instead of the word, only one letter remained.

Answer to the question: this is a conjunction that connects the main clause and the subordinate clause with the meaning of the consequence.

Text No. 2

Read the text. Find this combination and determine its role in the sentence.

that in our time the language differs in many ways from Old Church Slavonic, they still have the same function - they pursue the goal of saving space and time. After all, it is much faster and easier to use a short abbreviation of three letters than to write out a long definition or name consisting of several, sometimes very complex, words.

However, the use of such abbreviations requires taking into account subtleties and overcoming certain difficulties. In particular, you need to determine the gender of abbreviations and be able to decline them. There are unchangeable words, for example, MGU, OOO and the like, but there are also such stable abbreviations that in people’s minds they have the status of a whole word and change accordingly. In this regard, difficulties arise in using abbreviations. You can avoid these difficulties by remembering one simple rule: gender is determined by the main word: MSU - university (masculine gender), UN - organization (feminine gender).

Answer to the question: This is a preposition with a pronoun.

Text No. 3

Read the text. Find the desired combination and determine its role in the sentence.

I am an MTS subscriber, and I often have interruptions in connection, so I contacted the nearest office of the mentioned provider. But they couldn’t help me there either. Then I came to another salon, a young man worked there who didn’t know anything normally. The only adequate employee was in the third salon. Having heard about interruptions in communication, I turned to someone by phone with this question. Soon everything got better. But still, since then I have deciphered MTS as “in some places I can hear you.”

Answer to the question: in this text there are two cases of using the combination, in both of them the words are independent: “in connection” is a noun, “with this” is a demonstrative pronoun.

Termination of proceedings in a case is a form of ending a case without making a decision, used due to the plaintiff (applicant) not having the right to file a claim (to go to court) or in connection with the liquidation of a dispute, which prevents a repeated filing with the court with an identical claim.

The court terminates the proceedings if:

• the case is not subject to consideration and resolution in court in civil proceedings on the grounds provided for in paragraph 1 of part one of Article 134 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation;
• there is a court ruling that has entered into legal force and was adopted in a dispute between the same parties, on the same subject and on the same grounds, to terminate the proceedings in connection with the acceptance of the plaintiff’s refusal of the claim or the approval of a settlement agreement between the parties;
• the plaintiff abandoned the claim and the refusal was accepted by the court;
• the parties concluded and it was approved by the court;
• there is a decision of the arbitration tribunal that has become binding on the parties, adopted in a dispute between the same parties, on the same subject and on the same grounds, except in cases where the court refused to issue a writ of execution to enforce the arbitration tribunal’s decision;
• after the death of a citizen who was one of the parties to the case, the disputed legal relationship does not allow succession or, who was one of the parties to the case, is completed.

Termination of proceedings in a case is possible both at a meeting held in preparation of the case for trial (Part 4 of Article 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation) and in the trial itself (Article 173 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation). At the same time, taking into account the principle of adversarial law (Article 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation), the general procedure for resolving such issues in a court session must be observed (in particular, those that confirm the existence of grounds for termination of proceedings must be examined; the opinions of all persons who appeared at the hearing, participating in the proceedings, must be heard in fact). Resolving these issues outside of a court hearing seems unacceptable.

The main consequence of the termination of the proceedings is the inadmissibility of re-applying to the court with an identical claim. The court issues a ruling on termination of proceedings in the case, which must indicate the mentioned consequence (Article 221 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation).

The court's ruling to terminate proceedings on the basis of paragraph 5 of Article 220 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation also sets out the terms of the settlement agreement approved by the court. After the determination to terminate proceedings enters into legal force, the fact of concluding a settlement agreement and its terms acquire prejudicial significance (paragraph 1, part 2, article 61 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation).

The above consequences of termination of proceedings in a case are due to the generally binding nature of court decisions (Article 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation) and relate to such special consequences of the entry into force of court decisions as exclusivity and prejudice.

Civil process: Video

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. Is it 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 goes back to 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???

DEFINITION

(on termination of proceedings due to the lack of jurisdiction of the dispute to a court of general jurisdiction)

Sovetsky District Court of the Stavropol Territory composed of:

Chairman: Shvets L.N.

Under the secretary: Zabelina E.G.

with the participation of the plaintiff’s representative: Babenko P.E. - Matkevich K.V., acting under power of attorney No. from DD.MM.YYYY, certified by the notary of the Sovetsky district notary district of the Stavropol Territory Nikolenko L.A.

representatives of the defendant: LLC PF "Basis" - Mezhuev S.A., acting on the basis of a power of attorney without a number from DD.MM.YYYY and Golets A.V., acting on the basis of a power of attorney without a number from DD.MM.YYYY, certified by the director of the LLC PF "Basis" Bulgakov M.T.

having considered in open court on the premises of the Sovetsky District Court the petition of the representative of the plaintiff Matkevich K.V. on termination of civil proceedings based on the claim of Babenko P.E. to LLC PF "Basis" for the return of money paid for work, recovery of losses and penalties due to the lack of jurisdiction of the dispute, court

installed:

Babenko P.E. filed a lawsuit against LLC RF "Bazis" for the return of money paid for the work, recovery of damages and penalties, namely, he asked to recover from the defendant:

the cost of work paid under contracts No. from DD.MM.YYYY and No. from DD.MM.YYYY, determined according to the rules of paragraph 3 of Article 24 of the Federal Law “on the protection of consumer rights” in the amount of 39,404,123 rubles 40 kopecks;

losses in the amount of 34,756,246 rubles;

penalties for late fulfillment of obligations in the amount of 14,636,031 rubles 88 kopecks, and a total of 88,796,401 rubles 28 kopecks;

attribute the costs of paying the state fee to the defendant.

DD.MM.YYYY the proceedings in the case at the request of the representative of the defendant LLC PF "Bazis" were suspended pending consideration of the merits of the dispute under the claim of Babenko P.E. to LLC PF "Basis" on the recognition of contracts No. from DD.MM.YYYY and No. from DD.MM.YYYY as concluded construction contracts and recognition for Babenko P.E. the right to demand from LLC PF "Bazis" the fulfillment of obligations under these agreements.

By the ruling of the Sovetsky District Court dated DD.MM.YYYY, the proceedings in the case on the claim of Babenko P.E. to LLC PF "Bazis" on the recognition of contracts No. from DD.MM.YYYY and No. from DD.MM.YYYY as concluded construction contracts and the recognition of its right to claim from LLC PF "Bazis" the fulfillment of obligations under these contracts terminated due to lack of jurisdiction of the dispute to a court of general jurisdiction.

The same definition abolished interim measures in the form of a ban on the Pyatigorsk department of the Office of the Federal Service for State Registration, Cadastre and Cartography in the Stavropol Territory to carry out state registration of equity participation agreements, register transfers of rights and any encumbrances of rights to the following real estate objects: apartments No. No.<адрес>(position 17), namely for the area of ​​the indicated apartments, which will be equivalent to the area of ​​apartments No.<адрес>(position 17).

By the ruling of the judicial panel for civil cases of the Stavropol Regional Court dated DD.MM.YYYY, the ruling on termination of proceedings in the case was left unchanged, the private complaint of the representative of the plaintiff Babenko P.E. - Matkevich K.V. without satisfaction.

DD.MM.YYYY the proceedings in this civil case have been resumed due to the fact that the circumstances that caused its suspension have been eliminated.

At the court hearing, the representative of the plaintiff Babenko P.E. -Matkevich K.V. filed a petition to terminate the proceedings in connection with the lack of jurisdiction of this case by the Sovetsky District Court, since the resolution of this claim falls within the competence of the arbitration court

Representatives of the defendant LLC PF "Bazis" Mezhuev S.A. and Golets A.V. They did not agree with the request. At the same time, Golets A.V. explained that he did not agree with the petition, since it was submitted by an unauthorized person.

Having listened to the opinions of the parties and examined the case materials, the court came to the conclusion that the petition must be granted.

In this case, the court proceeded from the following.

In accordance with Part 3 of Art. 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, courts consider and resolve cases provided for in parts one and two of this article, with the exception of economic disputes and other cases referred to the jurisdiction of arbitration courts by federal constitutional law and federal law.

According to Art. 27 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, the arbitration court has jurisdiction over cases of economic disputes and other cases related to the implementation of entrepreneurial and other economic activities.

Arbitration courts resolve economic disputes and consider other cases involving organizations that are legal entities, citizens carrying out entrepreneurial activities without forming a legal entity and having the status of an individual entrepreneur acquired in the manner prescribed by law (hereinafter referred to as individual entrepreneurs), and in cases provided for by this Code and other federal laws, with the participation of the Russian Federation, constituent entities of the Russian Federation, municipalities, state bodies, local governments, other bodies, officials, entities that do not have the status of a legal entity, and citizens who do not have the status of an individual entrepreneur (hereinafter - organizations and citizens).

Arbitration courts consider cases within their jurisdiction involving Russian organizations, citizens of the Russian Federation, as well as foreign organizations, international organizations, foreign citizens, stateless persons engaged in business activities, organizations with foreign investments, unless otherwise provided by an international treaty of the Russian Federation.

According to the case materials, plaintiff Babenko P.E. as of the time of conclusion of the agreement from DD.MM.YYYY and DD.MM.YYYY, she was not an entrepreneur. At the time of filing a claim in court, DD.MM.YYYY was registered with the tax authority as an individual entrepreneur with the main type of activity - operating hotels with restaurants and an additional type of activity - providing intermediary services related to real estate. DD.MM.YYYY Babenko P.E. was registered as an individual entrepreneur with the type of activity - providing intermediary services related to real estate.

defined:

Terminate civil proceedings based on the claim of Babenko P.E. to LLC PF "Basis" for the return of money paid for the work, recovery of losses and penalties in the amount of 88,796,401 rubles 28 kopecks due to the lack of jurisdiction of the dispute to a court of general jurisdiction.

Cancel interim measures in the form of seizure of the following property: apartment No. garage (parking lot) No. at the address:<адрес>No. (according to the administration decree<адрес>No. from DD.MM.YYYY renamed as st. Bulgakov M.T. No.<адрес>).

Oblige the Federal Tax Service No. for the Stavropol Territory to return Babenko P.E. state duty in the amount of 1000 (one thousand rubles) according to receipt No. dated DD.MM.YYYY and 59,000 rubles (fifty nine thousand rubles) according to receipt No. dated DD.MM.YYYY<адрес>

The court's ruling can be appealed to the Stavropol Regional Court within 10 days.

Chairman: Shvets L.N.