How we fought Roskomnadzor and what came of it
The head of the 1C-Start business registration service, Alexander Raptovsky, on how to cancel a court decision on blocking an article on Habré, initiated by Roskomnadzor.
Shot from the movie “Enough with me!” (Falling Down), 1992
Everyone is well aware of the exploits of Roskomnadzor in the field of information protection. Basically, these are loud stories related to online giants (Telegram, Twitter, Facebook, etc.). However, more modest blocking stories also happen here and there. And here our blog on Habré has become a participant in one of these stories.
Over the entire existence of our blog, 9 out of 10 articles for start-up entrepreneurs have become very popular. And here are 2 articles from these 9 for unknown reasons, this year were blocked by Roskomnadzor:
')
→ How can a company pay 133 times less taxes ? Article rates:
→ 6 legal methods and 1 dubious withdrawal of money by the founders of the business . Article rates:
Naturally, this state of affairs did not suit us, so with the support of the editors of Habr we began the fight against this blocking. Immediately spoiler: we managed to unlock the first article from the list above. And about this story below.
The first hello from Roskomnadzor arrived on our website regberry.ru in January of this year. A letter came from the domain registrar requesting to delete the publication at *** within 24 hours, otherwise the entire portal will be blocked.
A letter was attached to the letter, from which it followed that the publication had entered the register of network addresses containing information whose distribution in the Russian Federation is prohibited. The reason for entering the article in the register was the decision of the Kirovsky District Court of St. Petersburg dated June 28, 2017 No. 2-3514 / 2017.
A few words about the article itself. It described all legal ways of receiving money from an LLC, starting with the payment of dividends and ending with the provision of management services for its company. The last part of the article dealt with the well-known scheme of withdrawing money through “gray” offices. Moreover, we have described this scheme as an example of what cannot be done in any way, because it is: a) illegal, b) unprofitable; c) threatens criminal prosecution.
That is, no crime that falls under the law No. 149-FZ, here and did not smell, because The said law prohibits the dissemination of information aimed at promoting war, terrorism, incitement of hatred and hostility. Accounting and business topics in any way does not fall under this description.
We were slightly surprised by this ban, but did not really understand. We immediately removed the article from publication, then removed the section on the existence of “gray schemes” and re-published it under another URL . No more problems with this article. Or not yet.
Further more. March 28, 2018, we receive a message from Habr that they are forced to withdraw from the article published in our corporate blog:
The article was the same subject as prohibited on our site - about how to withdraw money from the company. In addition to the legal methods of withdrawing money, it mentioned the illegal one with the warning that this withdrawal method is illegal and dangerous for business. The court decision (dated 02.06.2017 No. 2-373 / 2017) on this publication was made by the Andropovskiy District Court of the Stavropol Territory.
Of course, we didn’t like it very much, but in the end we were silent (endured) again, because priority at that time were more important tasks. Plus, there was a thought that the RKN is blocking the topic of illegal withdrawal of money, and we, voluntarily or involuntarily, mentioned this possibility as an existing one.
By the way, our similar article on Spark did not get blocked. And if you look at the search results, there are hundreds of such articles, even on the most respected resources, for example, Forbes .
Blocking the second posting from the blog was not long in coming. Less than two months later, we receive another message about the banning of an article of a completely different subject - about the choice of the taxation system (on the basis of a court decision of the Romodanovsky District Court of the Republic of Mordovia of 30.03.2018 No. 2-145 / 2018).
And this really hooked us up (as in the movie “Enough with me!”).
From the practice of advising thousands of our users, we know perfectly well how important it is to calculate in advance the tax burden in different modes. Free consultations on the choice of the tax system are carried out by 1C: BO specialists, who, in principle, cannot give any left-wing advice.
And the general rules for self-assessment of the tax burden are described in many of our articles. And just on this topic, we have prepared two publications for the blog on Habré - one for the PI, the other for the LLC. The titles of both articles speak:
As it turned out, it was the high-profile article title for the LLC that caused its blocking. Because none of those who banned the article, did not read it. And why read, if it is clear from the headline, what it is about - how to deceive the state and not pay taxes (just in case we clarify - this is sarcasm, we do not learn anything like that).
After the third prohibited publication, we have already firmly decided to understand what we are doing wrong (according to the RKN, of course). At that time we did not have any information about the reasons for blocking our posts. Of course, we were not sent a single judgment.
They began to search for the text of the decision of the Romodanovsky District Court, but did not find it either in the public domain or in a paid legal system. At this stage, the lawyers of Habr joined us, for which many thanks to them (and special thanks to Aleksey Shevelev , who sincerely supported us and empathized throughout the process).
The skeleton of the appeal, which Habr prepared for us, we supplemented with our justifications, and our document in Mordovia finalized the document. All through the same partners 1C: Bo, we managed to find a class lawyer in Saransk ( Vladimir , hello, you are cool!), Who then acted on their own.
You probably imagine how justice is being done on the ground - everyone knows each other and does not want to spoil relations. Accordingly, from the informal part of the case we cannot tell everything, but we will state the essence.
It began with the fact that from the local administration of the RKN, the local prosecutor's office received a request to check our article, in which, judging by the title, tax evasion schemes were described. The case was assigned to an assistant prosecutor who allegedly read the article and allegedly found signs of a violation of the law. Based on the opinion of this assistant, the prosecutor appealed to the local court, where the case was considered without the presence of an RKN officer. Naturally, there was no examination of the article or an independent legal assessment.
The local court was very surprised that because of some article the applicant was not too lazy to apply as much from Moscow, but since the appeal went to the Supreme Court of the Republic of Mordovia, we were first asked to decide everything by the world. That is, we withdraw the complaint, and someone somehow does everything to remove the block from publication. It seemed to us that this “peaceful” proposal was strange, since If an article is entered into the register on the basis of a court decision, then it can be excluded from the registry only on the basis of a court decision.
When we explained how the blocking was removed, our interlocutor from [...] hesitated, and then offered to publish a prohibited article on some other site. And there nobody will touch her, honestly. And in general, that assistant prosecutor has already been fired (here I want to ask: “Was there a boy?”), And all the rest are good people, let's live peacefully.
But we did not succeed in peace, the Procurator of the Republic of Mordovia actively resisted and wrote letters that everything was correct, that there was an examination before the trial, during the trial, etc. Here is an excerpt:
As a result, two court sessions took place, the result of which was the annulment of the court decision and the return of the article to Habr! Thanks again to everyone who helped to complete this quest.
And now the official part of our history and its documentary evidence. The whole process from requesting a decision of the Romodanovsky Court to receiving the final response of the ILV Directorate in the Republic of Mordovia took a little more than two months. For the appeal process, this is not for long.
In the Appeal we paid the court’s attention to three points:
On August 29, 2018, according to our complaint, a meeting of the Judicial Collegium on Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Mordovia took place, which made a determination in our favor in connection with the violation of legal procedures. As our representative explained, the annulment of the court decision on blocking an article on procedural rules was the most benign option for the local court and the prosecutor's office.
We did not insist that the facts of violation of the norms of substantive law and the lack of evidence of circumstances were also considered on appeal, because the answer from the RKN came two days after the definition of the Armed Forces of the Republic of Mordovia was sent to us.
Here is what was said in this reply: “The resources indicated in your appeal have not been entered in the Register of prohibited resources, and Roskomnadzor does not limit access to them.” In proof of the exclusion of an article from the list of banned, we give the screen sent by Roskomnadzor.
All documents of our case are attached:
Click here for your article. It was not our participation, that is, the violation of procedural rules.
Shot from the movie “Enough with me!” (Falling Down), 1992
Everyone is well aware of the exploits of Roskomnadzor in the field of information protection. Basically, these are loud stories related to online giants (Telegram, Twitter, Facebook, etc.). However, more modest blocking stories also happen here and there. And here our blog on Habré has become a participant in one of these stories.
Over the entire existence of our blog, 9 out of 10 articles for start-up entrepreneurs have become very popular. And here are 2 articles from these 9 for unknown reasons, this year were blocked by Roskomnadzor:
')
→ How can a company pay 133 times less taxes ? Article rates:
→ 6 legal methods and 1 dubious withdrawal of money by the founders of the business . Article rates:
Naturally, this state of affairs did not suit us, so with the support of the editors of Habr we began the fight against this blocking. Immediately spoiler: we managed to unlock the first article from the list above. And about this story below.
How it all began
The first hello from Roskomnadzor arrived on our website regberry.ru in January of this year. A letter came from the domain registrar requesting to delete the publication at *** within 24 hours, otherwise the entire portal will be blocked.
A letter was attached to the letter, from which it followed that the publication had entered the register of network addresses containing information whose distribution in the Russian Federation is prohibited. The reason for entering the article in the register was the decision of the Kirovsky District Court of St. Petersburg dated June 28, 2017 No. 2-3514 / 2017.
A few words about the article itself. It described all legal ways of receiving money from an LLC, starting with the payment of dividends and ending with the provision of management services for its company. The last part of the article dealt with the well-known scheme of withdrawing money through “gray” offices. Moreover, we have described this scheme as an example of what cannot be done in any way, because it is: a) illegal, b) unprofitable; c) threatens criminal prosecution.
That is, no crime that falls under the law No. 149-FZ, here and did not smell, because The said law prohibits the dissemination of information aimed at promoting war, terrorism, incitement of hatred and hostility. Accounting and business topics in any way does not fall under this description.
We were slightly surprised by this ban, but did not really understand. We immediately removed the article from publication, then removed the section on the existence of “gray schemes” and re-published it under another URL . No more problems with this article. Or not yet.
Ban articles on Habré
Further more. March 28, 2018, we receive a message from Habr that they are forced to withdraw from the article published in our corporate blog:
The article was the same subject as prohibited on our site - about how to withdraw money from the company. In addition to the legal methods of withdrawing money, it mentioned the illegal one with the warning that this withdrawal method is illegal and dangerous for business. The court decision (dated 02.06.2017 No. 2-373 / 2017) on this publication was made by the Andropovskiy District Court of the Stavropol Territory.
Of course, we didn’t like it very much, but in the end we were silent (endured) again, because priority at that time were more important tasks. Plus, there was a thought that the RKN is blocking the topic of illegal withdrawal of money, and we, voluntarily or involuntarily, mentioned this possibility as an existing one.
By the way, our similar article on Spark did not get blocked. And if you look at the search results, there are hundreds of such articles, even on the most respected resources, for example, Forbes .
Blocking the second posting from the blog was not long in coming. Less than two months later, we receive another message about the banning of an article of a completely different subject - about the choice of the taxation system (on the basis of a court decision of the Romodanovsky District Court of the Republic of Mordovia of 30.03.2018 No. 2-145 / 2018).
And this really hooked us up (as in the movie “Enough with me!”).
From the practice of advising thousands of our users, we know perfectly well how important it is to calculate in advance the tax burden in different modes. Free consultations on the choice of the tax system are carried out by 1C: BO specialists, who, in principle, cannot give any left-wing advice.
And the general rules for self-assessment of the tax burden are described in many of our articles. And just on this topic, we have prepared two publications for the blog on Habré - one for the PI, the other for the LLC. The titles of both articles speak:
As it turned out, it was the high-profile article title for the LLC that caused its blocking. Because none of those who banned the article, did not read it. And why read, if it is clear from the headline, what it is about - how to deceive the state and not pay taxes (just in case we clarify - this is sarcasm, we do not learn anything like that).
How we sued Roskomnadzor
After the third prohibited publication, we have already firmly decided to understand what we are doing wrong (according to the RKN, of course). At that time we did not have any information about the reasons for blocking our posts. Of course, we were not sent a single judgment.
They began to search for the text of the decision of the Romodanovsky District Court, but did not find it either in the public domain or in a paid legal system. At this stage, the lawyers of Habr joined us, for which many thanks to them (and special thanks to Aleksey Shevelev , who sincerely supported us and empathized throughout the process).
The skeleton of the appeal, which Habr prepared for us, we supplemented with our justifications, and our document in Mordovia finalized the document. All through the same partners 1C: Bo, we managed to find a class lawyer in Saransk ( Vladimir , hello, you are cool!), Who then acted on their own.
You probably imagine how justice is being done on the ground - everyone knows each other and does not want to spoil relations. Accordingly, from the informal part of the case we cannot tell everything, but we will state the essence.
It began with the fact that from the local administration of the RKN, the local prosecutor's office received a request to check our article, in which, judging by the title, tax evasion schemes were described. The case was assigned to an assistant prosecutor who allegedly read the article and allegedly found signs of a violation of the law. Based on the opinion of this assistant, the prosecutor appealed to the local court, where the case was considered without the presence of an RKN officer. Naturally, there was no examination of the article or an independent legal assessment.
The local court was very surprised that because of some article the applicant was not too lazy to apply as much from Moscow, but since the appeal went to the Supreme Court of the Republic of Mordovia, we were first asked to decide everything by the world. That is, we withdraw the complaint, and someone somehow does everything to remove the block from publication. It seemed to us that this “peaceful” proposal was strange, since If an article is entered into the register on the basis of a court decision, then it can be excluded from the registry only on the basis of a court decision.
When we explained how the blocking was removed, our interlocutor from [...] hesitated, and then offered to publish a prohibited article on some other site. And there nobody will touch her, honestly. And in general, that assistant prosecutor has already been fired (here I want to ask: “Was there a boy?”), And all the rest are good people, let's live peacefully.
But we did not succeed in peace, the Procurator of the Republic of Mordovia actively resisted and wrote letters that everything was correct, that there was an examination before the trial, during the trial, etc. Here is an excerpt:
Here is the letter itself
As a result, two court sessions took place, the result of which was the annulment of the court decision and the return of the article to Habr! Thanks again to everyone who helped to complete this quest.
Details for those interested in the actual circumstances of the case.
And now the official part of our history and its documentary evidence. The whole process from requesting a decision of the Romodanovsky Court to receiving the final response of the ILV Directorate in the Republic of Mordovia took a little more than two months. For the appeal process, this is not for long.
In the Appeal we paid the court’s attention to three points:
- Unproven circumstances relevant to the case, and their wrong definition. The article does not contain information about illegal methods and schemes for evading taxes and fees, but only describes the features of tax systems and gives examples of calculating the tax burden for each of them. The court did not prove that our publication contains information that can be used to evade taxes and commit crimes under Articles 198 and 199 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
- Violation of substantive law. The Romodanovsky court incriminated us of a violation of Law No. 149-, which prohibits the dissemination of information aimed at propagating war, inciting national, racial or religious hatred and enmity, as well as other information for the distribution of which criminal or administrative responsibility is provided. However, the description of taxation systems in Russia is in no way subject to this law.
- Non-compliance with procedural rules. The court did not clarify the composition of the interested persons and did not send a request to the owner of the site habrahabr.ru about the authors, copyright holders and persons who posted the controversial article on this site. And since we were not informed about the conduct of the trial regarding our official work, we were denied the right to participate in the case and defend our rights.
On August 29, 2018, according to our complaint, a meeting of the Judicial Collegium on Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Mordovia took place, which made a determination in our favor in connection with the violation of legal procedures. As our representative explained, the annulment of the court decision on blocking an article on procedural rules was the most benign option for the local court and the prosecutor's office.
We did not insist that the facts of violation of the norms of substantive law and the lack of evidence of circumstances were also considered on appeal, because the answer from the RKN came two days after the definition of the Armed Forces of the Republic of Mordovia was sent to us.
Here is what was said in this reply: “The resources indicated in your appeal have not been entered in the Register of prohibited resources, and Roskomnadzor does not limit access to them.” In proof of the exclusion of an article from the list of banned, we give the screen sent by Roskomnadzor.
All documents of our case are attached:
1. Notice of blocking an article
2. Appeal (mailed)
To the Supreme Court of the Republic of Mordovia
through Romodanovsky District Court of the Republic of Mordovia
431600, p. Romodanovo, st. Kirova, 9
Complainant:
LLC "1C-Start"
PSRN 1097746328360
TIN 7735560386
Address: 124482, Moscow, Zelenograd, building. 528, office 17
Phone: +7 (499) 755-85-96
Email: info@regberry.ru
Interested people:
Prosecutor's office of the Romodanovsky district of the Republic of Mordovia
Office of Roskomnadzor in the Republic of Mordovia
Case number 2-145 / 2018
Judge Tomilina T.V.
Appeal Complaint
on the decision of the Romodanovsky District Court of the Republic of Mordovia
from 03.30.2018 in case No. 2-145 / 2018
The Prosecutor of the Romodanovskiy District of the Republic of Mordovia appealed to the Romodanovskiy District Court of the Republic of Mordovia in order to establish the facts of legal significance, including the recognition of information posted on the website page with the URL: “https://habrahabr.ru/ company / regberry / blog / 319776 ”, information whose distribution in the territory of the Russian Federation is prohibited.
The Romodanovsky District Court of the Republic of Mordovia issued a decision of 03/30/2018, by which the said statement was satisfied, the information posted on the website page with the URL address: "https://habrahabr.ru/company/regberry/blog/319776" was recognized as information, dissemination which is prohibited on the territory of the Russian Federation.
It is not possible to become familiar with the content of the court decision, since it is not available on the website of the Romodanovsky District Court of the Republic of Mordovia. The applicant did not participate in the case.
However, we consider the said decision of the Romodanovsky District Court of the Republic of Mordovia illegal, unreasonable and subject to cancellation due to the failure to prove the circumstances relevant to the case established by the court of first instance and the findings of the court of first instance that did not correspond to the circumstances of the case.
The article prohibited by the court describes the main features of the taxation systems operating in the Russian Federation, and gives examples of calculating the tax burden in accordance with each of them.
According to Article 21 of the Tax Code, taxpayers are entitled to use tax benefits if there are grounds and in the manner prescribed by the legislation on taxes and fees.
Special tax regimes (USN, UTII, UAT, PSN) are provided by the legislator to optimize taxation, simplify tax accounting and develop small and medium businesses. A taxpayer who fulfills the conditions of tax legislation has the right to choose a taxation system.
This conclusion is supported by judicial practice:
1. In the Resolution of the Fifteenth Arbitration Court of Appeal dated January 22, 2017 N 15-21464/2017 in case N A53-2638 / 2017 the court indicates that “Based on the legal sense, the special regimes are designed for small and medium-sized businesses and their use is a sign of successful state regulation, not taxpayer abuse. ”
2. In the Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the Volga District on 14.12.2017 N F06-27272 / 2017 in case N A12-4445 / 2017, the court states that the right to elect the tax system is granted only to the taxpayer, and cannot be dictated by the tax authority .
3. A similar position with regard to the right to choose the taxation system is expressed in the Resolution of the Twelfth Arbitration Court of Appeal of 02.03.2017 N 12-1273/2017 in case No. 12-46187 / 2016.
In a letter dated 03/19/2015 N 03-11-03 / 3/14786, the Ministry of Finance also notes that the use of special tax regimes is the main legal way to optimize tax payments.
In essence, an article prohibited by a court is a tax consultation, within which various tax regimes used in conducting business activities in the IT industry are compared.
The conclusion made in the title of the article about saving by a factor of 133 was made on the basis of a simple comparison of the amount of tax deductions on UTII with ESS. This is nothing more than a statement of fact on a specific example. From the article it also follows that with other initial data, the calculation of the tax burden will be quite different. At the same time, there are no recommendations and calls for committing unlawful acts and evasion from the fulfillment of taxpayer duties.
We believe that the best evidence of the groundlessness of the conclusions of the court and the absence of illegal information on the page is the content of the page that is prohibited by the court. Since at present the access to the article at the indicated address is blocked by the site owner on the basis of the contested decision, we suggest reading its content in the form of a printout (see Appendix No. 3).
According to Part 3 of Art. 320 of the Civil Procedural Code of the Russian Federation, an appeal may also be filed by persons who were not involved in the case and the issue of rights and whose duties were resolved by the court.
Clause 11 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of June 19, 2012 No. 13 “On the application by courts of civil procedural legislation governing the proceedings before the court of appeal” clarified that the appeal filed by the person who was not involved in the case should contain a justification for the violation rights and (or) assignment of duties by the appealed court decision.
An article on the Internet at https://habrahabr.ru/company/regberry/blog/319776 is posted on behalf of 1C-Start LLC (Applicant of this complaint) under the blog maintained by the Applicant on habrahabr.ru website Regberry brand. In confirmation of these circumstances, we present a printout of company profile pages on habrahabr.ru, a printout of the website page www.regberry.ru/kontakty , as well as documents confirming the provision of LLC Habr services for LLC 1C-Start in placing articles LLC 1C- Start "on the Internet resource habrahabr.ru .
Thus, the appealed decision of the Romodanovsky District Court of the Republic of Mordovia of 30.03.2018.on case No. 2-145 / 2018 The URL address: "https://habrahabr.ru/company/regberry/blog/319776" Restrictions are prohibited by law, while:
, , , .
23 2018 . «», « , «» , «», , » (. №5).
, . 320-322 ,
:
Application:
«1-» ________________ / . . /
through Romodanovsky District Court of the Republic of Mordovia
431600, p. Romodanovo, st. Kirova, 9
Complainant:
LLC "1C-Start"
PSRN 1097746328360
TIN 7735560386
Address: 124482, Moscow, Zelenograd, building. 528, office 17
Phone: +7 (499) 755-85-96
Email: info@regberry.ru
Interested people:
Prosecutor's office of the Romodanovsky district of the Republic of Mordovia
Office of Roskomnadzor in the Republic of Mordovia
Case number 2-145 / 2018
Judge Tomilina T.V.
Appeal Complaint
on the decision of the Romodanovsky District Court of the Republic of Mordovia
from 03.30.2018 in case No. 2-145 / 2018
The Prosecutor of the Romodanovskiy District of the Republic of Mordovia appealed to the Romodanovskiy District Court of the Republic of Mordovia in order to establish the facts of legal significance, including the recognition of information posted on the website page with the URL: “https://habrahabr.ru/ company / regberry / blog / 319776 ”, information whose distribution in the territory of the Russian Federation is prohibited.
The Romodanovsky District Court of the Republic of Mordovia issued a decision of 03/30/2018, by which the said statement was satisfied, the information posted on the website page with the URL address: "https://habrahabr.ru/company/regberry/blog/319776" was recognized as information, dissemination which is prohibited on the territory of the Russian Federation.
It is not possible to become familiar with the content of the court decision, since it is not available on the website of the Romodanovsky District Court of the Republic of Mordovia. The applicant did not participate in the case.
However, we consider the said decision of the Romodanovsky District Court of the Republic of Mordovia illegal, unreasonable and subject to cancellation due to the failure to prove the circumstances relevant to the case established by the court of first instance and the findings of the court of first instance that did not correspond to the circumstances of the case.
The article prohibited by the court describes the main features of the taxation systems operating in the Russian Federation, and gives examples of calculating the tax burden in accordance with each of them.
According to Article 21 of the Tax Code, taxpayers are entitled to use tax benefits if there are grounds and in the manner prescribed by the legislation on taxes and fees.
Special tax regimes (USN, UTII, UAT, PSN) are provided by the legislator to optimize taxation, simplify tax accounting and develop small and medium businesses. A taxpayer who fulfills the conditions of tax legislation has the right to choose a taxation system.
This conclusion is supported by judicial practice:
1. In the Resolution of the Fifteenth Arbitration Court of Appeal dated January 22, 2017 N 15-21464/2017 in case N A53-2638 / 2017 the court indicates that “Based on the legal sense, the special regimes are designed for small and medium-sized businesses and their use is a sign of successful state regulation, not taxpayer abuse. ”
2. In the Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the Volga District on 14.12.2017 N F06-27272 / 2017 in case N A12-4445 / 2017, the court states that the right to elect the tax system is granted only to the taxpayer, and cannot be dictated by the tax authority .
3. A similar position with regard to the right to choose the taxation system is expressed in the Resolution of the Twelfth Arbitration Court of Appeal of 02.03.2017 N 12-1273/2017 in case No. 12-46187 / 2016.
In a letter dated 03/19/2015 N 03-11-03 / 3/14786, the Ministry of Finance also notes that the use of special tax regimes is the main legal way to optimize tax payments.
In essence, an article prohibited by a court is a tax consultation, within which various tax regimes used in conducting business activities in the IT industry are compared.
The conclusion made in the title of the article about saving by a factor of 133 was made on the basis of a simple comparison of the amount of tax deductions on UTII with ESS. This is nothing more than a statement of fact on a specific example. From the article it also follows that with other initial data, the calculation of the tax burden will be quite different. At the same time, there are no recommendations and calls for committing unlawful acts and evasion from the fulfillment of taxpayer duties.
We believe that the best evidence of the groundlessness of the conclusions of the court and the absence of illegal information on the page is the content of the page that is prohibited by the court. Since at present the access to the article at the indicated address is blocked by the site owner on the basis of the contested decision, we suggest reading its content in the form of a printout (see Appendix No. 3).
According to Part 3 of Art. 320 of the Civil Procedural Code of the Russian Federation, an appeal may also be filed by persons who were not involved in the case and the issue of rights and whose duties were resolved by the court.
Clause 11 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of June 19, 2012 No. 13 “On the application by courts of civil procedural legislation governing the proceedings before the court of appeal” clarified that the appeal filed by the person who was not involved in the case should contain a justification for the violation rights and (or) assignment of duties by the appealed court decision.
An article on the Internet at https://habrahabr.ru/company/regberry/blog/319776 is posted on behalf of 1C-Start LLC (Applicant of this complaint) under the blog maintained by the Applicant on habrahabr.ru website Regberry brand. In confirmation of these circumstances, we present a printout of company profile pages on habrahabr.ru, a printout of the website page www.regberry.ru/kontakty , as well as documents confirming the provision of LLC Habr services for LLC 1C-Start in placing articles LLC 1C- Start "on the Internet resource habrahabr.ru .
Thus, the appealed decision of the Romodanovsky District Court of the Republic of Mordovia of 30.03.2018.on case No. 2-145 / 2018 The URL address: "https://habrahabr.ru/company/regberry/blog/319776" Restrictions are prohibited by law, while:
- The applicant was not involved in the case;
- ,
, , , .
23 2018 . «», « , «» , «», , » (. №5).
, . 320-322 ,
:
- .
- 30.03.2018. № 2-145/2018 , URL-: «https://habrahabr.ru/company/regberry/blog/319776», , , .
Application:
- .
- URL-: «https://habrahabr.ru/company/regberry/blog/319776».
- «https://habr.com/users/i_alexander/».
- , , - www.regberry.ru .
- , (, -).
- «» .
- .
- «1-».
«1-» ________________ / . . /
3. Decision of the Romodanovsky District Court of the Republic of Mordovia 03/30/2018 2-145 / 2018
4. Appeal (submitted at the hearing)
: 2018-01074№ 2-145/2018430005, , , , , № 21 : «1-» 1097746328360, 7735560386, 773501001 124482, , , , № 528, № 17 +7 (499) 755-85-96; www.regberry.ru 430005, , , , . , № 17, «» +7 (927) 971-74-00; chief@wiazor.ru : 431600, , , , , , № 9 : , 430005, , , , , № 89 , : ; 431600, , , , , , № 9 romodanovsky.mor.sudrf.ru/; +7 (83438) 2-90-59, 2-17-99 : , 30 2018 № 2-145/2018 : 3 000 ( ) ( ) , . 30 2018 11 2018 . « 133 », URL-: «https://habrahabr.ru/company/regberry/blog/319776», , . «1-» ( – ), www.regberry.ru , . , , , . 30 2018 № 2-145/2018 , , «» : «https://habrahabr.ru/company/regberry/blog/319776», . 330 ( – ) : , ; , ; , , ; . 2 330 , , . . 1. 3 1 330 - , , , 2 1 330 - , , 1 1 330 - , . 2 3 1 9 27.07.2006 № 149- « , » ( – ). : « , , , , ». 5 3 , , , , 198 199 ( – ), . . , , . ( – , – , – , – ) 18 ( – ) , , . , , 13 — 15 2 1 18 . , , , . 56 , . 21 , . :
, . , : , ; , , , ; , ; () ( ). , URL-: «https://habrahabr.ru/company/regberry/blog/319776», . , , . . 133 ( ) . . , . . ( ). , 198 199 , . , . 2. 4 1 1 2 330 - , . 3 3 6 10 , , , , , . , . . , . 3. 4 1 3 330 - , , 4 4 330 . 1 195 . 4 19.12.2003 № 23 « » , . , , , II , № 2-145/2018. . 148 , , , . 17 24.06.2008 № 11 « » , , , . , , , – , ; , – , , , , — , , , , . habrahabr.ru , , . , , , . 4 4 330 , , . 1 157 . 3 2 , . , , , , 198 199 , , , , , . , 320, 322, 2 328, 330 , :
, , . 35, 112 321 , 30 2018 № 2-145/2018, – 11 2018 . ( – ), : 430033, , , , , № 84, № 29 ( : 430005, , , , , № 17, «»), - : +7 (927) 971-74-00 , - . -, : (431600, , , , , , № 9) (430005, , , , , № 21). , - . , , , , : chief@wiazor.ru. , , . :
, , , , .
: _____________________/ . . 16 2018 |
5. Appeal definition of the Armed Forces of the Republic of Mordovia
6. Response of the Office of Roskomnadzor in the Republic of Mordovia
Epilogue
Click here for your article. It was not our participation, that is, the violation of procedural rules.
Warning the AT A request of the administration site: "for When Commenting on the this material, please follow the rules . Please refrain from insults and toxic behavior. The postmoderation works in the comments. ”
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/425829/
All Articles