text:
How fucose of blood group glycotypes programs human gut microbiota by S. V. Kononova (973-989).
On p. 973 the proper title of the article should read “How Fucose of Blood Group Glycotopes Programs Human Gut Microbiota” instead of “How Fucose of Blood Group Glycotypes Programs Human Gut Microbiota”.Formation of appropriate gut microbiota is essential for human health. The first two years of life is the critical period for this process. Selection of mutualistic microorganisms of the intestinal microbiota is controlled by the FUT2 and FUT3 genes that encode fucosyltransferases, enzymes responsible for the synthesis of fucosylated glycan structures of mucins and milk oligosaccharides. In this review, the mechanisms of the selection and maintenance of intestinal microorganisms that involve fucosylated oligosaccharides of breast milk and mucins of the newborn’s intestine are described. Possible reasons for the use of fucose, and not sialic acid, as the major biological signal for the selection are also discussed.
Klotho protein: Its role in aging and central nervous system pathology by I. S. Boksha; T. A. Prokhorova; O. K. Savushkina; E. B. Tereshkina (990-1005).
This review is devoted to Klotho protein and recent evidences for its functions in the brain. Information on transcriptional regulation of the klotho gene and posttranslational modifications of the protein resulting in multiple forms of Klotho is reviewed. Evidence is summarized that Klotho regulates the activity of protein factors, enzymes, and receptors, including data suggesting the importance of its glycosidase activity. Effects of Klotho on components of the glutamatergic neurotransmitter system, signal cascades involving protein kinases and protein phosphorylation, as well as oligodendrocyte differentiation and myelination are discussed. A possible contribution is proposed for Klotho levels in the development of central nervous system pathologies including mental disorders.
Effect of anesthetics on efficiency of remote ischemic preconditioning by D. N. Silachev; E. A. Usatikova; I. B. Pevzner; L. D. Zorova; V. A. Babenko; M. V. Gulyaev; Yu. A. Pirogov; E. Yu. Plotnikov; D. B. Zorov (1006-1016).
Remote ischemic preconditioning of hind limbs (RIPC) is an effective method for preventing brain injury resulting from ischemia. However, in numerous studies RIPC has been used on the background of administered anesthetics, which also could exhibit neuroprotective properties. Therefore, investigation of the signaling pathways triggered by RIPC and the effect of anesthetics is important. In this study, we explored the effect of anesthetics (chloral hydrate and Zoletil) on the ability of RIPC to protect the brain from injury caused by ischemia and reperfusion. We found that RIPC without anesthesia resulted in statistically significant decrease in neurological deficit 24 h after ischemia, but did not affect the volume of brain injury. Administration of chloral hydrate or Zoletil one day prior to brain ischemia produced a preconditioning effect by their own, decreasing the degree of neurological deficit and lowering the volume of infarct with the use of Zoletil. The protective effects observed after RIPC with chloral hydrate or Zoletil were similar to those observed when only the respective anesthetic was used. RIPC was accompanied by significant increase in the level of brain proteins associated with the induction of ischemic tolerance such as pGSK-3β, BDNF, and HSP70. However, Zoletil did not affect the level of these proteins 24 h after injection, and chloral hydrate caused increase of only pGSK-3β. We conclude that RIPC, chloral hydrate, and Zoletil produce a significant neuroprotective effect, but the simultaneous use of anesthetics with RIPC does not enhance the degree of neuroprotection.
Hyperexpression of integrin α5β1 promotes resistance of MCF-7 human breast carcinoma cells to doxorubicin via ERK protein kinase down-regulation by G. E. Morozevich; N. I. Kozlova; O. Y. Susova; A. Y. Lupatov; A. E. Berman (1017-1024).
In MCF-7 human breast carcinoma cells, α5β1 integrin hyperexpression, which was accomplished by transduction of a full-length α5 integrin cDNA, increased by about 50-70% the number of cells, survived during 48-72 h cell treatment with doxorubicin. Up-regulation of α5β1 reduced the level of the apoptogenic p53 protein and p21 cell cycle inhibitor, but enhanced the activity of Akt and mTOR protein kinases. In addition to these findings, we observed a significant decrease in the activity of both isoforms of phosphokinase Erk1/2, which is known to play a key role in cell viability pathways, including pathways alleviating stress damages caused by distinct antitumor drugs. Diminished Erk activity accompanying the rise of drug resistance can be explained by an “atypical” function of this kinase, which, in the cells studied, promotes an enhanced rather than reduced sensitivity to doxorubicin. To verify this suggestion, the effect of a specific Erk inhibitor, PD98059, on the resistance to doxorubicin of control and α5 cDNA-transduced MCF-7 cells was investigated. The data showed that suppression of Erk activity increased the resistance of control cells (transduced with an “empty” vector) to a level higher than that demonstrated by the α5 cDNA-transduced cells. The highest level of resistance was observed in α5β1trancduced cells treated with PD98059. Akt and mTOR kinase inhibitors had little if any effect on doxorubicin resistance of α5 cDNA-transduced MCF-7 cells. The data show for the first time that integrin α5β1 can stimulate drug resistance of tumor cells through a mechanism based on the inhibition of protein kinase Erk. From a more general view, the results of this investigation suggest that signal protein kinases can perform in tumor cells “non-canonical” functions, opposite to those, which are the basis for using kinase inhibitors in targeted cancer therapy. It follows that if a protein kinase is supposed to be used as a target for such therapy, it is important to explore its features in the particular tumor prior to the onset of treatment.
Effect of light intensity under different photoperiods on expression level of carbonic anhydrase genes of the α- and β-families in Arabidopsis thaliana leaves by N. N. Rudenko; D. V. Vetoshkina; T. P. Fedorchuk; B. N. Ivanov (1025-1035).
Changes in expression levels of genes encoding carbonic anhydrases α-CA1, α-CA2, α-CA4, β-CA1, β-CA2, βCA3, β-CA4, β-CA5, and β-CA6 in Arabidopsis thaliana leaves after light increase from 80 to 400 μmol PAR quanta·m−2·s−1 were investigated under short day (8 h) and long day (16 h) photoperiods. The expression of two forms of the gene, At3g01500.2 and At3g01500.3, encoding the most abundant carbonic anhydrase of leaves, β-CA1, situated in chloroplast stroma, was found. The content of At3g01500.3 transcripts was higher by approximately an order of magnitude compared to the content of At3g01500.2 transcripts. When plants were adapted to high light intensity under short day photoperiod, the expression level of both forms increased, whereas under long day photoperiod, the content of At3g01500.3 transcripts increased, and the content of transcripts of At3g01500.2 decreased. The expression levels of the At3g01500.3 gene and of genes encoding chloroplast carbonic anhydrases α-CA1, α-CA4, α-CA2 and cytoplasmic carbonic anhydrase β-CA2 increased significantly in response to increase in light intensity under short day, and these of the first three genes increased under long day as well. The expression level of the gene encoding α-CA2 under long day photoperiod as well as of genes of chloroplast β-CA5 and β-CA4 from plasma membranes and mitochondrial β-CA6 under both photoperiods depended insignificantly on light intensity. Hypotheses about the roles in higher plant metabolism of the studied carbonic anhydrases are discussed considering the effects of light intensity on expression levels of the correspondent genes.
Interaction of cholera toxin B-subunit with human T-lymphocytes by E. V. Navolotskaya; V. B. Sadovnikov; D. V. Zinchenko; Y. A. Zolotarev; V. M. Lipkin; V. P. Zav’yalov (1036-1041).
In this work, 125I-labeled cholera toxin B-subunit (CT-B) (specific activity 98 Ci/mmol) was prepared, and its high-affinity binding to human blood T-lymphocytes (K d = 3.3 nM) was determined. The binding of the 125I-labeled CT-B was inhibited by unlabeled interferon-α2 (IFN-α2), thymosin-α1 (TM-α1), and by the synthetic peptide LKEKK, which corresponds to sequences 16-20 of human TM-α1 and 131-135 of IFN-α2 (K i 0.8, 1.2, and 1.6 nM, respectively), but was not inhibited by the unlabeled synthetic peptide KKEKL with inverted sequence (K i > 1 μM). In the concentration range of 10-1000 nM, both CT-B and peptide LKEKK dose-dependently increased the activity of soluble guanylate cyclase (sGC) but did not affect the activity of membrane-bound guanylate cyclase. The KKEKL peptide tested in parallel did not affect sGC activity. Thus, the CT-B and peptide LKEKK binding to a common receptor on the surface of T-lymphocytes leads to an increase in sGC activity.
Quantitative affinity interaction of ubiquitinated and non-ubiquitinated proteins with proteasome subunit Rpn10 by O. A. Buneeva; O. V. Gnedenko; A. T. Kopylov; M. V. Medvedeva; V. G. Zgoda; A. S. Ivanov; A. E. Medvedev (1042-1047).
Recent proteomic profiling of mouse brain preparations using the ubiquitin receptor, Rpn10 proteasome subunit, as an affinity ligand revealed a representative group of proteins bound to this sorbent (Medvedev, A. E., et al. (2017) Biochemistry (Moscow), 82, 330-339). In the present study, we investigated interaction of the Rpn10 subunit of proteasomes with some of these identified proteins: glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase (GAPDH), pyruvate kinase, and histones H2A and H2B. The study revealed: (i) quantitative affinity interaction of the proteasome subunit immobilized on a Biacore-3000 optical biosensor cuvette with both the GAPDH (K d = 2.4·10–6 M) and pyruvate kinase (K d = 2.8·10–5 M); (ii) quantitative high-affinity interaction of immobilized histones H2A and H2B with the Rpn10 subunit (Kd values of 6.5·10–8 and 3.2·10–9 M, respectively). Mass spectrometric analysis revealed the presence of the ubiquitin signature (GG) only in a highly purified preparation of GAPDH. We suggest that binding (especially high-affinity binding) of non-ubiquitinated proteins to the Rpn10 proteasome subunit can both regulate the functioning of this proteasomal ubiquitin receptor (by competing with ubiquitinated substrates) and promote activation of other pathways for proteolytic degradation of proteins destined to the proteasome.
Biochemical variations in cytolytic activity of ortho- and paramyxoviruses in human lung tumor cell culture by O. P. Zhirnov (1048-1054).
Human lung cancer cells (Calu-3 line) were studied for the development of apoptosis, necrosis, and autophagy in response to infection with orthoand paramyxoviruses. Biochemical pathways underlying various mechanisms of cell death differed for different viruses. When infected with murine Sendai paramyxovirus, Calu-3 cells demonstrated typical necrotic features such as cell swelling (but not shrinkage), lack of chromatin DNA laddering, of caspase 3 and 8 activation, and of apoptotic cleavage of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) protein; an activation of antiapoptotic protein kinase Akt was also revealed. In contrast, infection with avian influenza virus A/FPV/Rostock/34 (H7N1 subtype) or Newcastle disease virus (NDV, avian paramyxovirus) caused the development of typical apoptotic markers such as cell shrinkage, ladder-type chromosomal DNA fragmentation, caspase 3 and 8 activation, and proteolytic cleavage of PARP in the absence of Akt activation. Notably, no upregulation of p53 protein phosphorylation was observed in all infected cells, which indicates that p53 is not involved in the virus-induced death of Calu-3 cells. Cell death caused by the influenza virus was accompanied by overstimulation of autophagy, whereas no stimulation of autophagy was observed in the NDV-infected cells. Infection with Sendai virus caused moderate stimulation of autophagy, which suggests that the mechanism of the virus-induced cell death and the balance between autophagy and cell death in infected cancer cells depend on the virus type and might significantly differ even for closely related viruses. Therefore, an optimal strategy for oncolytic virus-mediated destruction of tumor cells in cancer patients requires selection of the most appropriate oncolytic virus based on the mechanism of its cytolytic action in a particular type of tumor.
Reason for indispensability of threonine in humans and other mammals in comparative aspect by A. V. Malinovsky (1055-1060).
The essential amino acid threonine is not synthesized in vertebrates, so it must be obtained from food. During evolution, the decomposition of threonine has changed. Because the decomposition of threonine catalyzed by threonine dehydratase is irreversible, in the present work attention is focused on threonine dehydrogenase to show the inability of this enzyme to synthesize threonine in a reaction that would be the reverse of the reaction of threonine decomposition. The reason why threonine dehydrogenase cannot be used for the biosynthesis of threonine in mammalian tissues is discussed. It is concluded that some quantity of threonine is involved in transamination.
Role of PKA and PI3K in leptin and ghrelin regulation of adaptive subpopulations of regulatory CD4+ T-lymphocyte formation by E. G. Orlova; S. V. Shirshev (1061-1072).
The role of phosphatidylinositol-3 kinase (PI3K) and protein kinase A (PKA) in leptin and ghrelin regulation of formation of adaptive (a) subpopulations of CD4+ T-lymphocytes (helper (h) cells producing interleukin-17A) (aTh17) and of T-regulatory lymphocytes (aTreg) in the context of physiological pregnancy is established. It is shown that leptin at a concentration typical for the second half of pregnancy (trimesters II-III) enhances the differentiation of aTh17 with a high level of interleukin-17A (IL-17A) production and the expression of the chemokine receptor CCR6 with the participation of PI3K. Simultaneously, leptin reduces formation of aTreg expressing the suppressor molecule CTLA-4, which determines the function of these cells. Ghrelin at a concentration characteristic of the first half of pregnancy (trimesters I-II), in contrast, enhances aTreg formation and, in parallel, reduces the level aTh17 (that express CCR6) and the IL-17A production by aTh17. PKA, likewise PI3K, participates in regulatory effects of ghrelin on the formation of aTh17 and aTreg. The combined action of leptin and ghrelin (via PKA participation) enhances formation of only aTreg, which determines the priority of this molecular mechanism and explains why the investigated hormones with reciprocal differentiating potential do not come into antagonism at the level of immune system cells during pregnancy.
Comparison of interaction between ceruloplasmin and lactoferrin/transferrin: to bind or not to bind by A. V. Sokolov; I. V. Voynova; V. A. Kostevich; A. Yu. Vlasenko; E. T. Zakharova; V. B. Vasilyev (1073-1078).
The year 2016 marked the 50th anniversary of the discovery by S. Osaki who first showed that ceruloplasmin (CP, ferro:O2-oxidoreductase or ferroxidase) is capable of oxidizing Fe(II) to Fe(III) and favors the incorporation of the latter into transferrin (TF). However, much debate remains in the literature concerning the existence of a complex between the enzyme oxidizing iron and the protein facilitating its transport in plasma. We studied CP in exocrine fluids and demonstrated its high-affinity interaction with transferrin found in breast milk and in lacrimal fluid, i.e. with lactoferrin (LF). Here we present data obtained by comparing the interaction of CP with LF and TF using surface plasmon resonance and Hummel–Dreyer chromatography. Binding of apo-LF within the range of concentrations 1.6-51.3 μM with CP immobilized on a CM5-chip is characterized by K D = 1.07 μM. Under similar conditions, the K D for apo-TF was measured and appeared to be higher than 51.3 μM. Hummel–Dreyer chromatography of CP with 51 μM apo-LF/apo-TF in the effluent demonstrated the absence of interaction between apo-TF and CP in solution, contrary to efficient interaction between apoLF and CP. In contrast to LF, the interaction of apo-TF with CP is probably not stable within the physiological range of concentrations of TF.

matches: V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V.


Residence of the Constitutional Court of Russian Federation in St. Petersburg.
In 2015, 494 people were sentenced for hate crime of varying degrees. 352 people were given a non-custodial sentence (196 people were issued fines, 88 – to corrective and compulsory labour, 62 –suspended sentences, 2 – restriction of liberty, 4 were issued a warning), 142 people were given custodial sentences (15 people were arrested for several days; others were issued various prison sentences: up to a year - 5 people, 1 to 5 years - 62 people, 5 to 10 years - 42 people, 10 to 15 years – 3 people, 15 to 20 – 6 people, 20 to 25 – 2 people, life imprisonment – 3 people. 4 people were sent for compulsory psychological treatment).
Three cases were terminated - after the expiration of the statute of limitations, due to the lack of corpus delicti, due to active repentance. The bias towards non-custodial sentences is largely due to most xenophobic offenses being committed online, such as publishing of xenophobic articles and posts, where fines and compulsory labour prove an effective punishment.
To compare, in 2014, 509 people have been sentenced for crimes and offences related to xenophobia 370 people received non-custodial sentences (212 - fines, 100 - correctional and compulsory labour, 32 - probation, 22 were issued warnings and cautions and 4 were brought to disciplinary responsibility). 139 people received custodial sentences (11 people were sentenced to several days in jail, 4 people were sentenced to prison terms of up to one year, 43 people - for the period from 1 to 5 years, 54 - for a period of 5 to 10 years, 15 - for the period from 10 to 15 years, 4 - for the period from 15 to 20 years, 4 - for the period from 20 to 25 years, and 3 - sent on compulsory treatment). One person was released from responsibility due to statute of limitations; one person was acquitted; one trial was dismissed due to active repentance; and one case is unknown. On the other hand, sentences to compulsory labour for real assaults are surprising, to say the least.
In 2013, during the same period, 583 people were convicted for such crimes, and in 2012, 305. Some decrease in the number of convicts is largely a consequence of the absence of mass riots, which resulted in an increase in the number of punished in 2013.
A slightly different picture is given by the official statistics of the General Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation, which gives information on registered crimes motivated by hatred. Thus, according to these data, 741 extremist crimes were committed in the first half of 2015 (557 in January-June 2014). Most of them (487) were instituted on art. 282 of the Criminal Code - the incitement of hatred or enmity. In the first half of 2014, these crimes were registered by 27.2% less (332 cases). Basically it's about crimes committed on the Internet.
Another 135 crimes were committed in the first 6 months of 2015, related to calls for extremist activity (during the same period of 2014 – 92 such cases were reported). Article 280 of the Criminal Code deals mainly with online crimes. As for offline - hate crimes, the increase was observed in murders - item “l” part 2 of Art. 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (6 in the first half of 2015 and 3 in the same period in 2014), and for battering - item “b” part 2 of Art. 116 of the Criminal Code (37 and 33 respectively) on the basis of hatred. Only one case increased the number of intentional infliction of serious harm to health - Part 2 of Art. 119 of the Criminal Code (3 and 2 attacks respectively).
In other cases the statistics fixed a significant drop in extremist crime. Thus, crimes committed under item "e" of Part 2 of Art. 112 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (Intentional infliction of moderate severity of harm to health) - 6 in January - June 2014 and no one in the first half of 2015. In 2 times decreased the number of crimes related to the threat of murder or infliction of grievous bodily harm (part 2, article 119 of the Criminal Code RF), in twice - hooliganism based on hate (paragraph "b" part 1, article 213 of the Criminal Code), etc.
In Russia, according to the Prosecutor General's Office of the Russian Federation, 1'329 crimes of an extremist nature were registered in 2015, which is 295 more than in 2014. The increase was mainly due to non-violent crimes - appeals, as well as the incitement of hatred and enmity. Basically, all these crimes were committed on the Internet. On the other hand, the number of registered violent crimes decreased from 134 to 115. Of these, 97 attacks were recorded.
In addition, according to the data of the General Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation, in 2015 there was a significant reduction in violent crimes of an extremist nature - murders - by 33%, deliberate infliction of serious harm to health - by 60%, deliberate infliction of moderate harm to health - by 44%, intentional infliction of the lung harm to health - 43%.
This became possible as a result of the toughening of the anti-extremist legislation of the Russian Federation in 2013, when it became possible to prosecute those who incited inter-group dissension on the Internet. However, in most cases, criminal cases on such articles ended in a conditional punishment, which de facto has a large educational and preventive character, since convicts, as a rule, no longer return to illegal activities.
In addition, the mass departure of activists of radical organizations from Russia affected the decrease in the number and severity of hate crimes. More than 4,000 people have gone to the war zone, where they are fighting on the side of Islamists in Syria and Iraq, a significant number of right-wing radicals went to fight in the southeast of Ukraine, where they are fighting on either side of opposing forces.
In 2014, the Federal List of Extremist Materials grew from by 368 entries to 2558 items. Among the new entries are skinhead and Islamist videos, poems of an anti-Semitic bard A. Kharchikov, neo-Nazi websites “Heroes of Freedom” and “Aryan Liberation Front”; an anti-Semitic children’s book by Ernest Khimer “Toadstool”, skinhead and Islamist videos, a song by RNE – Street Fight, various anti-Semitic materials, and website www.dpni.org; book by V. Istarkhov What is the Concept of “Dead Water”, Islamist, Islamophobic and anti-Semitic videos (including a film Russia Stabbed in the Back 2), songs of a Chechen bard T. Mutsuraev, skinhead videos, Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf; Islamophovic article from the Imperial Cossack Union website, skinhead and Islamist videos, articles by American racist D. Lane, a song by Corrosion of Metal, a book by Hans Gunther Selected Works on Raciology and Michael by Joseph Goebbels; brochures by Yu. Evola “Tradition and Race”, A. Rozenberg’s “Myth of the 20th century” and various nationalist, skinhead and Islamist videos and materials; nationalist songs by Kolovrat, Banda Moskvi, Kiborg and D.I.V, as well as an anti-Semitic book by G. Klimov called Red Kabbala and a video “How to distinguish a Jew from a Slav, Tikhomirov M.V. US AND THEM, and others.
In March, the Faizrakhmanist community was added to the Federal List of Extremist Organisations. The organisation was recognised as extremist in Kazan in 2013. On March 12, Roskomnadzor (Russian media watchdog – Federal Service for Supervision in the Sphere of Telecom, Information Technologies and Mass Communications) issued a warning to Lenta.ru for the interview with one of the Right Sector (Ukrainian Nationalist Movement) leaders Andrei Tarasenko published on the website. Federal watchdog noted that the article linked in the text and titled “Dmitro Yarosh: Sooner or later, we are destined to fight against the Moscow Empire” contains “statements directed at inciting interethnic hatred”.
On July 23, it was reported that 450 webpages were blocked by the Russian General Prosecution for extremist contents. Access to such websites is blocked after reports by citizens, organisations, authorities and based on the Monitoring of online space. Most extremist pages that have been blocked were hosted on VKontakte social network. These pages contained calls to mass riots and extremist actions. Prosecution receives up to 200 reports a day from citizens who complain about extremism online. Previously, head of the Ministry of Internal Affairs Vladimir Kolokoltsev stated that over the same period more than 500 websites were blocked and more than 7 thousand of extremist materials were deleted. Administrative sanctions were applied to 386 people, criminal punishment – 186 people.
On September 21, 2015, the Military-Patriotic Club “White Cross” and the neo-Nazi movement “Misanthropic division” were added to the Federal List of Extremist Organizations.
In 2012, Russia established a Council under the President of the Russian Federation on Interethnic Relations, the main task of which is to review conceptual foundations, objectives and tasks of the state national policy. A Coordinating Council on Implementing National Policy was established in 2014 under the Ministry of Culture. Councils specialising on interethnic relations are present in most regions across Russia.
At the moment, similar bodies are being set up at regional and municipal levels (in Perm , Kasimov , Bokovsky District of Rostov Oblast , Chita , Krasnoufimsk , Venevsky District of Tula Region ). Regions are developing their own programmes against xenophobia and extremism (such programmes were launched in Irkutsk , Orel , Tula and Tyumen regions, as well as in Samara ).
As of June 18, 2014, 39 regional programmes received state funding totalling 367 million rubles. Furthermore, a number of Russian courts and prosecution bodies of first and second instances ruled in favour of the unlawfully persecuted Jehovah’s Witnesses, Muslims, Russian Protestants, Catholics, as well as LGBT activists and those unlawfully accused of extremism.
On January 31, 2014 Savelovsky District Court of Moscow declared Alexander Dvorkin’s statements on Russia-1 Channel as “untrue and defamatory”. The channel was ordered to publish a retraction and pay compensation to the Vaishnavas.
On March 4, 2014 two Jehovah’s Witnesses brochures were excluded from the Federal list of extremist materials.
On May 19, Federal Antimonopoly Service sanctioned a Ryazan firm which promoted discounts for Russians and Slavs.
On January 12, police officers were able to curb the growing riot in Perm, however two Tajikistan natives received minor injuries. 134 persons were arrested, including 90 minors.
On January 21, 2014 Human Rights Ombudsman Vladimir Lukin addressed the governor of Murmansk Oblast Maria Kovtun protesting against the pressure on the Jehovah’s Witnesses. “I believe, that efforts to increase the number of followers of the religious organisation – Jehovah’s Witnesses – is legal and cannot be equated to such criminal activities as extremism. This approach can be perceived by religious citizens as an insult and disrespect to their religious feelings and beliefs"<- she said.
As a result, on January 30, heads of Murmansk municipal associations received a letter from Deputy Governor Veshkin, which retracted his last year’s instruction “On the Regional Office of Jehovah’s Witnesses”.
On Febraury 21, 2014 case against Elena Klimova – creator of “Deti-404” group – was closed in Nizhny Tagil. Children Rights Commissioner found no evidence of “propaganda of homosexuality” in the programme. Morokov praised the importance of programme supporting LGBT youth.
The number of hate crime cases in Russia has grown by 28% in 2015, most such cases, however, were related to hate speech on the Internet. Such offences are usually punished by non-custodial sentences, and repeat offences are unlikely. During the monitored period, 494 people have been sentenced for hate crime in Russia (509 in 2014), 352 of which were given non-custodial sentences. However, the general number of violent hate crime fell by 14% compared to the previous year (115 in 2015; 134 in 2014). This decrease is largely due to effective preventative policies carried out across the country.
According to the head of the Agency, at the end of 2015 this program helped to localize several possible conflicts at the initial stage. By the end of October 2016, 82 regions of the Russian Federation were connected to the monitoring system. The Agency also started to develop methodological recommendations and model schemes for responding to interethnic and interfaith conflicts.
The same Federal Agency in October 2016 took the initiative and held the first All-Russian action "Big Ethnographic Dictation" at 800 venues across the country. Ninety thousand people took part in it. The action was carried out in accordance with the Strategy of the State National Policy of the Russian Federation until 2025 and was aimed at mass acquaintance of the inhabitants of the country with the customs of its peoples. This initiative, according to experts, is extremely important in terms of overcoming xenophobic prejudices and, as a consequence, preventing hate crimes, since the main reason for these phenomena is the lack of knowledge about their neighbors.
In 2016, multifunctional migration centers were established in Russia. They allowed to pass all stages of obtaining a patent for labor activity in one location. The situation was not affected even by the abolition in April 2016 of the Federal Migration Service and the transfer of its functions to the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation.
In 2016, more than 16.3 million foreign citizens were registered in the migration register. In this regard, the head of the department of regional security and anti-corruption of the Moscow mayor's office, Alexei Mayorov, said that due to the system, in two years the number of counterfeit medical documents or papers about alleged knowledge of the Russian language was reduced almost to zero.
The active work of law enforcement agencies in suppressing extremist crimes was registered in Russia in 2016, which led to a decrease in violent hate crimes (by 33%), while the number of registered non-violent crimes grew by 9%.
According to the Russian prosecutor's office, almost all of the potential offenders before they take up arms and commit violent crime, they trying to find accomplices in the Network and to spread the hate there. If law enforcement authorities manage to stop them at this stage, they, as a rule, refuses to commit violence.
In March 2016 the administration of the Tula region in Russia had to resolve the issue of illegal Roma constructions in the village of Kosaya Gora. By the decision of the regional court, all illegal structures were to be demolished. Regional administration decided to provide the Roma families whose houses are to be demolished, new plots of land 10 km from Tula in the village Sudakovo, where the local authorities resolved the issue of providing gas and water. Gypsy families were provided with transport services to new places.
In the village of Plekhanovo, Tula region, the largest gypsy settlement in central Russia is located. The authorities had to conduct a whole police operation to eliminate illegal connections to life support systems. At the same time, policemen had to protect repair workers, who became targets of attacks by local residents. Also in the village more than 100 illegal Roma residential buildings were demolished. Their dismantling was carried out by court decision in several stages. At the same time, new land plots were transferred to Roma families and the issue of connecting to communications was resolved.
At the present moment, the authorities of Tula have adopted a comprehensive program for the development of Plekhanovo in the next two years. Priority issues for the improvement of the territory are water disposal and water supply, lighting, repair of roads and sidewalks, construction, and improvement of social facilities and public places.


text:
Mar 8, 2019 ... DONNA S. STROUD. ROBERT ... Beal v. Coastal Carriers, Inc. . . . . . . . 1. Bradley Woodcraft, Inc. v. ..... Damages—arbitration agreement not presented at trial—no effect on cal- ...... Astrue, 32 F.Supp.3d 238, 251-52 (N.D.N.Y..
Jonathan Stroud. Topic and Trends ...... however, was not by their consent; rather, the MSPB imposed it upon them ... See Office of Hearings & Appeals, SSA v. ...... As SSA Commissioner Michael J. Astrue has commented, “increasing the.
Competency and Informed Consent: Civil and Criminal c. .... Addoo v. New York City Bd. of Educ, 2008 WL 681426 (2d Cir. 3-11-2008). . Adeyemi v. ... Astrue, 2008 WL 1858928 (N.D. Cal. 4-23. 2008)  ...... McMillian v. Stroud, 83 Cal.
Mar 17, 2008 ... MOTION Extension of Consent Decree ...... Binder & Binder, P.C. v. Astrue. MOTION for Summary Judgment Motion ...... STROUD v.

matches: v. v. v. v. v. v. v.


text:
In what the Jockeys’ Guild called a “major victory for jockeys,” The West Virginia court found a property interest in the permit issued by the state’s Racing Commission and also a statutory right to appeal ejections to the Racing Commission (subject to judicial review). The West Virginia statute was read as necessarily restricting the right of a racing association to exclude permit holders because “if the Legislature intended for a racing association to have an unfettered right to eject the permit holder there would have been no reason for the Legislature to add the language” granting a right of appeal to the Racing Commission. There is a certain undertone, as well, that the “greater includes the lesser” because horse racing cannot occur at all unless licensed by the Racing Commission.
While it is clear that the legislature may abolish the common law right of a private entity to exclude whoever it wishes, courts are split on whether the common law rule should apply to jockeys at all. Federal courts in New Jersey and Florida, as well as the Ohio Supreme Court, have extended the common law exclusion right to allow racetracks to exclude permit holders such as jockeys. However, courts in Illinois and New York have refused to do so.
The best justification for not extending the right of exclusion to jockeys appears in the Illinois case, which explains that with “the benefit of receiving a quasi-monopoly comes corresponding obligations one of which is not to arbitrarily exclude a jockey.” Horse racing is different from the traditional business and industrial setting. Thus, while it may make sense for a department store to be free to transact with whomever it wants, there are only a limited number of race tracks operating at one time. Because the potential deprivation to a jockey as a result of exclusion is so great, that decision should be reviewable. On the other hand, in the West Virginia case, the jockey allegedly committed fraud in the weigh out process. If anything, shouldn’t the law err on the side of exclusion in order to maintain the appearance and fact of integrity in races?
 See, e.g., Aaron Smith, UK wins 85-60, Calipari ejected, Kentucky Kernel (Dec. 18, 2010), http://kykernel.com/2010/12/18/uk-wins-85-60/ (“John Calipari’s two technical fouls and ejection from the game that dominated talk after the game... [t]he ejection overshadowed the rest of the game”).
 Bennett Liebman, The Supreme Court and Exclusions by Racetracks, 17 Vill. Sports & Ent. L.J. 421 (2010) (citing Marrone v. Washington Jockey Club, 227 U.S. 633, 636 (1913)).
 PNGI Charles Town Gaming, LLC v. Reynolds, 2011 W. Va. LEXIS 323 (Nov. 18, 2011).
 PNGI Charles Town Gaming, 2011 W. Va. LEXIS 323 at 27-28.
 Id. at 24 n.23 (citing Calder Race Course v. Gaitan, 393 So. 2d 15 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980); Martin v Monmouth Park Jockey Club, 145 F. Supp. 439 (D.N.J. 1956); Bresnik v. Beulah Park Ltd. Partnership, Inc., 617 N.E.2d 1096 (Ohio 1993)).
 Id. at 24 n.23 (citing Cox v. National Jockey Club, 323 N.E.2d 104 (Ill. App. Ct. 1974); Jacobson v. New York Racing Asso., 305 N.E.2d 765 (N.Y. 1973)).
 Cox v. National Jockey Club, 323 N.E.2d 104, 111 (Ill. App. Ct.. 1974).
 Id. at 12 (citing Greenberg v. Hollywood Turf Club, 7 Cal.App.3d 968, 976 (1970)).
 PNGI Charles Town Gaming, 2011 W. Va. LEXIS 323 at 4.

matches: v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v.


text:
The judgement concerned a dispute between a German manufacturer of office furniture and a trader whose place of business was in the Canton of Geneva, the parties having had a business relationship of several years' standing. The lower court ordered the buyer to pay a total sum of approximately 25,000 euros to the seller by reason of outstanding invoices. The buyer lodged an appeal, acknowledging solely a debt of approximately 400 euros. It maintained that it had already paid the balance. The seller stated that it had used those payments to collect older debts.
In its deliberations, the court indirectly asserted that the question of the allocation of a buyer's payments in the case of multiple debts arising from different orders was determined in the light of the CISG and not of domestic law. The court held that any agreement between the parties was in the first instance applicable to resolve the issue. In that context, it considered at length the question of interpreting statements made by the parties, in accordance with article 8 CISG.
The seller had continually assigned the buyer's payments to meet the oldest debts and had sent detailed advices thereof to the buyer. The buyer had never objected to that procedure and the court thus accepted the existence of an agreement between the parties. The fact that the buyer, at the time of its payments, indicated on some of its cheques the most recent invoice numbers was hardly taken into account by the court, especially since the amounts never corresponded exactly with those entered on the invoices and also since, in the court's opinion, the buyer had to assume that the seller would suspend its deliveries in the event of non-payment of the oldest invoices.
The court ordered the buyer to pay an amount in the region of that awarded to the seller by the lower court and, like the lower court, it made that amount subject to interest on arrears calculated in accordance with national law as determined by Swiss private international law.
German: Swiss Review of International and European Law (SRIEL) (1-2/2008) 197 et seq.
2. Orders [Buyer] to pay two-third of legal costs (dépens), inclusive of an indemnity of Swiss francs [Sfr.] 4,500 - (2/3 = Sfr. 3,000) in attorneys' fees of __ .
3. Dismisses all other submissions of the parties."
[Buyer] sought cancellation of the judgment made on appeal and a declaration by the Court that he only owes to [Seller] the amount of € 242.26 with interest of 5% running from 19 February 2000, as well as an amount of € 112.73 with interest of 5% running from 14 April 2003.
- € 793.31 with interest of 5% running from 23 November 2000.
a) [Seller], - a limited company with its registered office in Germany, operating in the production and distribution of office furniture - and [Buyer] - sole owner of a company registered in Puplinge, Switzerland, since 11 September 1979 under the trade name of ___ , Philippe W, notably, for the import, distribution and exhibition of design and furniture - have been in a business relationship since the early 1990s.
In a letter dated 25 September 1992, [Buyer] informed [Seller] that he would proceed to pay the invoices remaining unpaid, explaining that he had been faced with late payments from some of his major clients. There is no indication as to whether [Buyer] actually did so.
Later on, from 8 December 1999 until 7 February 2000, [Seller] consistently sent to [Buyer] reminders featuring a list of the invoices remaining unpaid, the oldest invoices dating back to 23 April 1998, and the newest invoices to 31 January 2000, for a total amount of Deutsche Mark [DM] 67,749.73.
c) In the meantime, by letter of 14 January 2000 with reference (Zeichen) FI/Ro*901, [Seller] requested that [Buyer] send [Seller] a check of 25,000 DM "bezogen auf" AB 44414 DM 1,034.43, AB 45251 DM 16,529.47 (16,055.65 + 473.82), AB 45295 DM 1,134.31 and AB 45057 DM 5,013.43, stating that "Sollte dies nicht der Fall sein, kénnen wir die AB 45251, AB 45296 und AB 45057 nicht ausliefern" (unofficial translation: [...] were it not the case, we would not be able to deliver the AB 45251, AB 45296 and AB 45057).
By letter of 3 February 2000, [Seller] advised [Buyer] that it had collected the check of Sfr. 20,750, the exchange value of DM 25,146.20, and had allocated the total amount to payment of the invoices remaining unpaid; [Seller] included in this letter a document featuring the detailed account of the twenty-seven invoices, the oldest of which dated back to 23 April 1998 and the newest of which to 10 May 1999, with their numbers and the amounts taken into account.
[Seller] specified that the outstanding amount of DM 148.06 in the latest invoice dated 10 May 1999, no 203271, had to be taken into account at the next occasion; it prayed for [Buyer] to use the same accounting method as [Seller], in order to avoid any misunderstanding ("Damit keinerlei Unstimmigkeiten entstehen, bitten wir Sie gleichlautende Buchung").
d) On 14 March 2000, [Buyer] issued a second check of DM 2,100, stating "AB 45817" and "AB 46184" - that is, delivery numbers, according to the table shown above - under the heading "reason for payment".
By letter of 28 March 2003, [Seller] advised [Buyer] that it had collected this check of DM 2,100 which it had allocated to payment of the invoices no 203271 and 203273 of 10 May 1999, no 204013 of 17 June 1999, nos 204575, 204577 and 204569 of 23 July 1999, the outstanding amount of the latter, that is, DM 23,351.50, to be discharged in the next payment.
[Seller] prayed, once again, for [Buyer] to use the same accounting method, in order to avoid any misunderstanding.
"(...) vielen Dank für Ihre Bestellung i. H. von ca DM 27,000.- Das es sich um Artikel mit Multiplex-Kanten handelt, die selten bei uns nachgeFragt werden und wir diese Artikel kommissionweise nur für diesen Auftrag fertigen, dürfen wir Sie bitten uns bis Produktionsbeginn in der KW einen Scheck i. H. von DM 30,000.- zukommen zu lassen. Wir werden den Scheck aber erst nach erfolgter Anlieferung einreichen. (...)" . (unofficial translation: � (...) merci pour votre commande pour un montant d'environ 27,000 DM. Comme il s'agit d'un article avec des bords Multiplex qui nous est rarement demandé et que nous fabriquons à la commission uniquement pour cette commande, nous devons vous demander avant le début de la production de nous faire parvenir un chèque de 30,000 DM. Nous n'encaisserons le chèque qu'après la livraison (...) � "(...) thank you for your purchase order for the amount of approximately DM 27,000. Since it pertains to a piece with Multiplex edges which is rarely ordered and which we would manufacture solely on commission for this purchase order, we must request that you send us a check for DM 30,000 prior to start of production (...)."
By letter of 18 May 2000, [Seller] advised [Buyer] that it had collected this check, on 11 May 2000, and ascribed the total collected amount, that is, DM 30,214.15, to payment of the invoices 204569 of 23 July 1999, 205173 of 13 September 1999, 205351 of 16 September 1999, 206342 and 206346 of 12 November 1999, the outstanding amount of the latter to be discharged in the next payment, [Seller] reminding that [Buyer] should use the same accounting method, in order to avoid any misunderstanding.
Our purchase order of 19 June 2000".
By letter of 5 July 2000, [Seller] advised [Buyer] that the amount collected, that is, DM 12,518.92 (the exchange value of Sfr. 10,000), had been ascribed to payment of the invoices 206346 and 206349 of 12 November 1999, 206986 of 14 December 1999 and 207611 of 31 January 2000, the outstanding amount of the latter, that is, DM 2,780.89, to be discharged in the next payment; [Seller] reminded [Buyer] to use the same accounting method.
g) As to the fifth check in an amount of DM 1,000 issued on 17 July 2000, [Buyer] stated "last two purchase orders" ("deux dernières commandes") as reason for payment.
As to the sixth check in the amount of DM 2,000 issued on 19 July 2000, [Buyer] stated "your letter of 11 July 2000 with respect to the delivery of end of July DM 2,000.-. It goes with check 96315376 of 17 July 2000 DM 1,000.-" ("votre lettre du 11.7.2000 pour livraison fin juillet DM. 2,000.-. Va avec chèque 96315376 of 17.7.2000 DM 1,000.-").
By letter of 27 July 2000, [Seller] advised [Buyer] that it had collected the two above-mentioned checks, the total amount of which of DM 3,000 had been ascribed to payment of the invoices 207611 and 207613 of 31 January 2000, the outstanding amount of the latter, that is, DM 15,836.54, to be discharged in the next payment; [Seller] requested [Buyer] to use the same accounting method.
h) On 14 November 2000, [Buyer] issued a seventh check of DM 4,100 in favor of [Seller] stating "1001956, 1001955, 1001756 and 1001650" under the heading "reason for payment".
[Buyer] submitted this document, not to the District Court, but to this Appellate Court, in support of his claim, having found it again only recently.
According to the submitted documents, the reference 1001650 corresponds to the invoice no 212624 of DM 904.87, the reference 1001756 to the invoice no 212625 of DM 287.11, the reference 1001955 to the invoice no 212626 of DM 1,551.57 and the reference 1001956 to the invoice no 212623 of DM 948.87, as listed above in the table featuring purchase orders, delivery receipts and issued invoices.
i) [Buyer] lodged opposition to the two summons to pay, suits 01 148804 Z and 03 180061 L, which [Seller] - represented by Intrum Justitia SA - had notified on 20 November 2001 and 18 July 2003, in respect of an outstanding debt of Sfr. 47,326 based on an invoice dated 17 December 1999 plus various interest and late fees.
In a letter to Intrum Justitia SA, dated 22 February 2001, [Buyer] explained that he consistently made his payments to [Seller] and that he had never received the invoice dated 17 December 1999, as mentioned in the summons to pay.
j) By notice submitted to the Registrar of the Court of First Instance [District Court of Geneva] on 25 October 2004, [Seller] brought against [Buyer] a claim for payment of a total amount of € 28,693.15, with interest, in respect of the purchase orders which the latter had placed from 8 November 1999 until 20 October 2000. [Seller] asserted that only a down payment of € 2,208.33 had been made in respect of the invoice no 207613 of 31 January 2000 and that the other invoices in respect of these purchase orders remained unpaid.
In a letter of 18 January 2005 sent to the District Court, [Buyer] contended that, in the course of 2000, he had paid Sfr. 54,840 (Fr. 24,090 + Sfr. 10,000 + Fr. 20,750) and DM 5,100 at the request of [Seller], which held an accounting that was common to the parties ("comptabilité commune") and that he rigorously paid what he was requested to pay ("rigoureusement payé ce qu'elle lui demandait"). [Buyer] submitted copies of the above-mentioned checks as well as of the summons to pay.
k) In the hearing with personal appearance before the District Court on 5 April 2005, Walter WA, head of [Seller]'s firm explained that the checks issued by [Buyer] had been ascribed to payment of unpaid invoices that were older than the invoices that are the object of the present dispute; upon receipt of each check issued in its favor, [Seller] had advised [Buyer] of the allocation of the collected amount, by stating which invoices had been paid. Since 2000, [Seller] had terminated its business relationships with [Buyer] on account of these invoices remaining unpaid.
[Buyer] declared before the District Court that he had paid the invoices in respect of his purchase orders in 2000. He was of the opinion that the amounts claimed were time-barred.
l) In its supplementary brief of 9 May 2005, [Seller] asserted that in 1992, the invoices remaining unpaid by [Buyer] already amounted to approximately €60,000. From 8 October 1999 until 20 October 2000, [Buyer] had placed purchase orders for furniture for a total amount of € 30,810.80. [Seller] had agreed to make new deliveries conditional upon receiving payment of each ongoing purchase order, plus 10% in order to amortize the sums in arrears; thus, by agreement between the parties ("d'entente entre les parties"), the amounts paid by [Buyer] were to be ascribed to payment of the oldest debts. Upon collection of each check issued in its favor, [Seller] had advised [Buyer] of the way in which the collected amount had been ascribed in respect of the invoices remaining unpaid in his books. At no time had [Buyer] made reservations as to this way of proceeding.
Upon receipt of the [Seller]'s brief dated 9 May 2005, [Buyer] requested the District Court, by letter of 13 May 2005, to adjourn the hearing on the pleadings hearing scheduled for 19 May 2005, as well as to allow a supplementary delay for his reply thereto, to enable [Buyer] to search for documents capable of proving his previous payments and to assign a counsel for his defense.
C. By judgment of 16 June 2005, the District Court found that there was no grounds for the adjournment of the hearing, the [Buyer] having had the chance to discuss the [Seller]'s submissions, submit exhibits, as well as to assign a counsel for his defense.
Having considered that the Vienna Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods of 11 April 1980 (hereinafter: CISG) - which is applicable to the successive sales contracts entered into by the parties - does not settle the question of limitation of actions, the District Court applied German law, pursuant to Article 3 of the Hague Convention on the Law Applicable to the International Sale of Goods of 15 June 1955, applicable erga omnes pursuant to Article 118 LDIP, it being specified that the rules on limitation of actions had been modified by the law for the revision of the German Civil Code, entered into force on 1 January 2002. The District Court thus held that the disputed debts were not time-barred for the mere fact that they had arisen in 2000, under the previous law, and that they were governed by the general time period of 30 years, which was still running and remained applicable under the new law. This time period had indeed been suspended as a result of the claim in payment lodged by [Seller], but not as a result of the notification of the summons to pay in respect of an invoice of 17 December 1999, which was not the object of the claim.
By application of Articles 59 and 62 CISG and of Article 366 BGB, the District Court held that [Seller] was entitled to allocate the amounts that were paid by checks dated 24 January and 2 May 2000, that is, Sfr. 20,750 and Sfr. 24,090, to payment of the oldest debts (article 366 al. 2 BGB); concerning the invoice no 207613 of 31 January 2000 of an amount of Sfr. 16,055.65, that is, € 8,209.25, it was appropriate to rectify the outstanding amount due from € 6,092 to € 6,000.92, [Seller] having indicated that [Buyer] had paid this invoice up to an amount of € 2,208.33.
- on the checks dated 17 and 19 July 2000 in the respective amounts of DM 1,000 and DM 2,100, [Buyer] had indicated that these payments were ascribed to the last two purchase orders and to a delivery scheduled for end of July 2000, the invoice of which was to be issued on 31 July 2000 in the amount of DM 2,318.66 5 (€ 1,185.51).
The interest for late payment accrued from the date when payments were due, the interest rate of the debtor's place of business being applicable, in conformity with CISG's aim.
D. a) In support of his appeal, [Buyer] contends, with no other precision whatsoever, that the amount of Sfr. 20,750 of the check issued on 24 January 2000 had to be ascribed to payment of the first two disputed invoices, of DM 1,134.31 (€ 579.97), and of DM 16,055.65 (€ 8,209.25). According to [Buyer], the outstanding amount of €6,000.92 taken into consideration by the District Court in respect of the second invoice was based on a reasoning of his own ("raisonnement qui lui était propre").
With respect to the check of Sfr. 24,090, [Buyer] explains that he issued it subsequent to [Seller]'s letter of 28 April 2000 requesting a down payment on the purchase order of DM 30,000 in connection with purchase orders of some DM 27,000 ("pour des commandes de quelque DM 27,000.-"), as a precondition to the deliveries. It appears from the chronological order of the documents that the amount of Sfr. 24,090 was to be ascribed to payment of the two invoices of 31 May 2000 of DM 24,461.31 (€ 12,507.01) and of DM 3,110.42 (€ 1,590.36), in respect of the purchase orders of 12 April 2000. [Buyer] is of the opinion that it is not relevant to determine to which invoices the rest may be ascribed ("n'est pas intéressant de determiner à quelle(s) facture(s) peut être affectée le reste").
With respect to the check of DM 4,100 which [Buyer] issued on 14 November 2000 - and which was recently found again - [Buyer] notes that he had stated four references under the heading "reason for payment" ("motif de paiement"), that is, 1001956, 1001955, 1001756 and 1001650, which corresponded to the invoices of DM 904.87 (€ 462.65), DM 287.11 (€ 146.80), DM 948.87 (€ 485.15), and DM 1,551.57 (€ 793.31), which the first judge ordered [Buyer] to pay.
Hence, [Buyer] admits owing merely the amounts mentioned at n� 3 and n� 4 of the judgment made on appeal (invoices of € 242.26 and € 112.73), being incapable to prove payment of said amounts.
b) As for [Seller], it asserts that [Buyer] remains liable for the payment of € 28,602.47, having merely paid the amount of € 2,208.33 with respect to the disputed invoices. Since the [Buyer] was liable for more than DM 66,000 at the end of 1999, the parties had orally agreed that he would pay an additional 10% on the price of ongoing purchase orders prior to delivery, the paid amount to be ascribed to payment of the oldest debts. The first judge erred in noting that the indications under the heading "reason for payment" ("motif de paiement") meant the way in which [Buyer] intended to pay [Seller]'s invoices. These indications corresponded, rather, to the numbers of upcoming deliveries, payment considered. Indeed, each time, the amount of the issued checks was set at an amount against 110% of the ongoing purchase order, as agreed. [Buyer] should have advised [Seller] that he did not agree with the accounting figures and accounting method used.
In its letter of 14 January 2000, [Seller] requested [Buyer] to issue a check for DM 25,000, that is, for approximately 110% of the ongoing purchase order, which amounted to DM 23,771.64; the delivery AB 44414 (DM 1,034.43) having already been made, only the deliveries AB 45251 (DM 16,529.47), 45295 (DM 1,134.31) and 45057 (DM 5,013.43), of which the 110% amounted to DM 24,944.93, which corresponded to the amount of DM 25,000, remained to be paid. This check had been replaced with another check of the same amount in Swiss francs, that is, Sfr. 20,750.
Similarly, the statements on the check of 14 March 2000, that is, AB 45817 and AB 46184, do not mean, contrary to the first judge's interpretation, that the check was issued for the purposes of payment of the goods ordered on 21 January and 4 February 2000, and invoiced on 30 March 2000 at an amount of DM 1,888.74. Again, the amount of the check corresponded to 110% of the ongoing purchase orders (DM 2,077.61, rounded to DM 2,100).
Contrary to [Buyer]'s contention, [Seller], by letter of 28 April 2000, requested payment by way of a check of DM 30,000, to be ascribed to payment of the sums in arrears, as a precondition to any new delivery. This amount corresponded to 110% of the ongoing purchase order of 31 March 2000, which led to two deliveries, on 18 May 2000, and two invoices of 31 May 2000 of a total amount of DM 25,571.73 (p. 7d et 7e [Seller]). [Buyer] thus issued a check of Sfr. 24,090 and did not contest the accounting thereof. Besides, [Buyer] continued to place orders while knowing that they would be subjected to the same accounting method in the next payment.
Similarly, the check of Sfr. 10,000, the exchange value of DM 12,518.92, issued by [Buyer] on 20 June 2000, with references 48666 and 48354, corresponded to 110% of DM 11,183.33, which accounted for the total price of the purchase orders of 31 March, 2 May and 19 June 2000, which were delivered on 30 June and 6 July 2000 (p. 8b, 9b and 10b [Seller]).
This is also the case with respect to the checks of DM 1,000 of 17 July 2000 and DM 2,000 of 19 July 2000, which correspond to at least 110% of the ongoing purchase order (of 12 July 2000/ p. 11a [Seller]), which was delivered on 21 July 2000 and invoiced on 31 July 2000 at an amount of DM 2,318.66.
Finally, the check of DM 4,100 of 14 November 2000 had been ascribed to partial payment of the disputed invoice no 207613 of 31 January 2000.
c) In his reply dated 12 December 2005, [Buyer] denies, in essence, having agreed to pay an additional 10% on the price fixed for the ongoing purchase orders, to be ascribed to payment due in arrears. [Buyer] contends that, by all accounts, as a debtor he was free to allocate the amounts collected by [Seller]. [Buyer] refers, with respect to additional claims (pour le surplus), to his notice of appeal.
The reasoning of the parties will be repeated hereafter, as need be.
1. The appeal and the additional appeal (appel incident) are declared admissible having been submitted in the time and form prescribed by law (art. 296 al. 1, 298 al. 1 and 300 LPC).
The judgment having been entered in the first instance, the Court re-considers the cause of action with a full scope of review (art. 22 LOJ and 291 LPC).
2. 2.1 The Lugano Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters of 16 September 1988 (RS 0.275.11; hereinafter: Convention or LC) is applicable since both parties have their places of business in a Contracting State.
In the absence of a clause conferring jurisdiction agreed upon by the parties that makes the court of a Contracting State the legal forum to hear any contractual differences (cf. art. 17), the Court is competent ratione loci to decide the present dispute, the defendant being domiciled in the Geneva Canton (art. 2 LC).
2.2 Article 1 al. 2 LDIP reserves the application of international treaties. Germany and Switzerland acceded to the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods adopted in Vienna on 11 April 1980 (RS 0.221.211.1; hereinafter: CISG), which entered into force in these two States, respectively, on 1 January and 1 March 1991.
The purchase orders and deliveries of office furniture, of which payment of the invoices is disputed having taken place between November 1999 and October 2000, the Vienna Convention is applicable to the sale of furniture which occurred after its entry into force, it being noted that the parties have their place of business in different Contracting States (art. 1(1)(a) and art. 100(2) CISG; BUCHER/BONOMI, Droit international privé, Basel 2001, n. 991 and 992, p. 263). The question of the application of German law (BGB) shall not be considered.
2.3 There is no reason to re-consider the question of limitation of actions, which was reviewed by the first judge and which [Buyer] no longer invokes before the Court.
3. 3.1 It is undisputed that, from 8 November 1999 to 20 October 2000, the parties were bound by successive contracts for the sale of office furniture, and that the ordered goods were delivered, accepted, then invoiced in accordance with procedures.
[Buyer] alleges that only two invoices of € 242.26 and € 112.73 relating to these deliveries remained unpaid; he contests [Seller]'s right to allocate to older invoices the paid amounts in respect of the disputed invoices.
[Seller] maintains that it was orally agreed with [Buyer] that [Seller] would continue to deliver the goods which [Buyer] ordered, conditional upon [Buyer] paying 110% of the amount of ongoing invoices - of which [Buyer] knew the exact price - pertaining to payment of older unpaid invoices, the total amount of which was more than DM 66,000 at the end of 1999.
3.2 The application of the CISG is exhaustive in that it governs the contract as a whole, in other words, its formation, the rights and obligations of the parties as well as the remedies for non-enforcement of the contract. As a general rule, the subsidiary application of the national law is precluded (ATF n. p. 4C.307/2003 of 19 February 2004, recit. 2.2.2; 4C.105/2000 of 15 September 2000 recit. 2a, in SJ 2001 I p. 304 ff; STOFFEL, Le droit applicable aux contrats de vente internationale de marchandises in : Publication Cedidac no 20, Les contrats de vente internationale de marchandises, p. 36).
3.2.1 In accordance with the wording of Article 8(1) CISG, statements made by and other conduct of a party are to be interpreted according to his intent where the other party knew or could not have been unaware what that intent was. In determining the intent of the party, due consideration is to be given to all relevant circumstances (art. 8(3) CISG; RSDIE 2000 115; RSDIE 1998 84). Where the intent cannot be discerned, statements made by and other conduct of a party are to be interpreted according to the understanding that a reasonable person of the same kind as the other party would have had in the same circumstances (art. 8(2) CISG).
The first step in the interpretation of statements made by the parties is the subjective intent of the declaring party, as outwardly manifested in a discernable way to the addressee. The CISG is indeed governed by the principle of reliance that is common to numerous legislations: it is applied to expressed declarations and to communications, but also to the persuasive conduct exhibited before or after the conclusion of a contract (NEUMAYER/MING, Convention de Vienne sur les contrats de vente internationale de marchandises, Commentaire n. 1 ad art. 8(1) CISG, p. 111-112).
Where the actual intent of the declaring party cannot be discerned by the addressee, it may be irrelevant how the latter actually understood the intent since the standard of interpretation is the "understanding that a reasonable person of the same kind as the other party would have had in the same circumstances". While it is true that the intent must be determined from what an objective addressee might have understood, regard must also be had to the circumstances in which the declaring party expressed its intent, as well as his conduct as a whole (NEUMAYER/MING, op. cit., n. 2 ad art. 8(2) CISG).
It is up to the addressee to investigate the meaning of an expressed declaration only where the content of the latter leads to confusion. One party who could not have been unaware, at the time of making a declaration, of the existence of circumstances likely to lead the addressee to have a different understanding than his/her own, will be held to the meaning attached according to the surrounding circumstances at the addressee's place (NEUMAYER/MING, op. cit., n. 4 ad art. 8(3) CISG, p. 114).
Article 8 CISG is thus concerned with the principle of reliance that is common to Swiss law (RSDIE 1999 194, TERCIER, Les contrats spéciaux, 3ème éd., n. 1379, p. 204).
3.2.2 In Swiss law, absent any express declaration at the time of conclusion of the contract, one must interpret the declarations and conduct of the parties.
It is for the judge, first, to search for the common and actual intent of the parties, without being bound by any inexact expressions or denominations that the parties might have used (art. 18 al. 1 CO).
Where the actual intent of the parties cannot be established or is not common, the judge will have to interpret declarations and conduct in accordance with the theory of reliance; he must indeed determine how such declaration or conduct could be understood in good faith having regard to all circumstances (cf. ATF 129 III 118 recit. 2.5 and the cited cases). Under the principle of reliance, one party may be attached with the objective meaning of its conduct, notwithstanding the fact that it does not correspond to its inner intent (129 III 118 ibidem; 127 III 279 recit. 2c/ee p. 287).
It is for the party that relies on the existence of an agreement to establish the circumstances leading it to the finding of the other party's legal intent by virtue of the principle of reliance (art. 8 CC; ATF 116 II 695 recit. 2b/bb p. 698).
3.3 In the case at hand, the parties had been in a business relationship since the early 1990s. [Seller] consistently sent to [Buyer] reminders featuring the account of unpaid invoices - for a total amount of up to DM 67,000 at the end of 1999 -which [Buyer] did not contest. [Buyer] continued to place orders upon [Seller] for furniture from November 1999 to October 2000. Payment of related invoices is disputed.
The District Court did not find a common intent of the parties as to the allocation of the amounts of the checks in question to payment of the oldest invoices. Hence, one must determine whether there was an agreement on this matter, by interpreting their declarations and conduct in accordance with the principle of reliance.
3.3.1 Prior to the delivery of these new purchase orders, [Buyer] issued, upon the request of [Seller], a first check of Sfr. 20,750, the exchange value of DM 25,146.20. In its letter of 14 January 2000, [Seller] had indeed specified that, were it not the case, it could not perform the deliveries AB 45251, AB 45296 and AB 45077.
In a letter of 3 February 2000, [Seller] further clearly indicated to [Buyer] that it ascribed the total amount of this check to payment of the old invoices; [Seller] communicated to [Buyer] a detailed account in this respect, while inviting [Buyer] to use the same accounting method, in order to avoid any misunderstanding ("procéder à la même comptabilisation, afin d'éviter tout malentendu"). [Buyer] did not express any protest nor formulate the slightest comment in this respect.
Upon the issuance of the second check of DM 2,100 dated 14 March 2000, in favor of [Seller], it is correct that [Buyer] referred to the delivery numbers AB 45817 and AB 46814 under the heading "reason for payment" ("motif de paiement"). And yet, [Seller] advised [Buyer], once again, that [Seller] had ascribed the collected amount to payment of the old invoices, by communicating a detailed account and reminding [Buyer] - still without any protest from [Buyer] - to proceed with the same accounting method.
It is also the case with respect to the third (Sfr. 24,090, the exchange value of FM 30,214.15), fourth (Sfr. 10,000, the exchange value of DM 12,518.92), fifth (DM 1,000) and sixth checks (DM 2,000) issued by [Buyer] in favor of [Seller], which informed [Buyer], upon collection of each check, that [Seller] ascribed the collected amount to payment of the old invoices remaining unpaid. In addition, [Seller] communicated to [Buyer] the detailed accounts of the old invoices that are paid, by reminding [Buyer] to proceed with the same accounting method, without ever hearing any rectification or protest on the part of [Buyer].
At no time did [Buyer] invite [Seller] to clarify the meaning of the statements that [Buyer] put under the heading "reason for payment" - at times delivery numbers, at times purchase orders, without any precision - nor did [Buyer] clearly indicate to [Seller] that these checks should not have been ascribed to payment of invoices corresponding to sums in arrears. Had it been the case, [Seller], which, on account of its letter of 14 January 2000, had made the deliveries conditional upon payment by [Buyer], would have probably terminated performance of each and every delivery. [Buyer] cannot a posteriori, based on the references FI/Ro*901 (unsere Zelchen) mentioned by [Seller] in the very letter of 14 January 2000, then in another letter of 28 April 2000, in which [Seller] had requested [Buyer] to issue two checks of DM 25,000 and of DM 30,000, content himself with the assertion that the statements on the checks corresponded to his intent to pay the ongoing invoices.
- Finally, on the checks dated 17 and 19 July 2000 in the respective amounts of DM 1,000 and DM 2,000 where "last two purchase orders" ("deux dernières commandes") and "delivery (at the) end of July 2000" ("livraison (à) fin juillet 2000"), invoiced on 31 July 2000 at an amount of DM 2,318.66, are mentioned.
It seems hardly believable that [Buyer], who was in no position to pay the old invoices, would accept, without any reason, to pay amounts that are higher than the prices of the ongoing deliveries.
In accordance with the principle of reliance, it may be inferred from these elements, as well as from the absence of protest on the part of [Buyer] in regard to the detailed accounts of the collected checks set forth by [Seller], that there existed indeed an agreement between the parties for [Seller] to allocate the amounts of the issued checks to payment of the old invoices upon collection thereof.
The judgment made on appeal will be overturned accordingly.
4. 4.1 Pursuant to Article 53 CISG, the buyer undertakes to pay the price for the goods and take delivery for them as required by the contract and this Convention.
With respect to payment for the goods, the buyer must pay the price on the date fixed by or determinable from the contract, without the need for any request or compliance with any formality on the part of the seller (art. 59 CISG). The seller may require the buyer to pay the price, unless the seller has resorted to a remedy which is inconsistent with this requirement (art. 62 CISG). The seller is entitled to interest on the sum that is in arrears (art. 78 CISG), the applicable interest rate being that of the debtor's place of business (NEUMAYER/MING, op. cit., n. 2 as art. 78 CISG; TERCIER, op. cit., n. 1523, p. 222).
4.2 In the case at hand, the existence of an agreement between the parties so as to allocate in priority the amounts of the issued checks to payment of the old invoices remaining unpaid leads to consider that [Buyer] remains debtor of the invoices in respect of the purchase orders that he made to [Seller] from November 1999 to October 2000.
Besides, [Buyer] admitted, in a letter of 18 January 2005 to the first judge, that [Seller] held an accounting that was common to both parties and that he rigorously paid what [Seller] requested (of him) ("rigourousement payé ce qu'elle (lui) demandait"); the accounts set forth by [Seller] in respect of the collected amounts will be taken into consideration in order to determine the amounts owed by [Buyer] in respect of the disputed invoices.
It follows that the first check of Sfr. 20,750, the second check of Sfr. 2,100, the third check of Sfr. 24,090, and the fourth check of Sfr 10,000 were ascribed in their entirety to payment of the old invoices.
With respect to the amount of DM 30,000 as mentioned on the fifth and sixth checks, [Seller] indicated that it had ascribed an amount of € 2,208.33 to payment of the invoice no 207613 dated 31 January 2000; the outstanding amount of this invoice amounted to € 6,000.92, not € 6,092 (€ 8,209.55 [the exchange value of DM 16,055.65] - € 2,208.33).
Before the Court, [Buyer] submitted a seventh check of DM 4,100 issued on 14 November 2000 in favor of [Seller], who indicates that it had collected it in payment of the above-mentioned invoice no 207613 dated 31 January 2000. Accordingly, the latter may be deducted of an amount of € 2,096.30 (the exchange value of DM 4,100 at the rate as of 14 November 2000); the outstanding amount of this invoice is thus € 3,904.62 (€ 6,000.92 - € 2,096.30).
- € 793.31 on the invoice no 212626 dated 23 November 2000.
[Seller] is entitled to interest of 5% (art. 104 al. 1 CO), by application of Swiss law, [Buyer] having his place of business in Geneva. Interest accrues, in respect of any given invoice, from the date on which payment is due, here, as of the day after the date of issuance of any given invoice (NEUMAYER/MING, op. cit., n. 2 ad art. 58 CISG and n. 2 ad art. 59 CISG).
5. [Buyer], who fails in his claim almost in its entirety, will bear two-third of the costs of the appeal proceeding (art. 176 al. 1 LPC).
Declares admissible the main appeal and additional appeal submitted by [Buyer] and by [Seller] against the judgment JPTI/7961/2005 entered on 16 June 2005 by the Court of First Instance in the matter C/23618/2004-8.
- Euros 793.31 - with interest of 5% running from 23 November 2000.
Orders [Buyer] to pay two-third of the costs of the proceedings comprising an indemnity pertaining to the proceedings of Sfr. 3,000, in contribution to [Seller]'s attorneys' fees.
Dismiss all other claims of the parties.
Mr. Louis PEILA, President; Mr. Stéphane GEIGER, Mrs. Laura JACQUEMOUD-ROSSARI, Judges; Mrs. Nathalie DESCHAMPS, Clerk.
* All translations should be verified by cross-checking against the original text. For purposes of this translation, the Plaintiff-Appellee of Germany is referred to as [Seller] and the Defendant-Appellant of Switzerland is referred to as [Buyer]. Amounts in the currency of Switzerland (Swiss francs) are indicated as [Sfr]; amounts in the former currency of Germany (Deutsche Mark) are indicated as [DM].

matches:
art. 17
art. 100
art. 8
art. 8
art. 8
art. 78
art. 58
art. 59


text:
Granite Rock v. Teamsters Local 287 (United States Supreme Court, 2010) The United States Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in holding that the dispute between the employer and union over the ratification of a collective bargaining agreement was a matter for the District Court to decide, rather than the arbitrator designated under the grievance procedure in the contract. The Supreme Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit in holding that a the employer could not sue the union for tortious interference under the federal Labor Management Relations Act.
Teamsters Local 856 v. Priceless, LLC (Cal. Court of Appeal, 2003). The Court of Appeal held that public employees had a reasonable expectation of privacy in their personnel files; salaries of individually identifiable employees were not subject to disclosure to newspapers pursuant to California Public Records Act (CPRA), as employees’ interest in nondisclosure outweighed public interest in disclosure; and earnings of individually identified peace officers were not subject to disclosure under CPRA absent compliance with Penal Code provisions governing disclosure of such records.
Retlaw Broadcasting Co. v. National Labor Relations Board (9th Cir. 1999). Court of Appeals, held negotiation of personal services contracts (PSCs) was permissive bargaining subject, and television station thus committed unfair labor practice by bargaining such subject to impasse, and confidentiality concerns did not support station’s refusal to disclose PSCs.
Newspaper Drivers’ Union, Local 921 v. San Francisco Newspaper Agency (9th Cir. 1996). Court of Appeals upheld preliminary injunction forbidding employer conduct and maintaining status quo pending arbitration as injunction was necessary to preserve union’s arbitration remedy.
Reich v. Local 890, Intern. Broth. of Teamsters (N.D. Cal. 1996). Secretary of Labor brought suit pursuant to Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA) challenging union dues payroll deduction system to fund election of union officials. Court held that Secretary was precluded from challenging union dues payroll deduction system to fund election of union officials due to failure by union candidate protesting election process to exhaust her internal remedies before seeking relief from Secretary.
McKesson Corp. v. Local 150 IBT (9th Cir. 1992). Employer brought action seeking to vacate arbitration award directing reinstatement of employee. Court of Appeals held that: (1) arbitrator’s implicit determination that he had jurisdiction to issue untimely award was not unreasonable, and (2) arbitrator could find that provision for termination of employee upon “absence from work” for 12 consecutive months did not apply to period during which employee had been wrongfully discharged by the employer.
Teamsters Local No. 216 v. Granite Rock Co. (9th Cir. 1988). Union brought action to compel arbitration of implied provision of collective bargaining agreement. Court of Appeals held that court was not required to determine whether implication of alleged implied provision was plausible, and dispute as to whether alleged implied provision would violate federal labor law did not preclude arbitration.
Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Teamsters Local No. 70 (U.S. Supreme Court 1974). District Court held a labor union in criminal contempt for violating temporary restraining order, and the union appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed reversal by Court of Appeals, holding that the restraining order issued by California state court before removal of case to federal district court expired long before alleged contempt approximately six months after the removal of case.
N.L.R.B. v. San Francisco Typographical Union No. 21 (9th Cir. 1973). On appeal from National Labor Relations Board order that union rescind its disciplinary actions against four members who were supervisory employees of employer Court of Appeals held that union had right to punish members who refused to honor the union’s picket line even though the three members were supervisors; the employer’s right to select management representatives was not affected by the union’s action in expelling and fining the members.
In re Lane (Cal. Supreme Court 1969). Habeas corpus proceeding brought by union officer who had been convicted of violating municipal code sections prohibiting remaining on another’s property after being notified by owner to leave and from distributing handbills on premises of another without his consent. The California Supreme Court reversed, holding that officer of labor union involved in dispute with publisher of newspapers in which supermarket advertised had right under free speech guarantees to distribute handbills on privately owned sidewalk areas opened by supermarket for use by its customers as sole means of ingress and egress to and from supermarket and such sidewalk was a ‘public area’ in which members of public might exercise First Amendment rights.

matches: v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v.


IN THESE DAYS OF LOW INTEREST RATES on savings accounts, 10 percent—which is the rate of simple, annual interest that applies to any unsatisfied judgment, or any portion of an unsatisfied judgment— sounds very appealing (Code Civil Procedure § 685.010.) So if 10 percent interest sounds good, how about 72 percent? While one may ask if it is too good to be true or if is there a catch, that high rate is permitted by law under specified circumstances for unpaid judgments or orders for child support. While actually obtaining and enforcing a 72 percent interest penalty may be the catch, there is no legal one other than the technical requirements.
The penalty is found in Sections 4722-33 of the Family Code, which provide as a penalty for nonpayment that a judgment or order for child support can accrue interest at the rate of 6 percent per month up to a maximum of 72 percent of the original amount of the unpaid support. A number of technical and practical issues must be considered, however. The legal requirements are that 1) the obligor has to be more than 30 days in arrears (Family Code § 4722(a)); 2) the attorney must file and serve a notice of delinquency (Judicial Council Form FL-485), 3) the notice of delinquency must be signed under penalty of perjury (Family Code § 4723(a)), 4) the notice must state the amount that the child support obligor is in arrears (Family Code § 4723(b)(1)), 5) the notice must list the installments of support due and the amounts, if any, that have been paid and the balance due (Family Code § 4723 (b)(2)), 6) the notice must state that the arrearage must be paid within 30 days of the date of the service of the notice of delinquency and that any unpaid installment of child support will incur a penalty of 6 percent of the unpaid support per month, and 7) the notice must include the current address of the children, unless a protective order is in place to keep the support obligor from knowing their whereabouts (Family Code § 4723 (b)(3)).
The threat of a 72 percent interest penalty for past due child support can be used as a tool to induce a recalcitrant debtor to become compliant or simply to increase the amount owed. Further, the penalty only applies to child support, not spousal support. Ultimately, the question for the attorney and client to ask is if the additional procedural hurdles are worth the trouble. If it is impossible to collect the child support itself, one may need a compelling reason to increase an uncollectible amount and possibly cause the client to develop unrealistic expectations. Nevertheless, the 72 percent interest penalty on child support arrearage is available as a tool that may strike fear into the heart of a delinquent parent—and obtain relief for one’s client.
Ira M. Friedman and David Friedman are certified family law specialists and partners in the Beverly Hills law firm of Friedman & Friedman.


text:
Concerning individuals named in the second issue of the Chronicle [CCE 2.1; nos in square brackets refer to their place in that list].
Boris Balter  – excluded from the Party by the Moscow City Committee of the CPSU.
Yury Tsekhmistrenko  – it was mistakenly reported that he was excluded from the Party. In fact he received a severe reprimand.
Valentin Nempomnyashchy  – excluded from the Union of Journalists. An appeal to be readmitted to Party was turned down.
Yury Gerchuk  – given a less important post.
Ivan Yakhimovich  – deprived of his residence permit.
Abram Fet  – dismissed from work.
A number of people who submitted appeals were readmitted to the Party, expulsion being replaced by a severe reprimand. Among them are Fedot Suchkov , Yury Karyakin , Ludmila Belova , Moisei Tulchinsky  and Sergei Fomin .
Quite recently permission has been given for the plays of Vladimir Voinovich  to be staged again.
The list in issue two of the Chronicle contained 91 names.
92. Konstantin Babitsky – defence of his dissertation postponed indefinitely because he signed several letters about the Galanskov-Ginzburg Trial.
93. Nikolai Danilov – expelled from the Literary Institute.
As we know, however, between Issues 2 and 5 both Babitsky and Danilov were prosecuted and convicted.
94. Victor Krasin, economist, Central Economics-mathematical institute, an inmate of Stalin’s camps, was dismissed “at his own request” for signing one of the letters about the trial and the appeal to the Budapest conference.
95. Alexander Zholkovsky, linguist at the laboratory for automated translation at the Moscow State Pedagogical Institute of Foreign Languages. For writing a letter in defence of Alexander Ginzburg, the defence of his dissertation was indefinitely postponed and his continued work at the Institute is constantly under threat.
96. M.M. Gromyko, Doctor of Historical Sciences at the Institute of History, Philosophy and Philology of the Siberian Branch of the USSR Academy of Sciences, and professor at Novosibirsk University. For signing the Novosibirsk letter he is no longer allowed to teach at the university.
97. Iosif Goldenberg, literary specialist and lecturer at Novosibirsk University. Not allowed to teach after signing the Novosibirsk letter.
98. N. Zorkaya, a Candidate of Art Studies at the History of the Arts Institute – excluded from the Party and reduced from a senior to junior research position for signing one of the letters about the trial.
99. Vladimir Miloshevich, the Hydrometeorology Centre – sacked due to “cutbacks in staff” for signing one of the letters about the trial.
100. Vladimir Lebedev, literary worker at the Tourist magazine – sacked due to “cutbacks in staff” for signing one of the letters about the trial.
following letters from Ukrainian intellectuals and workers to the Soviet government about political trials in the Ukraine and in Moscow.
The Presidium of the Ukrainian Union of Soviet Artists described the Letter [of the 139] as “anti-Soviet” and issued a resolution expelling the following from the Union: A. A. Horska, L. N. Semykina, I. S. Lytovchenko, V. N. Lutsak, V. S. Dovhan, V, I. Zaretsky, H. Sevruk and A. Zakharchuk.
Zaretsky also received a “strict reprimand” as a Party member.
The leading role in this persecution of artists who had signed the letter was played by the sculptor Borodai. The accusations levelled against the signatories were openly anti-Semitic in tone, full of abuse and loud allegations about “enemies of the Soviet regime”, “Bandera-ites”, etc.
M. Yu. Braichevsky, well-known Ukrainian historian, Master of Historical Sciences, senior research officer of the Institute of History, and author of such studies as When and How Kiev Arose, The Emergence of Ideas of the State among the Eastern Slavs and The Origins of Rus.
Among those in the Academy of Sciences of the Ukraine who distinguished themselves as ringleaders in this campaign of persecution were M. Shamota, the author of a negative review of O. Honchar’s novel The Cathedral, and Skaba, the director of the Institute of History, who was once in charge of ideological work in the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Ukraine. Shamota categorically demanded the dismissal of Mikhailyna Kotsyubynska (CCE 2.1, No. 39), and Skaba, in denouncing Braichevsky, said “I will not stand for this vermin”.
In Kiev University the lecturer V.A. Vyshensky was reprimanded for signing the letter. Master of Physical-Mathematical Sciences V. H. Bodnarchuk was dismissed from the university by an illegal order, without the sanction of the Academic Council, on grounds that have no basis in law: “for actions incompatible with the high calling of a Soviet teacher”. The order was hurriedly signed by the Rector of Kiev University, I. T. Shvets, the subject of a celebrated newspaper feuilleton entitled “Jack of All Trades”. This was done in spite of the fact that a teachers’ meeting had voted only that Bodnarchuk be suspended from teaching work.
Shvets also distinguished himself as one of the organizers of the whole campaign at Kiev University. He denounced the Department of Applied Mathematics as a “nest of opposition” that should be “disbanded”, demanded that “Party members who have spoken weakly must be investigated by the Party bureau”, and so on. He would not allow Bodnarchuk to finish his lecture course and conduct the examinations on it.
Symptomatic were the speeches by Corresponding Member of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences, H. N. Polozhy. Polozhy is notorious among the mathematicians as the organizer of campaigns against Jews, and also of the campaign against two well-known mathematicians, B.V. Hnidenko and G.E. Shylov, in 1962. In his speeches, he kept saying that mathematicians should not go in for politics: “Certain Moscow mathematicians were not doing very well in their work, so they decided to seek glory in another field.” Demanding drastic measures, he asked: “Why do you waste so much time on them?” and said at one point: “The University of Saint Vladimir” (the pre-revolutionary name of Kiev University) “sounds just as good as “Shevchenko University”.” Polozhy attacked a colleague in his own department, Didenko, simply because he abstained from voting at the meeting on Bodnarchuk, and rescinded a decision to recommend him for promotion to a senior lectureship.
The poet Ivan Drach was expelled from the Party.
A.B. Zaboi, a student in her fifth [final] year at the Kiev Arts Institute was expelled from the institute.
The teacher L. Orel was dismissed from two different schools at which she taught.
The mathematician Leonid Plyushch was dismissed from the Institute of Cybernetics “due to cutbacks in staff” after he not only signed a joint letter but wrote his own individual letter about the winter trial in Moscow.
G. Minyailo who had organised a discussion club, with the permission of the Ukrainian Komsomol’s Central Committee, was dismissed from work at the Kiev Institute for Microinstruments.
R. Motruk was sacked from the Kiev Radio Committee “due to cutbacks in staff” because he disregarded his superiors’ instructions and went to the statue of Shevchenko on 22 May. On that day, which is marked each year as the day of [the national poet] Shevchenko’s funeral, the authorities in Kiev did everything to prevent a rally or demonstration taking place. An official festival was organised next to the statue, with performances by professional and amateur performers, with an audience drawn from the Komsomol, volunteer police and even the military. Those people who regarded it as a natural tradition to meet at the statue that day were warned at work not to do so.
Five students in their third year at the historico-philological faculty of Gorky University have written a joint study on “The State and Socialism”. They are V. Pomazov, V. Kupchinov, V. Buidin and two others whose names are not yet known. The study is wholly based on an analysis of Marxist-Leninist documents. All five have been excluded from the Komsomol and the University and immediately conscripted into the army.
At the university Komsomol meeting when they were expelled a student from the section for mathematical linguistics, I. Goldfarb [Clara Geldman], announced that she was leaving the Komsomol [CCE 6.5]. As a consequence of the circulation of the said manuscript and other samizdat works searches were conducted and the following were dismissed from the university: Tavger, doctor of historical sciences; V.V. Pugachyov, professor at the Physics faculty ; S. Pavlenkova, a lecturer at the department of foreign languages; and V. Pavlenkov, a lecturer [CCE 10.6].
Yevgeny Goronkov, a candidate of physico-mathematical sciences at the Urals Polytechnic Institute, one of those running the “Song” club. In May the club invited Yuly Kim to perform in Sverdlovsk. When Kim arrived at the railway station he was met by volunteer police who told him to go back where he came from. The performance was cancelled but Kim sang at the apartment of one of those who had invited him. Two weeks later the person who lived there was arrested by the KGB, presented with a false accusation of murder and intimidated to the point where he handed over all the recordings of the songs, the texts of the songs, and gave the testimony that the KGB wanted. New people were appointed to run the “Song” club and Yevgeny Goronkov was first stopped from going on a work trip to Poland and then dismissed from his work.
Boris Feldman, a student at the Urals Polytechnic Institute, was excluded for samizdat activities.
Valery Alexeyevich Pavlinchuk was born in 1938, graduated in physics at the Sverdlovsk Polytechnic Institute and then worked in the High-Energy Physics Institute at Obninsk, first as a senior laboratory assistant and then as a junior research officer. At the same time, he was taking an external degree at the Institute. He had been elected a member of the Council of the Scientists’ Club, and helped, as an editor and translator, in bringing out the book Jokes among Physicists.
The local press had written favourably about Pavlinchuk’s work as a Party member. The sudden death of Pavlinchuk was reported [CCE 3.1] in the third issue of the Chronicle. Some details about the aftermath of his funeral in Obninsk have become available. Despite the fact that none of the people who spoke at his funeral went out of their way to mention the political side of his activity, those who came to honour his memory were nevertheless subjected to Party and administrative sanctions. This was done on the initiative of the newly appointed Obninsk Party secretary, Novikov, and the First Secretary of the Kaluga Regional Committee, Kondratenkov.
R. Toshinsky, physicist, Master of Physical-Mathematical Sciences, received a Party reprimand.
R. Levit, economist, has been expelled from the Party and sacked “at his own request”. It was also held against Levit that he had once taken part in the publication of the well-known collection Pages from Tarusa.
M. Yu. Lokhvitsky, editor of the local newspaper, has been expelled from the Party and dismissed from his post.
All these three were members of the Obninsk Town Party Committee. They were held responsible, in particular, for the presence at Pavlinchuk’s funeral of the “anti-Sovietists”, Litvinov and Larissa Bogoraz.
Unjustified reprisals were also taken against Pavlinchuk’s friend, A. G. Vasilyev, head of a laboratory in the local branch of the Karpov Institute of Physical Chemistry. A. Vasilyev is the author of fifty published works on physics. At the moment he has found work as a sanitary technician in the housing department of Obninsk. This happened after a session of the standing rules committee, headed by the branch director of the Institute, Nazarov, had passed a decision to deprive Vasilyev of his permit for secret work. He was also, incidentally, accused of once having invited to the Scientists’ Club (as a member of its council) the writers V. Kaverin and A. Sharov, who, allegedly, gave anti-Soviet talks there.
Genrikh Altunyan, major in the Soviet Army, radio specialist and lecturer at the Military Academy in Kharkov, was one of ten of the city’s inhabitants to be searched on 9 August. The searches and subsequent interrogation were conducted under Article 190-1 [187-1 of the Ukrainian Criminal Code] but unlawfully since a specific case was not mentioned. Soon afterwards Altunyan was retired to the reserves and sacked from his job.
V. Kaidan – a student in his fourth year at the section for mathematical linguistics at the Philology Faculty of Moscow State University. There was reference to him in Issue 4 of the Chronicle in the “News in Brief” section. Additional information enables a fuller picture of his case to be given. He was one of several third-year students who in the spring of 1968 refused to join in condemning the teaching record of Shikhanovich [CCE 2.1, No 80] when the latter was being expelled from the University. The students were themselves threatened with expulsion. It was at this time that the letter, mentioned in Issue 4 [CCE 4.7 (4)], from Kaidan to his wife was intercepted. At the beginning of the academic year, in October, Kaidan was investigated three times — once at a general meeting of Komsomol activists, in the presence of representatives of the Faculty’s Party committee. A group of his fellow students condemned his “activities”, but spoke against his expulsion, asking that they be allowed to stand as surety for his good behaviour. Kaidan himself made a statement of regret in writing, but this statement was rejected as “false” because he refused to name the person who had let him read the appeal by Bogoraz and Litvinov. At all the meetings on his case it was decided to expel Kaidan from the Komsomol and to recommend to the Rector that he be expelled from the University. It is said that Kaidan now suffers most of all on account of having written a statement of regret. He did in fact go into the Kashchenko Mental Hospital, but rumours that this happened after a suicide attempt cannot be confirmed.
Four students who, like Kaidan, refused to denounce Shikhanovich have been expelled from the University for “lack of progress in military training”.
145-148. Four students, who like Kaidan refused to speak out against Shikhanovich, were excluded from the university for “failings” in their military training.
Bololov, a student at the Institute of Foreign Languages, wrote a letter to the editors of Voice of America, condemning the invasion of Czechoslovakia. He did not send the letter but mislaid it. Later it turned up at the institute. A gathering of his year’s students decided to expel him from the Komsomol and asked the rector to exclude him from the Institute. Three hours after the meeting Bololov threw himself into the Moskva river but was saved, after which he was moved to a psychiatric hospital.
Marina Melikyan, a lecturer at the department of Russian language for foreigners at Moscow State University, voted against the resolution approving the sending of troops to Czechoslovakia and was dismissed “at her own request”.
Tatyana Bayeva, a student at the Historical Archives Institute, was detained on Red Square on 25 August and excluded from the institute three days later.
Vladimir Gershovich, mathematician and lecturer in the training department of the Likhachov Automobile Works, was outside the courtroom in which the demonstrators were being tried, and argued with some of his students who were members of the works’ volunteer police squad; after they had denounced him to his superiors, he was dismissed from his work.
Irina Yakir, a student of the Institute of Historical Archives, went and stood outside the courtroom on 9 October. On 10 October, after classes, she was summoned to the Komsomol Committee and told not to go there any more, whereupon she said: “My friends are on trial there and if I had been in Moscow on 25 August I should have been with them.” She was expelled from the Komsomol.
Oleg Melnikov, a student of the Biology Faculty at Moscow University, was outside the courtroom and signed a petition demanding that those who had gathered there should be admitted to the proceedings. The dean’s office of the faculty (it is headed by Professor N. P. Naumov) ordered his expulsion from the university – just two months before he was due to take his final examinations.
The Chronicle would like to draw attention to the necessity of establishing the unknown names of other students who suffered repression in Gorky and Moscow.

matches: V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V.