The Supreme Court issued Ruling No. 307-ES24-19068 dated February 10, 2025, in case No. A40-191684/2022, which corrected the error of the arbitration court, which did not apply the rules on the bankruptcy moratorium for the penalties.

The Supreme Court explained how to correctly calculate the penalty if the term for fulfilling the obligation ended before introducing the moratorium whereas the obligation was actually fulfilled after it began.

Ekaterina Schmitt, TV&P lawyer, commented to the “Advokatskaya Gazeta” (Russian Advocacy Newspaper) that this ruling concerns the interpretation of a fairly obvious issue. If the primary obligation arose before the moratorium was introduced, but the actual fulfillment period fell after this date, then the penalty for late performance is not subject to collection. According to the expert, the lower courts confused the concepts of "main obligation" and "obligation to pay financial sanctions. The expert stated that the fulfillment date of the obligation does not affect the applicability of the moratorium. What is important is the date it should have been fulfilled stated in the contract.

Thus, in the case that reached the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, the plaintiff lost the right to a penalty only because the term for fulfilling the primary obligation ended only 1 day before the start of the moratorium. At the same time, in its previous rulings, the Supreme Court repeatedly indicated that financial sanctions are not charged on the claims that arose before the introduction of the moratorium.

“Advokatskaya Gazeta” (Russian Advocacy Newspaper) is the official body of the Russian Federal Bar Association (published since 2007). The Newspaper’s publications are devoted to the most important legal topics, case law, as well as legal practice and issues of advocacy.

No copying of this information without quoting the source of publication is allowed. If you need to contact the TV&P lawyers you may use the application form in “Contacts”.