Cases from practice

The court of Smolensk, Russia, in favor of the client’s children, was collected compensation for moral damage from a woman from Belarus. The debtor had no money or property. The court’s decision was not executed, the money was not received.

The Attorney conducted an inspection and found out that during the consideration of the case by the Smolensk court, the debtor had reissued her Mercedes car to another person. Therefore, the attorney filed a lawsuit with the Minsk district court to establish the fact of the nullity of the transactions and accompanied the client in court. At the trial, the attorney argued that the debtor did not really sell the car, but issued them fictitiously to her friend.

My client, the company from the Republic of Belarus (supplier), supplied fertilizers to a buyer in Russia. The buyer LLC did not pay indirect taxes (VAT) to the Russian budget, and therefore, according to the laws of the EAEU, my client was forced to pay VAT. Excessive payment of VAT is a loss.

The феещктун accompanied the client at all stages of judicial debt collection: consultation, filing a claim, drawing up a claim, defending interests in court. At the court hearing he challenged the defendant’s arguments.

The client-individual entrepreneur performed topographic and geodetic works by order of a limited liability company. Exploration work, for which topographic survey was carried out, was suspended by the customer, so the individual entrepreneur was not able to complete topographic and geodetic work. The customer refused to pay the entrepreneur for the work performed, arguing that they were incomplete.

The attorney has represented the interests of the individual entrepreneur in the economic court. At the trial, he argued that the work was not completed through no fault of the entrepreneur, and that the result of partially completed work can be used in the future. And so – the work is subject to payment.

The client, a citizen of Russia, in March 2017 concluded with a citizen of Belarus (the defendant) a contract for the sale of a mobile tent circus, according to which the client sold the specified circus to the defendant. The contract provided for an installment payment for the circus. For violation of the terms of payment, a penalty was provided.
Since the buyer repeatedly violated the terms of payment, the client did not agree to give him all the documentation for the circus until the penalty was paid on his part.

The attorney did the following:

1. During the consultation, the lawyer studied the contract and correspondence between the buyer and the seller. It was found that, despite the illiterate terms of the contract, one could try to bring claims not only for the recovery of a penalty, but also for the recovery of the circus from someone else’s illegal possession.
2. The attorney drew up a statement of claim, where he indicated the maximum number of claims that it was advisable to declare, namely, the recovery of 1 million Russian rubles forfeit and the recovery of the circus worth 2.1 million Russian rubles.
3. The attorney represented the interests of the client in the litigation by proxy without the participation of the client.
At the court session, a settlement agreement was concluded between the attorney’s representative and the defendant, according to which the defendant undertakes to pay the client a penalty in the amount of 200,000 Russian rubles. The client waived all the stated claims in exchange for payment.
Currently, the money has been transferred to the client in full in Russia. In addition, the republican budget returned to the client 50% of the state duty paid in the amount of 26,000 Russian rubles (in connection with the approval of the settlement agreement by the court).

The buyer refused to pay for the delivered goods. The supplier contacted a lawyer. The attorney collected documents, prepared a statement to the court. As a result, the supplier recovered $53,000 in arrears and a fine, as well as attorney’s fees, in an indisputable writ proceeding from the buyer.

The company is a resident of the Russian Federation supplied the company – a resident of the Republic of Belarus with ore and crushed stone, but the buyer did not pay in full. The matter was complicated by the fact that the client-supplier did not have consignment notes confirming the deliveries. In the course of the trial, evidence of the delivery was obtained and an amicable agreement was concluded on the payment of the entire amount of the debt by the defendant-buyer.