01.06 of the Tax Code, in these cases does not apply. However, taxpayer who believes that his rights in the implementation of tax control, violated the right to appeal in court. Despite the fact that the courts are not empowered to check the feasibility of decisions of tax authorities (on conducting counter-checks, the recovery of documents, appointment of examinations, etc.), judicial review as a means of dispute resolution helps prevent the conversion of the tax control of the necessary tools fiscal policy tool in the suppression of economic independence (COP Decision of the Russian Federation 16.07.2004 N 14-P). From the contents of Art. 87 of the Tax Code is visible to the relationship of three years of audited taxpayers with a year inspection, but not to the year a decision on its holding. In this case, the inspection inspectors in 2003, could be subjected to only 2002, 2001, 2000, the company activity.
Consequently, the decision of the tax authority in of additional taxation, fines and penalties for 1999 is incorrect (Resolution of the Federal Defense of 13.07.2004 N KA-A40/5726-04). The taxpayer appealed the action to attract local Tax for the site inspection the inspector did not specified in the resolution of the assessment. As pointed out by the court, finding in the taxpayer's employee IMNS not authorized to perform the verification, ie not specified in the decision of the head (deputy) to hold the local Tax test is inappropriate because legislators have just what a person can participate in the on-site inspection and does not differentiate between them depending on the task at the time of the audit work (Resolution of the Federal Organ from 23.08.2004 N A64-747/04-17).
Upon receipt, the date and hour receipt is in the form, and the owner is sent a notification. If the application meets the relevance to business requirements, the period of protection will come into force from the date of filing. Infringement of third party Period The registration application in the Benelux countries is ten years and may be updated an infinite number of times at the request of the owner, but each time on a ten-year period. The owner himself has to take action against a third hand, if during the period of registration of such third party misusing or infringing its registered trademark. Trademark Office Benelux has no authority to such measures. However, there is an opportunity for the owner of an earlier trade mark within two months after the publication of the application submitted to the Trademark Office Benelux written objection to the trademark, which is: Has the likeness of his own trademark, may be misleading with regard to its own well-known trademark. This procedure objection applies only in situations where has been sought registration of the later trademark.
In all other cases in which a third party infringes the rights of the trademark owner, the manner in which the owner may take action depends on the circumstances of the case. If you are not expected settlement of the dispute, the court will decide whether there are violations of rights or trademark infringement. If there is no specific agreement to the contrary, the court's jurisdiction based on the domicile of the defendant or the place where led to litigation liability arose or occurred, or are taking place. The place where the trademark was registered or posted, in any case does not in itself can serve as a basis for determining jurisdiction. If these criteria are insufficient to determine jurisdiction, the plaintiff may file suit in the Court of Brussels, The Hague or Luxembourg, at his choice. After the national capacity Justice will be used, the owner may also apply to the national court which had jurisdiction over the dispute in the last instance, for the consideration of prejudicial question to the Court of Justice of the Benelux or, if it concerns a trademark of the Commonwealth, the European Court of Justice.