The case is really not about the money. In any case, not only in them…
Yeah, you know, in state court to win an argument at public institutions is almost hopeless. But who will prevent me to tell you about its twists and turns?!
The head of Zarechensky Department of police of №3 of Kazan Department of internal Affairs, I reported on the crime that the officers of the district Department of the FIU has committed against me — not a working pensioner. And asked to initiate criminal proceedings on signs of the crime provided by article 161 of the criminal code (robbery).
Briefly describe the circumstances of the crime.
Entity “IP Andorski E. Y.” was a policyholder in the system of mandatory state pension insurance (AGPS), ceased to exist in the order of liquidation.
However, the upfr for the liquidated insurer continued to calculate debt, which in court could not be installed. Officials upfr came to the absurd conclusion that a citizen, insured SAGES, is the successor… their policyholder’s liability for the payment laid on the pensioner.
These actions I considered criminal because they violate section 3 of article 35 of the Constitution, and article 61 of the civil code of the Russian Federation with no evidence mentioned of succession does not exist.
Without taking the trouble to prove that between him and me, there are civil legal relations, upfr from my retirement pension has been held more than 50 thousand rubles. Thereby it has caused me significant material damage and moral harm that I suffered several months in a row remained without a livelihood, because a penny is not received from the put my pension.
Taking into account the fact that the evidence of the already mentioned succession does not exist, I appealed to the Arbitration court, where he demanded to establish that I — of non-citizen obligations of the entity “PI Andorski E. Y.” before upfr not moved.
The arbitration court initiated was the production on my application (case A65-9931/2016), but then, based on the argument upfr that our dispute is not subject to consideration in arbitration court, the proceedings terminated.
So the legal “fact” my succession has not been established, therefore the decision of the Arbitration court of Tatarstan intend to appeal in the Eleventh appeal arbitration court, asking that the contested decision to cancel, business allow for essentially the plaintiff claims.
And here are the arguments I am going to get in his complaint.
In its decision of July 12, 2006 N182-On the constitutional Court refers to article 46 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, guaranteeing to everyone judicial protection of his rights, which in turn serves as a guarantee of compliance with other constitutional rights of citizens in relations with the state acting as subjects, able to argue with the state in the face of any of its organs (decision of the constitutional court of may 3, 1995 n 4-P of 2 July 1998, N20-P).
The competence of arbitration courts is the protection of violated or disputed rights and legitimate interests of persons engaged in economic activity (article 2 of the APC).
Indeed, any economic activity this author currently does not. However, the resolution of the question raised by me before the arbitration court, directly affects my property interests, which implies the possibility of defending them in court.
But since we are talking about the establishment of the legal fact relating to the business entity, even eliminated, it is obvious that my case is still within the competence of the arbitral Tribunal.
The constitutional principle of competitiveness suggests that judicial resolution of cases must not be connected with the functions of the parties.
Hence the duty of the court to ensure fair and impartial dispute resolution that normally is accomplished by providing the parties with equal opportunities to defend their interests.
Meanwhile, the arbitration court terminated the proceedings, relied on the arguments of the defendant, which clearly motivated the particular procedure of interest. Here is the interest of the court and granted by discontinuing the production and thereby limiting their autonomy as a carrier of judicial power.
The dismissal of my statement regarded as a refusal of judicial protection of their rights, the violation of which prompted me to go to court.
Discerning members of the “people’s court” can reproach me, the Creator of this community is that I use this site for personal purposes. Yes, personal, but only partly. Because it is not so much the money, but justice, which, as evidenced by my practice of human rights in the courts is achieved, alas, not often…
A little explanation. As the insured portion of their hard-earned money I pay in upfr, insuring yourself as the only employee from the inevitable old age and possible incapacity. These insurance events occurred in 2004, when reaching the official old age, I received the II group of disability. Thus, since 2004, I paid in essence for nothing!
State judges involved in my dispute with upfr, perfectly understand what to do, they they serve the state, on which me and robbed. So for achieving justice in domestic judicial system, I hope not.
And that in fact my case will say “people’s judge”?
On the basis of copyright material
