RusBankrot
We know everything about bankruptcy
05/12/2025
Friday
THIS DAY IN HISTORY:
5 December 
1936 The Stalinist Constitution of the USSR was adopted.
1936 the Stalinist constitution of the USSR was adopted.
1484 Pope Innocent VII initiated the "witch hunt".
1456 An earthquake that destroyed Naples occurred - 35 thousand people died.
1456 occurred an earthquake that destroyed Naples - 35 thousand people died.
5 December
1936 The Stalinist Constitution of the USSR was adopted.
1936 the Stalinist constitution of the USSR was adopted.
1484 Pope Innocent VII initiated the "witch hunt".
1456 An earthquake that destroyed Naples occurred - 35 thousand people died.
1456 occurred an earthquake that destroyed Naples - 35 thousand people died.
The Supreme Court questioned the authenticity of the postal notice on the bankruptcy case
The Judicial Board of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation has reviewed the conclusions of the lower instances. It was about the transfer of 1.5 million, which the debtor made to one of the parties to the dispute as part of the bankruptcy procedure. The courts declared it invalid. The reason for the consideration of the case in the SCEC was the complaint of the recipient of the funds.
The woman claimed a violation of her procedural rights. She pointed out that she had not been notified of the court session, and she did not know about the existence of the act adopted at it. The applicant requested that the procedural time limits be restored so that she could appeal. But the courts of two instances considered the arguments disrespectful and refused.
The appeal noted that the person found out about the lawsuit too late – after six months. According to the court, the notification was sent through the Russian Post, and the recipient was notified according to the list of mail items. In addition, the court drew attention to the court file, from which a person could learn about the date of the court session in advance. There was also a report on the tracking of correspondence in the file. The district court also agreed with these arguments.
However, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation questioned the correctness of the notification. The SCEC drew attention to the materials of the correspondence dispatch report available in the file. It turned out that the postman received the letter at 13:33 on December 13, and 120 seconds later it was noted that the attempt to deliver the shipment was unsuccessful. A week later, the correspondence was returned to the court, as its retention period had expired.
The Supreme Court pointed out that such a short interval between the actions of the mail raises doubts about a real attempt to deliver the letter and inform the addressee. In addition, there is a response from the Russian Post in the case, which states that delivery to the specified address is not carried out due to the lack of a full-time postman.
The author of the complaint was not actually informed about the meeting. She found out about the court's decision only after the bank notified her about the account being blocked. Five days after that, she filed an appeal.
Additionally, the Supreme Court stressed that the court of first instance and the bankruptcy trustee could use an alternative method of communication – e-mail, the address of which is contained in the statement of the Unified State Register of Legal Entities. However, none of the participants in the case took advantage of this.
The applicant was not given the opportunity to participate in the court proceedings and defend her interest. The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation pointed out that in this case the applicant was not obliged to bear the consequences of the poor performance of her duties by the Russian Post. Taking into account all the circumstances, the higher instance sent the case for reconsideration to the court of appeal (10th AAC).
Photo: Freepik
The woman claimed a violation of her procedural rights. She pointed out that she had not been notified of the court session, and she did not know about the existence of the act adopted at it. The applicant requested that the procedural time limits be restored so that she could appeal. But the courts of two instances considered the arguments disrespectful and refused.
The appeal noted that the person found out about the lawsuit too late – after six months. According to the court, the notification was sent through the Russian Post, and the recipient was notified according to the list of mail items. In addition, the court drew attention to the court file, from which a person could learn about the date of the court session in advance. There was also a report on the tracking of correspondence in the file. The district court also agreed with these arguments.
However, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation questioned the correctness of the notification. The SCEC drew attention to the materials of the correspondence dispatch report available in the file. It turned out that the postman received the letter at 13:33 on December 13, and 120 seconds later it was noted that the attempt to deliver the shipment was unsuccessful. A week later, the correspondence was returned to the court, as its retention period had expired.
The Supreme Court pointed out that such a short interval between the actions of the mail raises doubts about a real attempt to deliver the letter and inform the addressee. In addition, there is a response from the Russian Post in the case, which states that delivery to the specified address is not carried out due to the lack of a full-time postman.
The author of the complaint was not actually informed about the meeting. She found out about the court's decision only after the bank notified her about the account being blocked. Five days after that, she filed an appeal.
Additionally, the Supreme Court stressed that the court of first instance and the bankruptcy trustee could use an alternative method of communication – e-mail, the address of which is contained in the statement of the Unified State Register of Legal Entities. However, none of the participants in the case took advantage of this.
The applicant was not given the opportunity to participate in the court proceedings and defend her interest. The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation pointed out that in this case the applicant was not obliged to bear the consequences of the poor performance of her duties by the Russian Post. Taking into account all the circumstances, the higher instance sent the case for reconsideration to the court of appeal (10th AAC).
Photo: Freepik
14.07.2025
