According to him, in particular, the courts incorrectly approached

[tanjimajuha20]

Google's position

At the hearing, the lawyer for the American company called the decisions of the courts of first instance, appellate and cassation unlawful, since they do not take into account the arguments of the company itself.

"The court is obliged to maintain independence, objectivity and impartiality, exercising control over the process, to assist in the implementation of rights. However, everyone knows that we have about 20 lawsuits from TV companies against Google regarding access to channels, some of which have already been considered by the cassation court, and after the consideration with the ruling, I have a strong opinion that not a single argument was considered by either the court of first instance or the court of appeal, as well as by the cassation court. That is, it is not indicated why the rules we refer to are not applied. Moreover, we specifically built our entire position on this case exclusively on 10-15 explanations of the Plenum of the Supreme Court. But - "Emelya, your week" - the cassation court did not indicate for any of the plenums, and why Google does not have the right to refer to these plenums," the lawyer said.

He added that it is unclear greece whatsapp resource on what basis the court does not take into account Google's lawyers' references to Russian by-laws, which include the Supreme Court's clarifications. "Google presents arguments, and does not refer to unfriendly American legislation, the legislation of Great Britain and other unfriendly countries, but only to Russian procedural legislation, to the clarifications of the Plenum of the Supreme Court on their application. But not a single instance responds to any of these arguments. Either it considers it beneath its dignity to respond to Google's arguments, or it does not like the lawyer, or it does not like the company - but at least something should have been written," the representative of the American company was indignant.

he use of the plaintiffs' evidence base, incorrectly certified the screenshots, and incorrectly applied the norms of foreign legislation that do not contradict the principles of law and order. The Google representative also noted that the courts did not establish when the representatives of the blocked channels had contractual relations with the company.

"Not even the dates when the contract was concluded have been established for any TV company. That is, all the courts of first and appellate instances tell us that we have obligations that arose from the acceptance of the terms, but the uniqueness of the situation is that not a single court has established when the obligation arose. They say that you have obligations, they impose billions in penalties for non-fulfillment, but no one has even bothered to establish [when they occurred]. How can you say that we have obligations if you do not say when they arose," the lawyer emphasized.

In addition, he noted that the fact that a user has a login and password for an account to which a YouTube channel is linked does not mean that the rights to the content posted on this channel have been transferred to him, since there is no such provision in Russian legislation.