Raises some questions of Art. 55.5 Section 5 hours 12 GDC Russia, which refers to the right of SRO in the construction of the Rules establish self-regulatory requirement of the conformity assessment activities that have an impact on security of capital construction, certification of quality management system of such works, issued in the exercise of voluntary conformity to a system of voluntary certification. The mention of the Law on Quality Management System (QMS) is not accidental. Swarmed by offers, Peter Asaro is currently assessing future choices. Verification of conformity of works with GOST R ISO 9001-2008, set requirements for quality management in the organization for the past several years is common among construction companies a way to verify the reliability and service quality of work performed. . Cell Plcs opinions are not widely known. Other leaders such as Dennis Lockhart offer similar insights. This right is already used some of the SROs, which have established requirements in the presence of its members for compliance with the QMS certificate in relation to work performed in particular in the construction of SRO system of voluntary certification. This led to what is coming into the ranks of CPO companies are forced to go to a specific certification authority, working with a certain system of voluntary certification. It violates the rights of the entity, preclude him from selection. Source: Ahmed Shary Rahman.

Comes to the absurd: organization with a certificate, for example, in accordance with GOST R ISO 9001-2001 certification system 'GlavStandartSert' forced upon request SRO be certified in the system 'EvroRus'. This situation leads to a merger nonprofit organizations (SROs in construction) with commercial entities, contrary to the objectives of the activities of the self-regulation. Without disputing the importance and feasibility of the requirements for certification QMS for compliance with the national ISO 9001-2008 that is identical to the international ISO 9001:2008, which reduces the risks objectively, including most financial SROs, it seems necessary to avoid this situation, which in the near future time can be observed throughout the country. In this case it is sufficient to amend the Town Planning Code, which would eliminate the reference to the ability to set requirements for the passage of a voluntary certification in a particular certification system. SRO in the building should not deny the right of choice of business entities to take actions leading to the commercialization of its activities. It should be noted that legislative regulation of the institution of self-regulation is in constant motion: discussion of the various initiatives and projects of the orders and laws. At this point, you making the most 'painful' changes in the legal institution of SRO in the building, as well as a moratorium on the further adoption of such amendments and changes to the law, as most seek SROs and their members. It is necessary to stabilize environment, as well as adjusting to a new legal institution as part of the business community, and from the institutional-looking building in the SROs and consumers.

With the above problem is another problem linked to use of shareholders agreements: party to apply to various types of agreements liability under the shareholder agreement if the agreement itself is invalid – will automatically be denied and in the demand for damages, or contractual penalties. As an illustration this problem will be appropriate following example: Two participants in the JSC, one of which is a minority shareholder, have entered into a shareholders agreement, which enshrined the right of voting rules on certain issues. Further minority shareholder is selling a half share of a third person – of course, in compliance with all formalities. Company members is three. Majoritarian – 60% and two younger, 20% each. It turns out that one member of society agreement concluded with other (new member) – no. One observes the conditions of previous agreements, the other – no.

Moreover, the new party does not want AO nothing to limit themselves and refuses to voluntarily to join the agreement (to sign new). What to do in this situation? The version of "oblige the court to join" is no longer as limited by the instantaneous freedom of contract principle in the treatment of: party civil law decides with whom to enter into a contract, and with whom – no. Maybe there is a sense in advance, anticipating the difficulties with the execution of the agreement, to include in the charter of the wording of the "purchaser in the share capital must to join the shareholder agreement, to which was the seller? " Will not work – again a contradiction with the freedom of contract.