Bidding, legal representation and removal from the courtroom: the results of the year at the plenums of the RF Armed Forces

There were many clarifications of judicial practice concerning completely different aspects of law in the past year: from collusion at tenders and malicious intent of a notary to the right of a judge to remove a participant in a trial from the courtroom and the specifics of representation in general jurisdiction. Read more about each of them in our material.

Bidding collusion

The highest court has clarified how the courts can recognize that there is an agreement between bidders to reach a certain price level. In such cases, it is necessary to investigate the actions of each participant and the relationship of their manipulations with the consequences, which means a decrease or increase in the price of the goods being sold.

It is important to assess whether such a cost is normal for bidding, or if there are signs that go beyond the standard scope in the current situation.

In addition, courts should pay attention to the presence or absence of a common strategy of the participants, which can also be a sign of collusion.

Legal representation in general jurisdiction appeal

In the outgoing year, the Supreme Court of Russia touched upon the issue of appeal proceedings in courts of general jurisdiction. In particular, the board explained in which cases a higher legal education is not required.

This concerns the complaints of representatives who challenge the decisions of the justices of the peace. Patent attorneys, prosecutors, arbitration managers, as well as trade union representatives may not have a law degree.

Procedural features of cassation appeal

The highest court has clarified a number of aspects related to the cassation challenge of judicial acts in general jurisdiction. In particular, the three-month period for appeal in cassation should be calculated from the day following the day of adoption of the last appeal ruling on the case. At the same time, it was separately noted that the announcement of only the operative part of the ruling without the full text does not affect the general term of the challenge, but this circumstance can be taken into account by the court when considering the issue of restoring the missed procedural term.

Malicious intent of a notary

This year, the Supreme Court of Russia touched upon another important topic - crimes against the interests of the service. In particular, the highest court determined the abuse of its powers.

Such actions, according to the board, include the commission by a notary or auditor of actions permitted by law, but not necessary and contrary to the goals and objectives for the achievement of which these persons were endowed with their powers.

Removal from the courtroom

This year, the issue of the judge's right to remove a participant in the trial from the courtroom was not left unattended this year. The highest court clarified that long and protracted speeches of the participants, interruption of other parties, and filing the same petition over and over again can be attributed to the violation of order. For this, a participant in the process may be, among other things, removed from the courtroom.