CONSTRUING OF APPLICATION OF ANY TREATIES AND OTHER ACTS RELATED TO COOPERATION IN DIFFERENT SECTORS

Judgment No. 01-1/3-99 dated September 28, 1999 on construing the Agreement between the Government of the Russian Federation and the Government of the Republic of Belarus, on the principles of cooperation and terms of relations in the field of transport, dated July 20, 1992 specifies, whether the provisions contained in Item 1 Article 3 of the Agreement apply to the duty on aero-navigation services.

According to Item 1 Article 3 of the Agreement on the principles of cooperation, dated July 20, 1992, conveyance of passengers and transportation of goods by the carriers of either party within the territory of the other party by any kinds of transport, air transport including, on the grounds of this Agreement, and the transport facilities used for such conveyance/transportation — shall be exempt from taxes and state duties related to use and maintenance of roads and other communications, possession and use of such transport facilities, and from any taxes and duties levied on income and profit derived from such transportation.

This Special Agreement on cooperation in air transport dated July 20, 1992 has failed to contain any rules governing the system of mutual settlement for any services rendered, aero-navigation services including. Based on analysis of the provisions contained in the Agreement dated December 12, 1997 which has replaced the above Agreement, and based on the Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation dated December 7, 1944, and on the norms of the national Law, the CIS Economic Court has come to a conclusion that the provision contained in Item 1 Article 3 of the Agreement on the principles of cooperation and terms of relations in the field of transport, dated July 20, 1992 provides for exemption of the carriers of either party of the Agreement involved in conveyance of passengers and transportation of goods in the territory of the other party from any taxes and state duties which are of tax-payment nature. By its nature, the duty on aero-navigation service is not a tax payment, is levied on services rendered to the users, and does not come within Item 1 Article 3 of this Agreement.

Judgment No. 01-1/3-2001 dated January 15, 2002 on construing the Convention on legal assistance and legal relations in civil, family, and criminal cases, dated January 22, 1993 clarifies the following issues:

-         Whether Item 1 Article 28 and Item 1 Article 29 of the Convention dated January 22, 1993 are applicable for examining the cases related to marriage dissolution if the spouses are the citizens of the same State but are residing at the territories of different States;

-         The judicial body of which State — a party to the Convention — shall be competent to examine such kind of cases.

The CIS Economic Court has established that according to Article 28 in the Convention, the issues related to grounds (terms) and procedure of dissolution of marriage of spouses who are the citizens of the same State shall be settled in accordance with the wedlock and familylaws of the State of their citizenship, independently of what competent court of which State examines the case of marriage dissolution: the court of the country of citizenship or the court of the country of residence. The legislation of the State of residence may be applied on the grounds of Item 2 Article 28 in the Convention, provided marriage is dissolved by the spouses who are the citizens of different States which are the parties to the Convention.

The matters related to the places of residence of the spouses shall be settled in compliance with the national legislation of the State which institution establishes its jurisdiction. The cases of marriage dissolution of the spouses who are residing at the territory of the same State which is a party to the Convention shall, for their choice, be within the jurisdiction of the institution of both the State of their citizenship and the State of their residence.

Should the spouses reside outside the State which citizens they are, but at the territories of different States, the institutions of the State which citizens the spouses are or of the State at which territory either spouse is residing shall be law competent to examine the case, provided such State is a party to the Convention.

Judgment No. 01-1/5-02 dated March 4, 2003 on construing the Tariff Agreement of Railway Administrations of the CIS-member States dated February 17, 1993, and the Railway Tariff Policy of international cargo transportation in the CIS member-States clarifies the status of mentioned acts, including the issue of their legal effect for the States which are the parties to such mentioned Tariff Agreement.

The CIS Economic Court has ascertained that the Tariff Agreement was signed by the Railway Administrations of the CIS member-States and came into effect from the moment of signing thereof. The Railway Administrations of the Commonwealth member-States used to adopt a special tariff policy agreement for each freight year. Here the notion of the “Railway Administration” is used in a collective sense. Since the Railway Administrations of the States are empowered to participate in the Tariff Conference either by their branch Ministries which are in charge of the railway transport and are entitled to represent the railway transport at the international level, or by virtue of acts adopted by the governments and heads of governments, so the Tariff Agreement of February 17, 1993, and the Tariff Policy annually approved within such Agreement are, by their legal nature, international interdepartmental treaties entered into by the public administration bodies of the Commonwealth member-States, and in such capacity are binding upon the States which have signed the same. Execution of the Tariff agreement dated February 17, 1993 and the Tariff Policy shall be ensured by the Railway Administrations of the States.

The CIS Economic Court has also ascertained the contents of obligations assumed by the States upon signing the Tariff Agreement and Tariff Policy, namely: observance, by the States, of the main principles set by the above acts for formation of cargo transportation tariffs in the international communication and compliance with the maximum (limit) fixed rates of tariff, subject to reservation of certain rights to regulate such tariffs.

Judgment No. 01-1/6-03 dated March 11, 2004 on construing the Agreement between the Republic of Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation on the status of the city of Baikonur, procedure of formation and status of its executive power bodies, dated December 23, 1995 clarifies the following:

§         Whether paragraph seven in Item 1 Article 7 of the Agreement (which specifies powers of the Baikonur Head of Administration to grant tax concessions) provides for the power of the Baikonur Head of Administration to grant any preferential rates of federal taxes and duties charged to the budget of Baikonur to the enterprises, registered in the territory of the city, taking account of the fact that by virtue of paragraph six in Item 2 Article 12 of the Agreement the budget of Baikonur is formed at the expense of taxes, including value added tax, tax on profits, excises, stare fee, and other earnings in the territory of the city;

§         Whether it is lawful to restrict powers of the Head of Administration to grant tax concessions specified by the international legal treaty, namely by the Rules of granting tax concessions to the organizations and individual entrepreneurs registered in the territory of the city of Baikonur, as approved by Ordinance of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 747 dated January 25, 2001.

The CIS Economic Court has ascertained that according to the Agreement dated December 23, 1995 the city of Baikonur is an administrative unit of the Republic of Kazakhstan which is functioning on lease terms. For the period of lease the Baikonur Complex of the city of Baikonur has, in its relations with the Russian Federation, a status corresponding to that of the federal-standing city of the Russian Federation for which special regulations for safe functioning of any objects, enterprises, and organizations, as well as for residence of the citizens have been established (paragraph three in Item 1 Article 1).

Article 7 of the Agreement has established powers of the Head of City Administration related to management of the city of Baikonur, including powers to grant tax concessions.

Article 12 of the Agreement dated December 23, 1995 specifies the sources of the Baikonur budget formation, and in addition to local taxes includes also federal taxes and other earnings in the territories of Baikonur into the sources of budget receipts. Nevertheless, this Article has its own subject-matter to govern, and does not cover powers of the Baikonur Head of Administration to grant tax concessions.

The terms of reference of the Baikonur Head of Administration in his/her capacity of an official of the Russian Federation shall be specified in compliance with the legislation of the Russian Federation (paragraph seven in Item 1 Article 7 of the Agreement dated December 23, 1995), according to which he/she shall be entitled to grant tax concessions only with respect to local (not federal) taxes. The CIS Economic court also believes that since Item 4 in the Rules of granting tax concessions No. 747 dated January 25, 2001 pertains to federal tax concessions, it does not conflict with the provisions contained in paragraph seven Item 1 Article 1 of the Agreement dated December 23, 1995.