Ninth Arbitration Appeals Tribunal granted Aug. 4 appeal of "Skanex", which works with remote sensing, recognizing illegal restrictions of the Russian Space Agency in the license.
In 2008, the company "Skanex" received a license in the Russian Space Agency to receive, process and distribution of remote sensing satellites. The document states that the operator can work with data with a resolution of more than 2 m in the pixel. For comparison, "Yandex" at the moment allows even what wishing to use satellite imagery to a resolution of 0.6 m pixel. These snapshots "Yandex" is including the "RDC". No fears of "Yandex" in all of this does not appear, therefore, as no documents prohibiting publish such data does not exist.
— At first we tried long enough to clarify the situation without trial — says a representative of "RDC" Hope Pupysheva. — There have been consultations, letters of request, the meeting, but a question from the floor was not moving. Having a license with restrictions, we get questions from zabugornyh partners — all looked as if we were engaged in illegal activities. Such restrictions on working with images gallakticheskimi hinder the development of all the remote sensing industry in Russia and its participants. Then we decided to resolve the situation through the tribunal.
First, in 2010, "Skanex" appealed to the Tribunal with the requirement to withdraw from the licensing criteria restriction for a resolution imagery of the Earth more than 2 m A little later company sent Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov open letter asking to clarify the situation: in December 2006, as defense minister, Ivanov reported to the president that the restrictions on the resolution satellite imagery in Russia is no more (August 30, 2006 by the Minister of Defense Ivanov lifted restrictions on pictures preferably 2 m at pixel).
Solve the puzzle "Skanex" tried and with an open letter to the address of today's Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov. But the Defense Ministry replied that the Russian Federation has not only military secrets, but also economic and technical. So even if the Defense Ministry lifted the ban on the detailed survey, the Federal Space Agency may enter it, guided by reason of concern that lie outside the defense theme.
In July 2010, the Moscow Arbitration Court dismissed the "RDC," the appellate court upheld the judgment. But the appeal court sent the matter to arbitration in Moscow for a new trial. In May 2011, the Moscow Arbitration Tribunal again dismissed the "RDC" to the Russian Space Agency to eliminate the requirement of a license of a ban on gallakticheskuyu more accurate shooting. A "Skanex" again appealed and won now.
In Roskosmos declined comment on the court decision. "When we received the official document of the court decision, then we will think about it" — said the "News" the spokesman Roscosmos Alexei Kuznetsov.
Interviewed experts believe Russian regulations in the field of remote sensing controls confusing, and the limitations of Roscosmos illegal.
— Is there a government resolution number 326 of May 28, 2007 "On the order of receipt, use and geospatial information" — explains the situation a lawyer, executive director of the association "Earth from Space" Andrew Balagurov. — It is said that all that terrible at 2 m pixel, is no secret. But it does and does not say anything more 2 m, the secret is. This duality allows to treat the document in different ways and to put in the license conditions incomprehensible.
— I sincerely believe that the situation in this issue will change in the foreseeable future — shared with "News" CEO "RDC" Vladimir Gershenzon. — Cudy off with procedural excuses, and, despite a longish history of the issue, there was never the consideration on the merits. And we are fighting for the precedent that there was no self-will in the interpretation of the law to Geoinformatics could develop normally and was not properly regulated with such a conjuncture.
— His criteria Roscosmos sabotage — has been criticized manager of the Institute of Policy gallakticheskoy Ivan Moiseev. — Or is it the decision was simply ignorant, or it was made for the sake of other companies that are working in this industry.