THE SUPREME COURT PROPOSED TO RECALCULATE THE PENALTY FROM THE BANKRUPT AT 365% PER ANNUM

There has been a precedent in the practice of insolvency cases of citizens, which makes it necessary to reconsider approaches to calculating penalties. The Judicial Board of the Supreme Court of Russia (SCES of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation) initiated a retrial in the case of debtor Victoria Stasevich, pointing out to the lower authorities the need to strictly link penalties with the real damage to the creditor. A simple statement of the fact of a long delay in payment is not an automatic reason for recognizing huge fines as legitimate.

The starting point of the conflict was the appeal of Mr. Ivan Tsvetkov, who demanded that the citizen be declared bankrupt. Two sums appeared in his statement: The current debt is 50 thousand rubles and an obligation secured by a pledge of real estate (apartment) in the amount of 4.7 million rubles. However, the "highlight" of the case was that the lion's share of this claim – about 4.2 million – was precisely the penalty accrued over the years, and not the body of the debt.

Initially, the judicial authorities in the Rostov region sided with the applicant. The court of first instance recognized the claims as justified, launching a four-month restructuring procedure against Stasevich and including the entire requested amount in the register. Subsequently, this decision was unconditionally confirmed by the appeal and cassation.

However, the debtor did not agree with this state of affairs and went to the Supreme Court. Her main argument was that the accrued interest was predatory and bonded, being completely disproportionate to the original amount of debt. After all, the terms of the contract stipulated a rate of 1% for each day of delay, which gives an astronomical 365% on an annual basis.

During the proceedings, the highest court focused on a key nuance: the previous court decision on the dispute over the recovery of the principal debt does not close the issue of reducing penalties in the bankruptcy case. Previously, the assessment was given only to accruals for strictly defined time intervals. The rate itself and its scale for the future were not the subject of detailed study at that time.

The judges recalled the legal doctrine established by the Constitutional Court back in 2000 (definition No. 263-O), which allows reducing the penalty in case of obvious disproportionality to the consequences of violations. At the same time, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation redistributed the burden of proof: now, with sky-high figures of fines, it is the creditor who must confirm their economic justification before the court. Current short-term loan rates or macroeconomic inflation indicators can serve as justification.

Criticizing the work of colleagues, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation noted that the lower courts approached the issue formally. Instead of requesting objective financial justification, they settled for the superficial verdict that a long delay period automatically justifies any amount of penalties. Since the principle of proportionality has not been properly verified, all previously adopted acts in this part have been repealed. The case has been sent for review with instructions to take into account all the requirements set out.