We know everything about bankruptcy
04/01/2025
Saturday
4 January 
1985 The world's first child from a surrogate mother was born in London.
1985 The world's first child from a surrogate mother was born in London
1948 The independence of Burma was declared.
1948 The independence of Burma was declared
1943 The American magazine "Time" named Stalin the man of the year.
1943 The American magazine "Time" named Stalin the man of the year
THE SUPREME COURT OF RUSSIA GAVE THE STORES A PERMISSON NOT TO SERVE THE CUSTOMERS WITHOUT FACE MASKS
The Supreme Court of Russia, on the initiative of the Smolensk Center for Law and Sociology, considered the case of challenging the letter of the Ministry of Industry and Trade of May 11, 2020 No. ÅÂ-32091/15. The document provides for the possibility of a refusal to serve a buyer without personal protective equipment (PPE) in a situation when a mandatory regime of using it has been introduced in the region.
At the same time, the letter established that in such a situation, the buyers should be informed about the need to use PPE in advance. In case the customer refuses to put on a mask, the seller has the right not to serve him (her) at the checkout.
The plaintiff considered such a situation as a violation of the current Russian legislation, in terms of the legal rules of the Civil Code and the Law on the Protection of Consumer Rights.
What is more, he pointed out the peremptory nature of the provision enshrined in the letter, which violates the rights and interests of an indefinite circle of persons. Despite the arguments presented, the Supreme Court did not find any violations and indicated the following arguments in its decision.
In a situation where the local law of the current region, on the one hand, enshrines the mandatory use of PPE in trade facilities, and on the other, establishes the possibility for the seller not to serve the customer if he or she refuses to put on PPE, such a refusal will be considered legitimate.
As for the plaintiff's assertion about the peremptory nature of the contested provisions of the letter of the Ministry of Industry and Trade, in the opinion of the highest court, they do not have such a meaning.
