The second review of the Supreme Court's practice for 2022: important positions

13 oct 2022
The second review of the Supreme Court's practice for 2022: important positions

In particular, the Review formulates the following legal positions:


  • The borrower proves the lack of money of the signed contract

If the borrower signed a contract stating that he received the money, then in case of a dispute, it is the borrower who must prove the lack of money of this transaction. And also, if his counterparty does not have a notarized copy of the loan agreement, this is not a reason to recognize that the borrower has fulfilled his obligations.

Case No. 78-KG21-58-K3, item 4 of the review.


    To demand payment from the insurance company from the harm-doer

If the insurer and the service station have not repaired the damaged car properly, then the victim may claim an insurance payment from the insurer of the causer of the damage under the CTP.

Case No. 41-KG21-49-K4, item 5 of the review

  • What is meant by an equity participation agreement, regardless of the name of the agreement chosen by the parties

The parties have concluded an agreement on participation in shared—equity construction — regardless of what they called it - if there are essential conditions in the document and the deal was made by the developer in order to attract money from citizens and legal entities to build an apartment building.

Case No. 46-KG21-40-K6, item 6 of the review.

  • If the plaintiff-a legal entity missed the statute of limitations, it will not be restored

If the defendant declared the application of the statute of limitations, which the plaintiff-legal entity missed, then the court will not restore it, regardless of the reasons for the omission.

Case No. 18-KG22-15-K4, item 8 of the review.

  • Appeal the court decision on the basis of which the bankruptcy case was initiated

When the recoverers in the enforcement proceedings cannot exercise their rights due to the fact that the arbitration court initiated a bankruptcy case on the basis of a decision of another court, they can appeal this act.

Case No. 5-KG21-140-K2, item 14 of the review.



  • About the contractual condition limiting damages

The law prohibits limiting liability for intentional violation of obligations (Part 4 of Article 401 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). But the condition of the contract on an exceptional penalty (excluding the recovery of damages) is not invalid in itself — it is necessary to check the intent. The economic board gave such an explanation in a case where the courts recovered damages in favor of the supplier, although the buyer claimed that he violated the obligation due to the coronavirus pandemic. The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation pointed out: the lower authorities had to check the behavior and relations of the parties, find out whether the buyer intentionally violated the obligation, and whether the supplier did not contribute to an increase in losses.

Case no. A40-78186/2020, item 17 of the review.

  • The court may reduce the amount of court costs as damages

A company that has successfully challenged liability under the Administrative Code in a court of general jurisdiction has the right to file a separate claim for recovery of court costs as losses from the treasury of the appropriate level. Solving this issue, the court may, by analogy with the law, determine reasonable limits for their recovery, reducing their size.

Case no. A40-214071/2020, item 22 of the review.

  • On the limits of consideration of the case in the appeal

The appeal cannot go beyond the consideration of the complaint, worsening the situation of the person compared to what was in the first instance. Such explanations were given by the Supreme Court in the case where the firm appealed an antimonopoly fine of 1.5 million rubles. The first instance reduced its size to 600,000 rubles, and the second instance increased the fine to 700,000 rubles. The cassation agreed with this.

The appeal thus went beyond the company's complaint and worsened the company's position. At the same time, the antimonopoly authority did not challenge the act of the first instance at all. With such instructions, the economic board upheld it.

Case no. A07-25147/2020, item 23 of the review.



  • The right to familiarization

The citizen sent appeals to the local authorities, and then demanded to give him the opportunity to get acquainted with the materials of consideration of his appeals in order to photograph them. But the officials refused him, because, in their opinion, after receiving a response to the appeal, the applicant no longer has the right to such actions. 

The Supreme Court noted that this was not the case: "Familiarizing a citizen with the named documents and materials after receiving an official response to his appeal gives him the opportunity to personally verify the validity of such an answer." Additional restrictions on such a right may be established in the law, the Supreme Court emphasizes in its review.

Case No. 18-KAD22-19-K4, item 31 of the review.

  • No solution, no responsibility

The Commission of the Federal Antimonopoly Service adopted a decision in which it established the fact of violation of antimonopoly legislation. After that, a case of an administrative offense was initiated. Then the court declared the decision of the FAS commission invalid. Then the case of an administrative offense is also terminated due to the absence of the composition.

Case No. 48-AD22-3-K7, paragraph 38 of the review.



  • Drunkenness as a reason to stay without a mantle

If the police detained a judge in a public place, for example on the street, drunk and taken to the department, it harms not only her personal reputation, but also detracts from the authority of the judiciary as a whole. Therefore, early termination of powers is a reasonable disciplinary penalty for such an offense.

Case no. DK22-7, item 45 of the review.


You can find out about other issues that have been resolved in the Review by following the link:

You can read the review at the link: Review of judicial practice of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 2 (2022).