(Case number 13)
Decree of the President of the Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR on February 5, 1988. "On amendments and additions to the labor law" has made a significant change in the Labour Code of the Russian Federation. This decree was published by the newspaper "Izvestia" February 11 1988. The decree, inter alia, introducing a new rule that instructed the employee works in another division of the company is the movement of an employee "and not transfer" and can be carried out without his consent.
Associate Professor of the Institute Mikhalev 10 February 1998. He refused to execute the order of the rector of the Institute with a mandate to go to work for another department of the same institute in maintaining her previous earnings and topics lectured. His refusal Mikhaleva motivated by the fact that she does not like "uncreative atmosphere" at the department, where she directed the work rector. For failure to comply with this order the rector of his order on February 15, 1998 announced Mikhaleva reprimand.
It is entered Mikhaleva? Whether rights Rector? What is the effect of regulations over time? Once entered into force a decree under consideration?
Determine what species include coercive measures, "legal sanctions".
1. Police imposed a fine citizen Agofonova for accommodation in St. Petersburg without registration.
2. Fire Inspectorate fined the shop superintendent Ostapenko with the wording "for violation of fire safety rules" for what he had made in the workshop room for the new year a friendly dinner by candlelight.
3. The Rector of the institution severely reprimanded the student for failing Monastyrёvoy on Saturday.
4. The Court of Arbitration ruled that the trading base not deliver, store products is obliged to compensate it for the losses and pay a penalty set by the contract.
By the contract corporation has committed to build a house Petrov. The contract stipulated that in case of detection of any hidden defects in a building within one year after the date of the house in operation the Company undertakes at its own expense to eliminate these deficiencies within one month. In case of delay in the performance of this duty Petrov Company pays a penalty of 0.01% of the value of residential building for each day of delay.
Four months after entering the house in operation Petrov discovered the leak in the water system, what immediately notify the Company. Since the Company more than a month not to proceed with the elimination of defects Petrov in accordance with Art. 397 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation signed an agreement on carrying out the necessary work on the production cooperative "Perseus".
After completion of all works Petrov demanded reimbursement from the Company for payment of work performed. The Company refused to pay, citing the fact that the involvement of third parties to remedy any deficiencies found in a building contract with Petrov is not provided, and therefore Art. 397 of the Civil Code on the relationship between them does not apply.
Who is right in the dispute? What place in the system of civil law takes art. 397 of the Civil Code?
Between Debt and Somov signed contract of annuity, under which free Dolgov transferred under payment of rent belonging to her house soms, and the latter is obliged to pay the monthly debt to her death, rents in the amount of five times the minimum wage.
After three years as a result of a quarrel arose Somov pushed Dolgov that the fall had a brain contusion and a few days later died in hospital. Somov court verdict found guilty of careless killing debt.
Heirs of the debt demanded return of an apartment house, passed under the annuity payment. Lawyer Luba pointed out that Chapter 33 of the Civil Code enshrined rules on contract rents do not include a base to continue the rent as the death of the re