| Euro area statistics | GPD deflators … Bank interes rates, Inflation rates, Banks balance sheet, Investment fundes, Macroeconomic indicators |
| RESEARCH&MARKETS | The Licensing Letter Royalty Trends Report 2015 |
| Company Reports of RESEARCH&MARKETS | Research and Markets' company reports offer in-depth analysis and detailed information on thousands of the world's leading companies… |
| REGULATION (EU) No 374/2014 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL | Ukraine is a priority partner country within the European Neighbourhood Policy and the Eastern Partnership. The Union has been seeking an increasingly close relationship with Ukraine going beyond mere bilateral cooperation, encompassing gradual progress towards political association and economic integration. In this respect, an Association Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and Ukraine, of the other part (‘the Association Agreement’) was negotiated in 2007-2011, including a Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area (DCFTA), and was initialed by both parties on 30 March 2012. Pursuant to the provisions of the DCFTA, the Union and Ukraine are to establish a free trade area over a transitional period of a maximum of 10 years, starting from the entry into force of the Association Agreement, in accordance with Article XXIV of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994. |
| 2014. Applicants pages by language | 2014. Some information documents for persons wishing to apply to the Court |
| EAST/WEST ALLIANCE LIMITED v. UKRAINE | … "Holds by six votes to one that the respondent State is to pay the applicant company, within three months of the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 5,000,000 (five million euros) in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant company;"… |
| Just Satisfaction Claims | Practice Direction |
| CASE OF AGROKOMPLEKS v. UKRAINE | FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY 1. Holds (a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant company in two instalments the total sum ofEUR 27,000,000 (twenty-seven million euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement, namely: (i) EUR 13,500,000 (thirteen million five hundred thousand euros) within twelve months and (ii) the remaining EUR 13,500,000 (thirteen million five hundred thousand euros) within twenty-four months of the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention; (b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned time-limits until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points; 2. Holds (a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant company EUR 30,000 (thirty thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant company, in respect of costs and expenses, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement, within three months of the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention; (b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points; 3. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant company’s claim for just satisfaction. Done in English, and notified in writing on 25 July 2013, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. |
| CASE OF AGROKOMPLEKS v. UKRAINE | FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY 1. Decides to join to the merits the Government’s objection as to the applicability of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention to the applicant company’s complaint regarding the review of the judicial ruling of 2 July 1998, and dismisses it; 2. Declares the complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (fairness as regards the principle of legal certainty, independence and impartiality of the domestic courts, and length of the proceedings) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 admissible insofar as they pertain to the period after the Convention’s entry into force for Ukraine on 11 September 1997, and the remainder of the application inadmissible; 3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the lack of the courts’ independence and impartiality; 4. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the unfairness of the proceedings (breach of the principle of legal certainty); 5. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the length of the proceedings; 6. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1; 7. Holds that the question of the application of Article 41 of the Convention is not ready for decision; accordingly, (a) reserves the said question in whole; (b) invites the Government and the applicant company to submit, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, their written observations on the matter and, in particular, to notify the Court of any agreement that they may reach; (c) reserves the further procedure and delegates to the President of the Chamber the power to fix the same if need be. Done in English, and notified in writing on 6 October 2011, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. |
| CASE OF UKRAINE-TYUMEN v. UKRAINE | FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY 1. Holds (a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant company, within three months of the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 334,696(three hundred and thirty-four thousand six hundred and ninety-six euros) in respect of pecuniary damage and EUR 4,800(four thousand eight hundred euros) for costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant company on the above amounts, which shall be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of settlement; (b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points; 2. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim for just satisfaction. Done in English, and notified in writing on 20 May 2010, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Claudia Westerdiek Peer Lorenzen
Registrar President |
| just satisfaction | I. Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures a)Details of just satisfaction Pecuniary damage | Non-pecuniary damage | Costs and expenses | Total | 1 300 000 EUR | - | 55 000 EUR | 1 355 000 EUR | Paid on 10/09/2002 | | | | |
b) Individual measures The Court considered that the nature of the violation found did not allow restitutio in integrum. It therefore awarded the applicant just satisfaction in respect of the pecuniary damage sustained. |
| SOVTRANSAVTO HOLDING v. UKRAINE | Consequently, the Court found that the manner in which the proceedings in issue had been conducted and the uncertainty faced by the applicant company had upset the fair balance that had to be struck between the general interest and the need to protect the applicant company’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of its possessions. It held by six votes to one that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. |
| 2013 Special 301 Report Acting United States Trade Representative Demetrios Marantis Office of the United States Trade Representative | In this year’s Special 301 Report, USTR designates Ukraine a Priority Foreign Country (PFC), marking the first time in seven years that a country is listed in that category. The PFC designation is reserved by statute for countries with the most egregious IPR-related acts, policies and practices with the greatest adverse impact on relevant U.S. products, and that are not entering into good faith negotiations or making significant progress in negotiations to provide adequate and effective IPR protection… |
| Case №12633/87 | …the owner of the dominant patent is entitled to royalties in respect of each compulsory licence granted under the legislation and receives reciprocal rights under the dependent patent…
|
| Rresolution of 9 June 2011 on Ukraine | …whereas the EU continues to emphasise the need for respect to be shown for the rule of law, incorporating fair, impartial and independent legal processes, while avoiding the danger of giving rise to any perception that judicial measures are being used selectively; whereas the EU considers these principles especially important in a country which aspires to enter into a deeper contractual relationship based on a political association… |
| 2007, Case of ANHEUSER-BUSCH | 83…However, the Court reiterates that its jurisdiction to verify that domestic law has been correctly interpreted and applied is limited and that it is not its function to take the place of the national courts, its role being rather to ensure that the decisions of those courts are not flawed by arbitrariness or otherwise manifestly unreasonable |
| 2005, CASE OF ANHEUSER-BUSCH INC. v. PORTUGALCASE OF ANHEUSER-BUSCH INC. v. PORTUGAL | The Court observes at the outset that intellectual property as such incontestably enjoys the protection of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. |
| Microsoft Gets U.S. Supreme Court Hearing in I4i Case Over Word Software | …may cost it $300 million… |
| the Federal District Court in Iowa | ORDER For Entry Of Final Judgment - The Judgment of Jury Verdict (docket no. 278 ) entered on February 18, 2009, is vacated, and Clerk of Court is directed to enter final judgment awarding Lincoln National Life Insurance Company $13,098, 349.00 (thirteen million, ninety-eight thousand, three hundred forty-nine dollars) from defendants Transamerica Life Insurance Company, Western Reserve Life Assurance Company of Ohio, and Transamerica Financial Life Insurance Company, with prejudgmen t interest at the prime rate, compounded annually, to accrue until the entry of such final judgment, and postjudgment interest at the legal rate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 961 to accrue from the date of entry of such final judgment. Signed by Judge Mark W Bennett on 06/19/09. (src) |
| THE FRIENDLY SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT | The present document sets out the terms of the friendly settlement concluded between the Government of the Republic of Poland (‘the Government’), on the one hand, and Mr Jerzy Broniowski (‘the applicant’), on the other, collectively referred to as ‘the parties’, in accordance with Article 38 § 1 (b) of the European Convention on Human Rights (‘the Convention’) and Rule 62 § 1 of the Rules of Court of the European Court of Human Rights (‘the Court’); The Government being represented by their Agent, Mr Jakub Wołąsiewicz, Ambassador, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the applicant being represented by Mr Zbigniew Cichoń and Mr Wojciech Hermeliński, advocates practising in Cracow and Warsaw respectively. I. PREAMBLE Having regard to (a) the judgment delivered on 22 June 2004 by the Grand Chamber of the Court in the present case (‘the principal judgment’), in which the Court; – found a violation of the right of property protected by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention; – held that the violation originated in a systemic problem of malfunctioning of domestic legislation and practice, caused by the failure to set up an effective mechanism to implement the ‘right to credit’ (prawo zaliczania) of Bug River claimants (see the third operative provision of the principal judgment), with the consequence that not only the complainant in the particular case, namely Mr Broniowski, but also a whole class of individuals have been or are still being denied the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions as guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1;… |
| the Friendly Settlement Agreement | FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY 1. Takes note of the terms of the friendly settlement agreement and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein (Rule 43 § 3 of the Rules of Court); 2. Decides to strike the case out of the list. |
| Judiciary іn Ukraine | As one official acknowledged, the judicial powers should not behave the way they have behaved of late. The same official unfavorably compared the situation today to that before the Orange Revolution, and expressed concern that the judicial system agrees to whatever law enforcement agencies request. Indeed, the strong perception among many observers is that the judicial system does not serve as a check or balance against the executive branch. Such concerns are not allayed by comments from the head of the Constitutional Court, who is reported to have said that Yanukovych can always rely on the loyalty of the court, or by a top law enforcement official who said that Yanukovych can count on us... |
| RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE | 22. Relevant provisions of the Constitution of Ukraine read as follows: Article 13 “... The State ensures the protection of the rights of all subjects of the right of property and economic management, and the social orientation of the economy. All subjects of the right of property are equal before the law.” Article 41 “Everyone has the right to own, use and dispose of his or her property, and the results of his or her intellectual and creative activity. ... No one shall be unlawfully deprived of the right of property. The right of private property is inviolable. The expropriation of objects of the right of private property may be applied only as an exception for reasons of social necessity, on the grounds of and by the procedure established by law, and on the condition of advance and complete compensation of their value. The expropriation of such objects with subsequent complete compensation of their value is permitted only under conditions of martial law or a state of emergency. ...” |
| Domestic law and practice regarding independence of the judiciary | 1. The Constitution of Ukraine of 1996 30. The relevant provisions of the Constitution read as follows: Article 126 “The independence and immunity of judges are guaranteed by the Constitution and the laws of Ukraine. Influencing judges in any manner is prohibited ...” Article 129 “In the administration of justice, judges are independent and subject only to the law ...” |
| 19 September 2012 | …concerning the structural problem of non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic judicial decisions… |
| 06 December 2012 | ENCOURAGES the Ukrainian authorities in particular to make increasingly use of unilateral declarations and friendly settlements in order to resolve the problem of cases pending before the Court. |
| HUDOC | European Court of Human Rights… |
| US Case Law | US Supreme Court Cases… |
| 29 Mау 2013 | Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)89… The presidents of the domestic courts are also urged to accelerate the proceedings whose length was found to be unreasonable by the Court and to terminate them as soon as possible. The just satisfaction awarded has been paid to the applicants… |
| 06 March 2008 | Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2008)1… Having regard to the great and steadily increasing number of judgments of the Court finding Ukraine in violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the Convention on account of the authorities’ failure to comply with or serious delay in abiding by final domestic judicial decisions delivered in the applicants’ favour…
|
| Practical Guide on Admissibility Criteria | This Guide has been prepared by the Research Division and does not bind the Court. The text was finalised in December 2009, and has been updated to 31 March 2011 |
| The Largest job Search Engines in the UK | Advice on finding a job… |
| United States Patent and Trademark Office | United States Patent Law |
| Rates of Bank Credits (Enterprises) in UA | The review for current date… |
| Rates of Bank Credits (Private Persons) in UA | The review for current date… |
| Rates of Bank Deposits (for business) in UA | The review for current date… |
| Rates of Bank Deposits (Private Persons) in UA | The review for current date… |
| International Financial Reporting Standards | Access the full IFRSs |
| EuroVoc | Electronic system of the documentation concerning adaptation of the legislation of Ukraine to the legislation of the European Union |
| An Standart 15.011-96 | System of working out and production statement on manufacture, patent researches |
| Information Judicial Systems in Ukraine | Database "Bankruptcy" in Ukraine |
| The Joint-stock Company Annual report | Forms of reports… |
| The State Commission on Securities and the Share Market of Ukraine | Here it is possible to choose the financial reporting from the Information database on joint-stock companies of Ukraine… |
| The State Committee of Statistics of Ukraine | Database of the state committee of statistics of Ukraine… |
| The Electronic Catalogue Areas of Ukraine | Sale and real estate rent |
| Robert Morris Associates | Advanced Real Estate Cash Flow and Valuation (Course) |
| The Standard of Housing and Communal Services of Ukraine | The Collection of the Integrated Cost Indexes of Restoration of Many-storeyed Apartment Houses in UA 75.11-35077234.0016:2009 |
| Association of Experts in the Real Estate | The working project "Uniform database of the real estate of Ukraine" |
| The National Library in Ukraine of V.I.Vernadskiy | There are electronic scientific specialised editions in Ukraine |
| The National Library in Ukraine of V.I.Vernadskiy | There are electronic addresses of national libraries and scientifically-information centres the world countries |
| The Internet Portal "All about Tourism" | There are information technologies in tourism. Tourism in Ukraine. The international tourism… .. |
| From Wikipedia | There is no unequivocal criterion of allocation of factors |
| Verhovna Rada | Recommendations of parliamentary hearings "Protection of intellectual property rights in Ukraine: problems of legislative maintenance and legal assistance |
