The Supreme Court rejected Nokia's claim, recognizing that mobile phones are legally included in the list of equipment used for reproducing audiovisual works for personal purposes. Importers of such equipment must pay remuneration to copyright holders. The amount of remuneration is set at 1% of the customs value of products. It may be revised later.

As Interfax reports , Nokia representative Timur Ayutkulov asked that the government-approved list of equipment used for the free reproduction of phonograms and audiovisual works for personal use, on which equipment importers are forced to pay a percentage, be declared invalid and contrary to the law. According to him, such a list contradicts Article 1245 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation.

As Ayutkulov argued, “the phone was originally intended for other purposes, and the cameras and voice recorders built into the phone do not provide high-quality playback. There are devices specialized for this purpose for playing audio and video recordings.”

At the same time, Ayutkulov called the remuneration amount of 1% of the customs value of products incorrect, since a cell phone is not used directly for playback, unlike digital video cameras and multimedia computers.

“We commissioned a sociological study from the Levada Center, which confirmed that a negligible percentage of users, about 1.7%, use the phone to play audiovisual images,” he said.

According to Ayutkulov, Nokia entered into an agreement with the Russian Union of Copyright Holders, but has not yet made payments due to a controversial situation.

In turn, a government spokesman said that since users have the opportunity to freely reproduce audiovisual works on mobile phones “without demand or compensation to copyright holders,” importers of such equipment will have to pay them a percentage. “Copying music and movies to a phone is also reproduction for personal purposes,” said a representative of the Cabinet of Ministers.

At the same time, according to him, the amount of remuneration of 1% of the customs value of products may be revised in the future. “We first want to see how it works, and then we will review the rates,” he said.

At the same time, the prosecutor asked Nokia to reject the claim and leave the list in force. In her opinion, the applicant’s arguments do not indicate the illegality of the contested provision. “The applicant does not deny that the mobile phone is used to play audiovisual works for personal purposes,” the prosecutor said.

After hearing the arguments of the parties, the court rejected Nokia's application, finding the list legal, and upheld the government's decision.

Nokia went to court on May 17, 2012. Today, the company's claim was rejected by the Supreme Court, stating that the application to the courts to challenge the provisions of the government decree "is not an excuse for the failure of the largest importers of telephone sets to comply with the legal requirement for importers to pay funds to pay royalties for the free reproduction of phonograms and audiovisual works for personal use "

The Supreme Court rejected Nokia's claim; mobile phones will have to pay interest