In Art. 150 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation (as amended) , the grounds for terminating the proceedings are determined . An analysis of the materials shows that this norm is used often by the authorities authorized to consider economic disputes. Meanwhile, there are a number of nuances to be examined in detail, since they cause certain difficulties in practice.
General grounds
They are set in h. 1 Article. 150 agribusiness of the Russian Federation . The arbitration shall terminate the proceedings upon the occurrence of the following circumstances:
- The case cannot be considered in this instance.
- There is a judicial act issued as a result of proceedings between the same entities on the same subject by arbitration, a body of general jurisdiction or the competent structure of a foreign state and which has entered into force. The exception is cases when the execution of a decision of a foreign authority has been refused.
- There is a resolution of the arbitration court, adopted on the same subject, the conflict between the same participants and on the same grounds. The exception is situations when the arbitration court refused to issue an enforcement order or the decision was canceled.
- The plaintiff refused the claims, and this rejection was accepted by the court.
- The legal entity acting as one of the parties was liquidated.
- A citizen who was a party to the dispute has died, and the law does not allow succession in this case.
- There are grounds defined in article 194 (part 7) of the Code.
In h. 2 Article 150 APC RF established that the proceedings are terminated upon approval of a settlement agreement. Other circumstances may be provided for in the law.
Art. 150 APC RF with comments
The case may not be subject to review on a number of grounds. In particular, paragraph 1 tbsp. 150 APC of the Russian Federation is applied if the dispute is not subordinate to this body. For example, proceedings to declare a government order inconsistent with constitutional provisions should be discontinued as it is the responsibility of the COP. The dispute on the recognition of a lease agreement on agricultural land invalid in fact is a territorial conflict between the two regions that arose in connection with the adoption of acts on changing borders. This case is decided in accordance with Art. 67 (part 3), sub. "a", part one of Art. 102 of the Constitution.
Exceptions
The proceedings do not stop, and the court accepts a statement in the case with the participation of a foreign entity, if the international treaty, which has priority over domestic law, provides for provisions establishing jurisdiction. In particular, Article 150 APC of the Russian Federation (with the latest changes) was applied to the dispute, which was based on relations related to the international transport of goods. As a result, the Geneva Convention of 05.19.1956 was extended to them.
Right to appeal
As part of the application of Art. 150 APC RF judicial practice shows that the decision to terminate the proceedings is often taken after ascertaining whether the applicant has a legal opportunity to file a lawsuit, and the defendant - the corresponding immunity. These cases include the following. According to the provisions of Article 52 of the Code, the appeal to the arbitration is sent by the regional prosecutor or his deputy. Equal officials also have the same right. At the same time, the district prosecutor and his deputy cannot send an appeal to arbitration related to contesting the decision of the governing body on bringing the legal entity to administrative responsibility. Accordingly, the proceedings on such a statement should be terminated.
Tax disputes
In connection with the definition present in Art. 11 of the Tax Code, the definition of a foreign organization simultaneously covers both the legal entity itself and its units created in Russia, the latter being recognized by taxpayers. On them, according to Art. 19 of the Tax Code, the obligation may be paid to pay the corresponding amounts to the budget, as well as responsibility for the offenses committed in the cases established in Sec. 16. As taxpayers, these entities, in accordance with Art. 137 of the Tax Code, it has the right to appeal the decisions of control authorities of a non-normative nature, inaction / actions of employees, if, in their opinion, this violated their interests. Accordingly, proceedings in such cases cannot be terminated by virtue of Art. 150 agribusiness of the Russian Federation . In turn, the tax inspectorate may file a lawsuit against the buyer and seller with a request to invalidate the contract concluded between them and to recover in favor of the state the income received as a result of illegal reimbursement of tax paid from the budget. In this case, also Art. 150 APC RF can not be applied.
Subject of dispute
A legal assessment of a person’s inaction / actions may be carried out during the proceedings together with other circumstances that are essential for its resolution, but not independently. In particular, if an individual entrepreneur goes to court with a lawsuit to recognize him as a bona fide drawer according to the rules of establishing a fact of legal significance, the proceedings will be terminated in accordance with the considered norm.
Challenging Acts
It is not allowed to apply the article in a case on recognition of a legal document as invalid only on the basis of the fact that it has lost its strength. Termination of production under Art. 150 APC RF is carried out in this case only after establishing that the impugned act, repealed or expired, did not violate the legitimate interests and rights of the applicant. Even if the normative act to be promulgated was not published, but was regarded by the interested parties as having valid force, generated legal consequences and was appealed, the application for invalidating it should be examined on the merits. The conclusion of the court must be present in the operative part of the decision. The stated requirements must be considered, regardless of the end of the period of validity of the non-normative act, the fact that officials have completed procedures aimed at satisfying the claims of the plaintiff. If in the course of proceedings relating to the recognition of such a document as invalid, it is established that it is normative, the proceedings shall be terminated in accordance with the rules of Art. 150 APC RF , if its appeal is not provided for by federal law. The definition should indicate the reasons for which the authorized body came to the appropriate conclusions.
Identity Claims
P. 2 tbsp. 150 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation establishes the possibility of terminating proceedings exclusively in cases where the right to defense was previously exercised in the process in accordance with the principles of equality and competitiveness of participants. This provision is aimed at suppressing proceedings in identical claims. It cannot be regarded as violating the freedoms and human rights.
Important point
Art. 150, 151 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, providing for the grounds and rules for the termination of proceedings with the participation of the same entities, with reference to the existence of a determination by the court of general jurisdiction to complete the proceedings in connection with the plaintiff’s refusal of the stated requirements, cannot be considered contrary to norms 118, 47 and 46 of the Constitution. This is due to the fact that the right of a person proceeds from the principle of dispositivity. And he, in turn, refers to the fundamental foundations of civil proceedings. Accordingly, the provisions in which this right is enshrined, in particular, which prescribes to terminate the proceedings if the plaintiff refused the requirements, cannot be regarded as violating the applicant’s constitutional freedoms and interests described in the complaint. The following point should be noted here. The court does not have the right not to accept a waiver of the claim, citing only that it violates the right of the owner of the disputed material values - a subject of the Russian Federation, and is obliged to terminate the proceedings on the basis established by paragraph four of Article 150 agribusiness. If the review is appointed in a simplified manner and after that the plaintiff has filed a corresponding application, then it is studied, in accordance with the provisions of Article 227 subject to Article 49 (part 5). A partial refusal does not entail the termination of the proceedings in the entire case.
Liquidation of an organization
This procedure serves as one more reason for the termination of production. This provision also cannot be regarded as violating the interests and rights of individuals, since in the absence of one of the participants it is impossible to make a decision regarding his duties and legal capabilities. The liquidation of the organization is confirmed by an extract from the register. The termination of the proceedings in this case does not entail the transfer of duties and rights in succession. In this connection, supervisory proceedings are also subject to completion . At the same time, according to the practice of the Supreme Arbitration Court, the recognition of a decision on state registration of a person as invalid does not in itself indicate a termination of legal capacity. It does not act as a basis for considering transactions completed up to this point as void. Accordingly, this does not entail the termination of the proceedings under Art. 150 agribusiness.
Explanations
When one of the participants in the case is liquidated, for example, when the assignment agreement is declared invalid, the proceedings must be completely terminated. This is due to the fact that this procedure involves the completion of the organization without transferring duties and rights to other persons according to the rules of succession. The liquidation of the municipal authority, acting as a defendant, entails the termination of the case under paragraph 5 of the considered norm. In this case, a rule similar to the above applies.
If a foreign company, being a participant in the case, the trial of which was carried out by the arbitral tribunal, was temporarily excluded from the register, and its founders did not inform about it, the authority considering the dispute on the cancellation of the decision of the said body should take into account these circumstances.
The liquidation of one of the parties to the agreement on the joint construction of a residential building is not an obstacle to resolving the case on the merits of the IP-shareholder claiming the nullity of certain paragraphs of the document that have been adjusted to this agreement. In this case, one condition must be fulfilled. In accordance with the agreement on joint activities, the company, subsequently liquidated, must transfer all the rights and functions of the customer-builder to another person. It should be noted that the right of claim held by the interest holder corresponds with the obligation of the developer-customer. It is entrusted with the organization of the construction of the structure, the disposal of funds allocated for the financing of capital investments, material resources that are accepted on balance. In this case, the termination of production will create obstacles to ensure the protection of the legitimate interests and rights of the shareholder.
Death of a citizen
In the event of the death of an entrepreneur acting as a party to the proceedings, the law provides for succession. However, for its implementation, the subject of the dispute should not concern personal rights. In accordance with the Civil Code, as well as other standards, their transfer to other persons is not allowed. These rights include, but are not limited to, the legal opportunity to conduct business. If the subject of the dispute concerns the personal rights of a citizen, the proceedings shall be terminated under paragraph 6 of the rule in question.
Additionally
The termination of the case at the preparatory stage, in the preliminary meeting, if the settlement is the basis for settlement, is not allowed. Upon reaching an agreement, it shall be approved as part of the hearing. In this case, the rules of article 141 of the Code must be observed. Only after this, the proceedings are terminated in accordance with Part 2 of Art. 150 agribusiness of the Russian Federation. In this case, one nuance must be taken into account. The termination of production in connection with the approval of the settlement agreement will be considered unlawful if there are doubts about the authority of the entity that signed it.