THE SUPREME COURT REFUSED TO RECOGNIZE THE DECISION OF THE ARBITRATION COURT

THE SUPREME COURT REFUSED TO RECOGNIZE THE DECISION OF THE ARBITRATION COURT

THE SUPREME COURT REFUSED TO RECOGNIZE THE DECISION OF THE ARBITRATION COURT
The parties appealed to the arbitration court in order to resolve the dispute over the debt under the contract, presenting counterclaims to each other. The arbitrators, however, refused both sides. The customer, who disagreed with the outcome of the case, filed a lawsuit with the arbitration court (case no. A40-193861/2022).

According to the customer, the contractor performed the work extremely slowly (only 8% of the total amount of work was completed a month before the deadline), in connection with which the customer terminated the contract and demanded the return of 900 million rubles of the unprocessed advance.

The contractor filed a counterclaim in the amount of more than 700 million rubles for groundless refusal of the contract. As a result of the consideration of the dispute, the arbitration court refused both parties. Disagreeing with this outcome, the customer appealed to the arbitration court with a demand to cancel the decision as contrary to the rule of law of the Russian Federation.

The court of first instance explained: based on his arguments, the contractor is challenging the decision of the arbitration court due to his disagreement with the conclusions of the arbitrator, and this is not enough to recognize it as contrary to the rule of law of the Russian Federation. In addition, the parties themselves agreed on the final nature of the decision. In this regard, the satisfaction was denied. The appeal upheld these findings.

The Supreme Court, however, did not agree with the decision. They recalled that the cancellation of the decision of the arbitration court due to its contradiction to the rule of law of the Russian Federation cannot be limited by such factors as the consent of the parties.

Having refused to return the unprocessed advance, the arbitrators referred to the customer's obligation to pay compensation to the contractor for the work already performed. At the same time, the arbitration court refused to recover this compensation to the contractor, since the work performed had already been covered by the advance paid to him.

As a result, the economic dispute between the parties was not actually resolved, and the decision made led to unjustified enrichment of the contractor. This is a violation of the principle of prohibition of unjustified enrichment and the principle of legality of a court decision, which are elements of the public order of the Russian Federation.

The acts of the lower courts have been canceled, the case has been sent for new consideration to the first instance.


08.09.2023