Lawyer practice of weekthe Basis of this review of lawyer practice of week was made by stories about two very confused affairs. One of them is connected with reinstatement of the dismissed general director of the joint venture. Another - arbitration and at first sight a little paradoxical: the lawyer has achieved, that in favour of its client from a building the firm at which just the client and has leased these premises has been moved. At both affairs - difficult enough plot and not ordinary courses of protection, therefore and places on the story about them it is taken away enough. Besides affairs practical in this review we represent lawyer bureau “ Reznik, Gagarin and partners “ created under the decision of presidium Mosgorkollegii of lawyers about one year back.
the General director have reinstated
past week Horoshevsky narsud Moscow has reinstated the general director of the joint venture “ Rozek “ (Russia - Democratic People`s Republic of Korea - Japan) Yury Gutina dismissed in the spring of last year. According to the director, the reason of dismissal of a steel of its friction with the joint venture board, trying to impose a number of unprofitable contracts. Yury Gutina`s reinstatement has appeared possible thanks to the lawyer to Raisa Tjurinoj (9 - I jurkonsultatsija Moscow), consistently defending interests of the client throughout eight-monthly process.
as Raisa Tyurin has told to the correspondent the lawyer, its client Yury Gutin headed the joint venture “ Rozek “ (Russia - Democratic People`s Republic of Korea - Japan), formed in 1989. G - n Gutin was the general director from the Russian side. The enterprise specialised on tenancy of cars of foreign manufacture, and also manufacture a body - and video equipments (in due time firm services used eks - US president George Bush and German chancellor Helmut Kohl). In the spring of 1993 the general director has been dismissed by the decision of board of the joint venture under item item 254 1 (rough infringement of official duties) and item 4 (infringement of conditions of the labour contract) KZOT Russia.
as an occasion to dismissal has served spent by the general director in the beginning of 1993 of the transaction on sale to the private person of car Mercedes and 100 TVs “ Rozek - 3 “ which have ostensibly put the joint venture losses.
however according to most g - on Gutina, as the true reason of dismissal its conflict to North Korean founders " has served; Rozeka “ when those (in September, 1991), having sold a part of property of the joint venture for the sum $251 thousand, have bought for army of Democratic People`s Republic of Korea cars ZIL - 130 and the equipment for manufacture of rockets of a class “ the earth - air “ promising to put in exchange for the joint venture household electronics. Then employees of the joint venture have organised strike committee led by Yury Gutinym, but “ the transaction “ it was not possible to break, so losses, by words g - on Gutina, till now “ Rozeku “ and are not compensated. Besides, g - n Gutin resisted to imposing of the joint venture of some contracts - for example, on assemblage of TVs from the kinescopes, which joint ventures should buy at the unprofitable prices for it.
the lawyer Raisa Tyurin has told to the correspondent that during process it was necessary to prove some positions: in - the first that its client operated within the powers and has not put a joint venture damage; and, in - the second that it has been dismissed simply illegally.
on the basis of the documents presented to court it was possible to prove that Yury Gutin, being the general director of the joint venture, not only had the right to make independently transactions (in this case to realise car Mercedes and 100 TVs “ Rozek - 3 “) But also has made for the joint venture these transactions essential profit. As a result of foreign car sale other two belonging joint ventures of the car have been repaired, and from realisation of TVs of the joint venture has received 3 million rbl. of profit. G - well Gutinu and Raisa Tjurinoj managed to convince court and that dismissal as for “ rough infringement of official duties “ was and is formally made contrary to KZOT Russia. It would be lawful only in the event that would pass no more than month from the moment of detection of infringement and no more than 6 months from the date of offence. However, as followed from business materials, these terms have not been observed. During hearings it has been established also that even if to follow logic of respondents and to admit that Gutin has really exceeded the powers (that item 4 item 254 as infringement of conditions of the labour contract is qualified), here again at the moment of dismissal “ a limitation period “ has all the same expired.
For now the dismissed general director achieved the restoration, the joint venture, as he said, fell into decay: cars broke, the part from them was simply plundered, the annual balance has been shown with huge losses. For today, Yury Gutin has told to the correspondent, debts “ Rozeka “ make some billions roubles. Joint venture board “ has run up, having taken which - that from the enterprise property “. So the former first deputy of the general director of joint venture Bronislav Lipatov has appropriated three cars and import phone, and the former deputy director under the finance Vadim Prjahin - two cars of Toyota and the computer. Yury Gutin, by the way, intends to claim in the near future for this property through court.
despite so difficult situation of the joint venture, the reinstated general director intends “ to get up “ the enterprise and to pay off with all debts. Having come back to the post, g - n Gutin has declared to the remained workers of the joint venture that has come “ not to settle scores, and to work and restore the enterprise “.
Lawyer bureau “ Reznik, Gagarin and partners “
In the reviews continues to tell about lawyer firms. Today we represent lawyer bureau “ Reznik, Gagarin and partners “ created in April, 1993 under the decision of presidium Mosgorkollegii of lawyers. In bureau the lawyers, already had time to get considerable popularity to what already name of bureau testifies work.
for today in lawyer bureau “ Reznik, Gagarin and partners “ - 7 lawyers the majority from which before worked in Moscow jurkonsultatsii #18 and have considerable lawyer experience. A spectrum of action of bureau very wide: conducting arbitration and criminal cases of any specificity, civil legal proceedings. Thus each lawyer has a specialisation.
for example, the famous lawyer Henry Reznik is engaged in affairs on honour and dignity protection and criminal cases. Last year he has achieved the termination of sensational criminal case ANTa, and today represents in court interests of known pianist Petrov and participates in process on “ to business GKCHP “. Lawyer Nikolay Gagarin is known as the master of the most complicated arbitration affairs. It has successfully protected interests RTV - the Press in dispute with “ Ostankino “ interests of the state Museum of the East and the Russian government in dispute with Roerich`s International centre concerning manor Lopuhinoj rent. Lawyer Andrey Tarasov has achieved the criminal case termination under item 146 ch. 2 (armed assault) concerning a four accused which have more than a year spent in prison. He also has achieved cancellation of a verdict of guilty and clearing from - under guards of the controller of the Sheremetyevo - 2, accused of bribery. Lawyers Alexander Osetrov, Alexander Kolkovsky and Rashid Jangulov basically serve large commercial structures.
as lawyer Nikolay Gagarin has told to the correspondent, in 1993 lawyers of bureau have received 10 warrants on participation in serious actions of proceeding and as much “ have brought victories “. The client of bureau to become uneasy: lawyers undertake only those affairs in which interests of the client are absolutely lawful.
it is interesting that in this lawyer bureau there are no heads, but only partners. However, exists “ the senior partner of bureau “ is Nikolay Gagarin. However as he said, the senior partner - only “ the first among equal “: it besides the professional affairs is engaged in organizational and administrative affairs of bureau. To make any orders to colleagues (for example, what affairs to accept to manufacture and from what to refuse) it have not the right.
By words g - on Gagarin, into plans of lawyer bureau does not enter “ integration “ and staff increase, attraction of employees for single works (unlike the majority of lawyer structures here believe that it can negatively affect work level).
the Fresh illustration of practical work of lawyers of bureau “ Reznik, Gagarin and partners “ the following chapter of our review serves.
ph. of lawyer bureau “ Reznik, Gagarin and partners “: (095 256 - 72 - 52, 205 - 27 - 09.
the Tenant has moved the lessor
last week lawyer Dmitry Osetrov (lawyer bureau “ Reznik, Gagarin and partners “) Has successfully protected interests of the claimant - the Moscow city self-supporting association “ the Complex “ in cassation board of the Moscow arbitration court, where the respondent on business - firm “ universalprom “ - tried to appeal against against a judgement about the eviction from the four-storeyed industrial building leased by it “ to the Complex “. The cassation board of the Moscow arbitration court has agreed with arguments of lawyer Osetrova and recognised a judgement about eviction “ universalproma “ the lawful.
as lawyer Dmitry Osetrov, in January, 1991 has told to the correspondent the Moscow city self-supporting association “ the Complex “ (manufacture of consumer goods: assemblage of video and radio equipment, furniture and other) has concluded from joint-stock company “ universalprom “ the lease contract of an uninhabited industrial premise till the end of 1995 However the lessor occupies till now two floors of already leased building.
according to the lawyer, judicial drudgeries “ the Complex “ connected with rent of this building, 2,5 years last. At first the lawyer had to prove legality of the lease contract in court. Then to challenge two decisions of the Moscow government which has installed in rented “ the Complex “ a building also printing house of the Ministry of culture of Russia, and then - to move from a building printing house and itself “ universalprom “.
on November, 4th, 1993 lawyer Osetrov has successfully protected interests “ the Complex “ and the Moscow arbitration court has satisfied its claim about eviction “ universalproma “ from a building on street 7 - I Kozhuhovsky. However respondents have appealed against against this decision in cassation board of the same court. They gave reason for the complaint that the claimant ostensibly does not use a premise of the rented building for industrial activity as it is provided by the lease contract, and is engaged only trading - in intermediary activity. They also have declared that tenants from all premise use less than ten rooms, and that under office that ostensibly proves to be true certificates of the commission on employment, territorial agency of Moskomimuschestvo and management of real estate of Moskomimuschestvo.
at session of cassation board lawyer Dmitry Osetrov has presented to court business - plans and the contracts concluded by its client with foreign firms, which purpose - manufacture TNP (instead of trading - intermediary activity). Besides the lawyer has shown the documents confirming purchase “ the Complex “ the conveyor on video and radio equipment assemblage. Thus g - n Sturgeons has specified and that “ the Complex “ Has been compelled to curtail actually manufacture as the respondent disturbed industrial activity of the claimant, disconnecting in a building an electricity (from - for what lifts did not work and lines on equipment assemblage stopped). To be engaged in industrial activity in the conditions of the conflict the lawyer has explained impossibility also to that the production program “ the Complex “ it is calculated on operation of all rented building. Besides the lawyer has paid attention of court that the mentioned certificates of check on use by the claimant of the rented premise “ are challenged “: it is not known, when they have been made, but it is known precisely that representatives “ the Complex “ in it did not participate.
the cassation board of the Moscow arbitration court has agreed with arguments of lawyer Osetrova and has upheld a judgement on the first instance - to move “ universalprom “ from a building before leased by it “ To complex “.
to the Correspondent g - n Sturgeons has declared that this prolonged conflict has poured out in seven various claims for business “ the Complex “ which were considered throughout 15 judicial sessions. Making comments on this business, the known lawyer - business executive Nikolay Gagarin has told to the correspondent that as “ anything so is not appreciated, as the Moscow real estate “ so confused situation with rent of buildings at us is typical enough today. However it is far not to each lawyer it is possible to become successful, more often - from - for complexities of similar conflicts.