08.09.06

On September 7, 2006, the Supreme Arbitration Court (VAS) of the Russian Federation examined a draft of the new decree on the application of the Arbitration Procedural Code (APK) of the Russian Federation. The APK is to be used when judicial acts are reviewed in light of newly discovered facts. Because of this, a form of case law could be introduced in Russia, although it would be applied retroactively. It was assumed that tax collectors would be able to obtain reviews of cases they had previously lost, without the need for a repeat investigation. It’s worth noting that even organizations that previously lost tax disputes might now emerge victorious and recover their money, which would set a precedent. Many experts have spoken out against this draft, figuring that it was mainly playing into the hands of the tax authorities; not many companies would appeal previous rulings in court, but tax collectors could contest lost cases en masse.

However, today—September 8, 2006—the Presidium of the VAS has guarded companies against the possibility of reviews on long-standing cases in the event that that the general legal view of the VAS changes. Judges dismissed a draft decree presented by the VAS Plenum, saying the draft made it possible to levy taxes on any company whenever the VAS changes its views on legal interpretations.

In practice, the discovery of new facts very rarely leads to reviews of rulings. Nevertheless, the APK of the Russian Federation allows for case reviews if, after the decision has been reached, facts are revealed which were not known when the case was being investigated that may have affected the outcome of the proceedings. In particular, these could be newly discovered documents, a court sentence, or a Constitutional or European court ruling on human rights.

As a result, the members of the VAS Presidium ruled that the VAS's changed policies would not be counted as a newly discovered fact.

For now, VAS Presidium members will try to find other means of making cases they have reviewed models for similar cases. This is absolutely necessary for uniformity in judicial practice, one VAS member commented.