RusBankrot
We know everything about bankruptcy
03/05/2024
Friday
THIS DAY IN HISTORY:
3 May 
2021 World Press Freedom Day
2020 World Press Freedom Day
1957 Collective farms were transformed into the state farms in the USSR.
1957 Collective farms were transformed into the state farms in the USSR.
1841 New Zealand was declared a British colony.
1841 New Zealand was declared a British colony.
3 May
2021 World Press Freedom Day
2020 World Press Freedom Day
1957 Collective farms were transformed into the state farms in the USSR.
1957 Collective farms were transformed into the state farms in the USSR.
1841 New Zealand was declared a British colony.
1841 New Zealand was declared a British colony.
THE REFUSAL TO COLLECT THE ADVANCE PAYMENT MUST BE JUSTIFIED
As part of the debtor's bankruptcy, the company filed an application with the court to include its claims in the relevant register.
The position of the lower courts
The first instance satisfied the company's application and the parties did not dispute that the company had transferred an advance payment to the debtor under the subcontract agreement.
It is not known whether the debtor has completed the work or returned the funds received, there is no evidence of one or the other in the case file. The first instance concluded that the claims were justified and confirmed, and included the claim in the third stage of the register.
The appeal and the district court refused to satisfy the company's claims.
In refusing to satisfy the application, the courts proceeded from the fact that the company's claims against the debtor had already been the subject of consideration in the framework of the claim proceedings, and their satisfaction was refused.
The position of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court annulled the judicial acts of the appellate and cassation instances and sent the dispute for new consideration to the appeal (Ruling of the Supreme Court of 31.01.2024 in case No. A 73-6893/202 1 (No. 303-ES23-17584)).
In formulating its position, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation stated the following:
• Within the framework of this dispute and in another case, the company sued the same defendant and on the same basis – the transfer of an advance payment to the debtor in the absence of counter-execution or refund of funds.
• The statement of claim in another case for the recovery of an advance does not contain a reference to any articles of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation - neither on the recovery of unjustified enrichment, nor on the return of an unprocessed advance under the relevant agreement. When considering the above-mentioned case, the court independently qualified the company's claims as based on the provisions of Chapter 60 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, which led to a refusal to satisfy them with reference to the plaintiff's choice of an inappropriate way to protect the violated right due to the absence of the composition of unjustified enrichment, since the transfer of funds by the company to the debtor was carried out within the framework of contractual relations.
• Since the subject matter of the disputes differs, the court of first instance correctly indicated that these claims are not identical, and the conclusions of the appellate and district courts to the contrary are erroneous.
• Satisfying the requirements of the company, the court of first instance legitimately pointed to specific circumstances confirming the existence and amount of debt; the absence of any disputes that the company transferred an advance payment to the debtor in the specified amount by appropriate payment orders; the absence of evidence of completion of work or repayment of debt. None of these circumstances, established by the court of first instance, received any refutation or legal assessment from the appeal.
The position of the lower courts
The first instance satisfied the company's application and the parties did not dispute that the company had transferred an advance payment to the debtor under the subcontract agreement.It is not known whether the debtor has completed the work or returned the funds received, there is no evidence of one or the other in the case file. The first instance concluded that the claims were justified and confirmed, and included the claim in the third stage of the register.
The appeal and the district court refused to satisfy the company's claims.
In refusing to satisfy the application, the courts proceeded from the fact that the company's claims against the debtor had already been the subject of consideration in the framework of the claim proceedings, and their satisfaction was refused.
The position of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court annulled the judicial acts of the appellate and cassation instances and sent the dispute for new consideration to the appeal (Ruling of the Supreme Court of 31.01.2024 in case No. A 73-6893/202 1 (No. 303-ES23-17584)).In formulating its position, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation stated the following:
• Within the framework of this dispute and in another case, the company sued the same defendant and on the same basis – the transfer of an advance payment to the debtor in the absence of counter-execution or refund of funds.
• The statement of claim in another case for the recovery of an advance does not contain a reference to any articles of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation - neither on the recovery of unjustified enrichment, nor on the return of an unprocessed advance under the relevant agreement. When considering the above-mentioned case, the court independently qualified the company's claims as based on the provisions of Chapter 60 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, which led to a refusal to satisfy them with reference to the plaintiff's choice of an inappropriate way to protect the violated right due to the absence of the composition of unjustified enrichment, since the transfer of funds by the company to the debtor was carried out within the framework of contractual relations.
• Since the subject matter of the disputes differs, the court of first instance correctly indicated that these claims are not identical, and the conclusions of the appellate and district courts to the contrary are erroneous.
• Satisfying the requirements of the company, the court of first instance legitimately pointed to specific circumstances confirming the existence and amount of debt; the absence of any disputes that the company transferred an advance payment to the debtor in the specified amount by appropriate payment orders; the absence of evidence of completion of work or repayment of debt. None of these circumstances, established by the court of first instance, received any refutation or legal assessment from the appeal.
09.02.2024
