- Arts & Culture 6209
- Business & Economics 674
- Computers 316
- Dictionaries & Encyclopedias 74
- Education & Science 76876
- Abstracts 73
- Astrology 4
- Biology 8
- Chemistry 4046
- Coursework 15549
- Culture 8
- Diplomas 316
- Drawings 1595
- Ecology 5
- Economy 76
- English 80
- Ethics, Aesthetics 3
- For Education Students 17572
- Foreign Languages 11
- Geography 3
- Geology 1
- History 88
- Maps & Atlases 5
- Mathematics 12624
- Musical Literature 2
- Pedagogics 19
- Philosophy 22
- Physics 15120
- Political Science 5
- Practical Work 59
- Psychology 63
- Religion 4
- Russian and culture of speech 8
- School Textbooks 7
- Sociology 9
- Summaries, Cribs 87
- Test Answers 160
- Tests 8747
- Textbooks for Colleges and Universities 32
- Theses 7
- To Help Graduate Students 14
- To Help the Entrant 38
- Vetting 385
- Works 13
- Информатика 8
- Engineering 893
- Fiction 706
- House, Family & Entertainment 84
- Law 128
- Website Promotion 68
During the examination of the defense case by the
Content: S19-112.docx 17,94 kB
Product description
During the consideration by the district court of the case on the protection of honor and dignity, one of the witnesses warned the judge that the answer to the question asked would contain information constituting state secrets. The judge ruled to continue the trial in a closed court session and removed from the courtroom those who were not related to the case in question. The judgment denied the claims.
In a cassation appeal against the decision, the plaintiff asked to cancel the court decision under paragraph 1 of Part 2 of Art. 364 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation as considered by the illegal composition of the court, since decisions on cases involving state secrets can only be made by the supreme courts of the republics, regional, regional courts, courts of cities of federal significance, the autonomous region and autonomous region
The defendant in the explanations for the complaint indicated that the court decision cannot be quashed, since it is lawful in essence, and, in addition, by virtue of Art. 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a case accepted by a court for proceeding with observance of the rules of jurisdiction must be resolved on the merits by this court, even if it later became jurisdictional to another court.
Who is right in this situation?
Evaluate the arguments of the plaintiff and defendant?
Is a violation of jurisdiction a ground for annulment of a court decision if it complies with substantive law?
Additional information
After payment you will be available a link to the solution of this problem in the file of MS Word. It should be noted that the problem solutions put up for sale were successfully handed over in the period 2004-2019 and could be outdated. However, the general algorithm will always remain true.
Feedback
0Period | |||
1 month | 3 months | 12 months | |
0 | 0 | 0 | |
0 | 0 | 0 |