Warning: strtotime(): It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected the timezone 'UTC' for now, but please set date.timezone to select your timezone. in /var/www/paritet/data/www/paritetcenter.ru/libraries/joomla/utilities/date.php on line 56

Warning: date(): It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected the timezone 'UTC' for now, but please set date.timezone to select your timezone. in /var/www/paritet/data/www/paritetcenter.ru/libraries/joomla/utilities/date.php on line 198
Court Cases

2001 - 2012

Article Index
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
All Pages

Civil case

 

Mr Tch. addressed to «ELC «Paritet»» with a request of legal aid in the issue of restoration on work, payment recovery during the period of involuntary absence from work and compensation of moral damage. Specialists of the centre prepared and brought a statement of claim to the court against an organization – employer. Further on, representing interests of the plaintiff Tch., the employees of the centre represented satisfactory proofs of illegality of employee’s dismissal. The judge satisfied plaintiff’s demands in full volume. By the decision of Court of Appeal the above-stated judicial decision was left without alterations.

LLC «V» addressed to a district court with a suit concerning restoration of a moral damage caused by M. (employee) to an employer at the amount of 200 thousand rubles. The interests of M. were represented by the employees of ELC «Paritet» who promptly prepared and brought to court a counter-plea to a statement of claim and demanded all necessary documents. In the process of judicial sittings the specialists of the Centre proved that M. due to his duties of office provided for by the labour contract did not accomplish his functions connected with direct service and utilization of money means, goods and other property. The inventory of holdings which resulted in detection of shortage and damage to property was performed with violations of law, and inventory reports are not acceptable, reliable or trustworthy proofs of the case. The plaintiff’s claim was rejected by the decision of the judge. The court of appeal did not alter the decision of the district court.

«О» bank brought to court a statement of claim concerning recovery of debts as per the credit with debtors Tch. and D. for the amount of 18 704 922 rubles where the amount of debts of the credit (with the account of interests) is 1 303 858 rub., and 17 401 064 rub. is fine and penalty (forfeit). The interests of defendants Tch. and D. were represented by a specialist of LLC «ELC «Paritet»». The centre brought to court objections to the statement of claim of the bank, during judicial sittings they presented conclusive proofs of intentional and ungrounded increase of the penalty during a prolonged period of time which is a base for its reduction. By the decision of the court the bank’s statement of claims were satisfied partially at the amount of 1 592 305 rubles.

 

S., L., N., addressed to ELC «Paritet»» with a request for legal help concerning cancellation of shared equity construction agreement and recovery of money means paid as per agreement to the management company as well as penalty costs and compensation for moral damage. The specialists of the centre prepared statements of claims and presented them to court. Further on, presenting interests of the plaintiffs during court session the specialists of the Centre presented compelling evidence of defendant’s default on commitments as per shared equity construction agreements and causing property losses to plaintiffs. The courts satisfied plaintiffs’ statements of claims in full volume. The total amount of recovered losses was more than 7.5 mln. rubles. By the decision of the courts of appeal of the Voronezh regional court the above-mentioned judicial decisions remained unaltered.

 

Criminal case

 

N. addressed to LLC «ELC «Paritet»» being victim of a criminal case against U, G, A as per clauses 162 p.4. p. «b», 105 part 2., p.p. «a, d, dz, z», 158 p.4 p. «b» and 222 part 2 of Criminal Code of Russia. The interests of N. were represented by a barrister of the Centre. As a result of proofs gathering and representation as well as submitting corresponding statements of claims the barrister proved the guilt of the accused of armed assault, homicide with the application of weapons in relation to relatives of disadvantaged N. By the sentence of Voronezh regional court the accused were acknowledged guilty and sentenced to prolonged terms of deprivation.

 

Arbitration case

 

M. addressed to ELC «Paritet» with a request for legal assistance concerning concussion to LLC «М» (its executive department) to provide her as a party of the Company with documents of finance and business operations of the Company. Her written requests addressed to the Company were rejected that is why the specialists of ELC «Paritet» prepared and sent a statement of claim concerning the obligation to grant copies of documents of finance and business operations of LLC «М», the statement was directed to the Arbitrary Court. In the course of judicial sessions the specialists of the Centre proved that the refusal to grant the above-mentioned documents to the participant of LLC is illegal. By the decision of the Court the lawsuit of M was satisfied in full measure.

 

Private entrepreneur Z. Addressed to «Paritet» centre with a request for legal help in recovery of 350 thousand rubles of insurance benefit from insurance company «Р» as a damage in fire in the shop where the equipment and goods and material were insured. The specialists of the centre prepared and applied to the Arbitration Court of Voronezh region with a statement of claims, they also gathered and presented to the court compelling evidence that the defendant’s refusal to cover insurance benefit was unjustified. In the course of court sessions considering indisputability of the proof presented by the plaintiff’s representatives, the defendant took a decision to sign an amicable settlement agreement with a plaintiff and pay off the insurance benefit to Z. The arbitration court approved the above-mentioned agreement.