23.10.23
How can a power company reimburse the costs?
I would like to discuss the situation when a power supply company terminates a power transmission agreement and has to reimburse the expenses caused by its execution.
A typical dispute looks like this: the owner of a facility receiving power wants to connect it to the power grid. He sends an application to a power supply company requesting a technological connection. The power supply company enters into a power transmission agreement with this person (hereinafter referred to as the Agreement) and issues technical specifications (hereinafter referred to as TS). Then the power supply company fulfills its obligations under the technical specifications such as building a substation, laying cables, and reconstructing networks with its own money. At the same time, the customer either fails to pay for technological connection or does not fulfill its obligations under the technical specifications, or both.
In such cases, a power supply company would rather terminate an agreement with such a customer and reimburse the expenses for
implementation of the technical specifications, which in some cases can be enormous.1 In this regard, power supply companies meet several obstacles: how to terminate the agreement with the customer and reimburse the expenses incurred by fulfilling the obligations under technical specifications?
Grounds for agreement termination
Legally a power transmission agreement is an agreement to provide a paid service of technological connection to an electrical grid,2. Meaning it s a public agreement and, therefore, a power supply company cannot refuse to enter into it using provisions of Article 782 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. In real life, power supply companies have three options to part with their customer, depending on the latter. s behavior.
Option 1: before the agreement expires or the deadline for executing obligations under the technical specification, the customer in all manners informs a power supply company in advance that he/she will not pay for technological connection or fulfill the technical specification for some reason. In this case, a power supply company terminates the agreement, as stipulated in cl. 2, Art. 328 of Russia s Civil Code (the so-called "foreseeable violation"), and recovers incurred expenses as losses under the model of the negative interest agreement.3 At the same time, the court may refuse to terminate the agreement if it finds that the technical specifications are impossible to fulfill in the way the parties agreed upon.4
Option 2: the customer did not make the full payment for the technological connection on time or did not fulfill all obligations under the technical specification. In this case, a power supply company terminates the contract, as stipulated in sub-cl. 1, cl. 2, Art. 450 of Russia s Civil Code due to a sufficient violation of its terms and recovers expenses as losses.5 However, the courts do not tend to distinguish different grounds for agreement termination, referring without any justification to Articles 328 and 450 of the Civil Code6 simultaneously or to Articles 450, 779, and 781 of the Code7 simultaneously. Nevertheless, the outcome will be in favor of a power supply company no matter the grounds.
Option 3: the customer cannot fulfill the obligations under the agreement and their obligations under the technical specifications for reasons beyond his/her control. For example, after entering the agreement, the customer lost the power receiving devices or the right to the land where they are located. In real life, this option is common for cases when the customer is the state or a municipal institution, which lost its financial support for the agreement due to the decision of higher-ups. In this case, the customer does not terminate the agreement under art. 782 of the Civil Code, but refers to force major circumstances preventing fulfillment of the liabilities to a power supply company and, as the outcome, agreement termination under Article 416 of the Civil Code. In this case, a power supply company may terminate the agreement, as stipulated in Article 451 of Russia s Civil Code, as the circumstances have changed substantially. In case of agreement termination, this rule requires the court to distribute fairly the expenses incurred during the execution of the said agreement between the parties. In judicial practice, it is known as "reimbursing costs for works performed and all expenses caused by it to a power supply company.8
I would like to emphasize that the lack of state financing for a power transmission agreement, as well as the failure of a federal state institution to meet the limits of budget obligations, are recognized in judicial practice as grounds to terminate an agreement precisely because the circumstances have changed substantially,9. It also includes cases when the court believes that the cancellation of financial support is the grounds to terminate obligations under the agreement following Art. 416 of Russia s Civil Code. In this case, the contract is to be terminated because the circumstances have changed substantially.10
The reasoning of the courts for termination of the power transmission agreement recovery of the costs incurred by power supply companies for execution of the said agreement is as follows:
A power supply company can recover the following amounts from the customer:
Firstly, the expenses on preparing and issuing technical specifications, getting the approval from a system operator, preparing estimate documentation, making design, survey, construction, and installation works within the tariff, i.e., within the payment limits on technological connection approved by a regional tariff authority.
While objecting to the recovery claims of power supply companies, customers often refer to the fact that a power supply company can use energy facilities built at the customer s expense to connect other customers equipment to the electrical grid.
This argument is deemed to be erroneous for the following reasons.
Connection of other customers to these facilities will be carried out under the tariff set by a tariff authority. Tariffs on technological connection for new customers will not consider the expenses of a power supply company on connecting the existing customer, since these expenses have already been incurred and considered in the tariff on technological connection for the previous customer. In other words, these expenses will not be economically justified when forming a tariff for new customers. Their inclusion in the tariff on technological connection or power transmission service will contradict cl. 2, art. 23.2 of the Federal Law "On Power Industry" and cl.87 of the Pricing Principles of Regulated Prices (Tariffs) in the Power Industry (approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dd. December 29, 2011, No. 1178) and cl.17 of Regulations on Technological Connection of Power Receiving Devices owned by Power Consumers, Power Production Facilities, as well as Electrical Grid Facilities Owned by a Power Supply Company and Other Persons to Electrical Grids (approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 861 dd. December 27, 2004, hereinafter referred to as Regulations No. 861).
Thus, the power released on the electrical grid facilities under the power transmission agreement can be used to connect new customers. At the same time, the latter will pay the expense for technological connection only for newly built electrical grid facilities from the existing electrical grid to the facilities of new customers and will not compensate for the expenses previously incurred by the power supply company at previously created electrical grid facilities. Thus, in case the claim is declined, the power supply company will not be able to reimburse the expenses on the technological connection under the agreement with the former customer by including these expenses in the tariff on the technological connection of other customers. It also will not be able to include these expenses in the tariff on power transmission services.
Moreover, in 2020-2022, judicial practice was formed in cases on termination of power transmission agreements and claims of power supply companies, according to which leaving electrical grid facilities built for technological connection in the ownership of a power supply company is not an obstacle to recover the expenses on their construction within the tariff on the technological connection from the customer.14
Secondly, the VAT rate is 20% regardless of the agreement s date, including if it was concluded before September 1, 2019, when the VAT rate was 18%.
According to sub-cl.1, cl. 1, Art. 146 of the Tax Code, the sale of goods (works, services) within the territory of the Russian Federation is recognized as an object of VAT taxation. Following cl.1, Art. 39 of the Tax Code, the paid services rendered by one party to another are recognized as a sale of goods (works, services). The payment for technological connection is stipulated in clause 10 of the agreement, VAT included. The institution has made the advance payment under the agreement, VAT included. Since the company recovers the expenses incurred due to the execution of the power transmission agreement (actual expenses) from the institution, the company is entitled to recover them with VAT included. If the lawsuit is satisfied, the company remains in the same position as if the agreement is still in effect. The same situation happens during recovery of damages (see cl.1 of the Resolution of the Supreme Court Plenum dd. March 24, 2016, No. 7 "On applying the certain provisions of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation on liability for breaching obligations by courts"). If the agreement was still in effect, the company would receive a payment for technological connection, VAT included. Therefore, in case of recovering the same payment through judicial procedures, the company must also recover payment with VAT. The company s accounting report will recognize this money as the vatable turnover under the deal.
Starting January 1, 2019, the VAT rate is 20% (cl. 3 of Article 164 of the Tax Code as amended by Federal Law No. 303-FZ dd. August 3, 2018, "On Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation on Taxes and Fees", hereinafter referred to as Law No. 303–FZ). It is an imperative norm that the parties under the agreement cannot change. At the same time, there are no exceptions for agreements with a long-term nature and transition to the year 2019 and subsequent years, concluded before Law No. 303-FZ has entered into force, including state contracts (Letter of the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation dd. March 28, 2019, No. 03-07-11/21542). Therefore, regardless of the rate specified in the agreement, while providing services from 2019, the contractor is obliged to charge VAT and pay it into the budget at 20% rate (Letter of the Federal Tax Service of Russia dd. September 10, 2018, No. SD-4-3/17537@). The possible recovery of expenses, VAT included, for technological connection in case of an agreement termination is recognized in judicial practice.15
Thirdly, the penalty for failure to fulfill the obligations under the technical specification can be charged to the customer only within the terms of the agreement or the technical specification.
In particular, the power supply company must prove the amount of expenses, their relevance to the execution of the agreement, and the technical specifications. As evidence, it can submit agreements on the construction or reconstruction of substations, overhead lines, laying cable lines, performing engineering surveys, purchasing transformers, fuses, and other materials, as well as forms KC-2 and KC-3, invoices, payment orders, and reconciliation acts.
In practice, there are situations when, due to the abundance of documents, it is difficult to show to the court the calculation made by the power supply company. In this case, it is advisable to request the court to appoint an expert examination. We know about only five cases under consideration in which the courts have appointed an expert examination to calculate the expenses of the power supply company.
What the power supply company needs to prove in court
In particular, the power supply company must prove the amount of expenses, their relevance to the execution of the agreement, and the technical specifications. As evidence, it can submit agreements on the construction or reconstruction of substations, overhead lines, laying cable lines, performing engineering surveys, purchasing transformers, fuses, and other materials, as well as forms KC-2 and KC-3, invoices, payment orders, and reconciliation acts.
In practice, there are situations when, due to the abundance of documents, it is difficult to show to the court the calculation made by the power supply company. In this case, it is advisable to request the court to appoint an expert examination. We know about only five cases under consideration in which the courts have appointed an expert examination to calculate the expenses of the power supply company.
The experts faced the following questions:
1. Does the scope and cost of the work specified in the form KC-3 dd. March 25, 2014, correspond to the works performed under the agreement dd. December 24, 2010?
2. Do the works performed in the form KC-3 on laying cases of polyethylene pipes correspond to technical specifications dd. December 3, 2013, to the agreement dd. December 24, 2010, as well as designs, permits, and requirements of building codes and regulations? If not, what are the inconsistencies, defects, and violations?
1. What are the actual expenses incurred by PJSC "..." while carrying out the activities stipulated by the power transmission agreement dd. December 26, 2008?
2. Does the project documentation developed by request of PJSC "..." comply with the terms of the agreement dd. July 20, 2010?
1. Do the works carried out by PJSC "..." on the reconstruction of TP-729 L1001, 1002 PS 110/6/10kv Central correspond to the works acceptance acts dd. February 24 and April 21, 2015?
2. Have PJSC "..." carried out design and survey, and if so, what are the results and costs at the moment of execution?
3. How much do the reconstruction works of P-729 L1001, 1002 PS 110/6/10 kV Central performed by PJSC "..." cost at the moment of execution?
4. How much does the equipment installed in TP-729 L1001, 1002 PS 110/6/10kv 16 cost under the power transmission agreement dd. April 24, 2013?
5. How much does the equipment removed from TP-729 L1001, 1002 PS 110/6/10 kV cost under the power transmission agreement?
6. Do third-party organizations currently use the equipment installed in TP-729 L1001, 1002 PS 110/6/10 kV?
7. Is there an objective possibility for third-party organizations to use the specified equipment in order to connect to electrical grid facilities?
How many actual expenses did JSC "..." suffer by carrying out the actions stipulated in clause 10.1 of the technical specification and annex to the power transmission agreement?
1. To determine the volume and cost of the works performed by the public joint stock company "..." under the project: "Reconstruction of the indoor switchgear 6-10 kV to connect to a commercial entertainment center and an aqua park" from July 4, 2006, to October 12, 2017, and to implement technical specifications dd. June 26, 2015, on connection to the electrical grids of a commercial entertainment center and an aqua park at the address: under the power transmission agreement dd. July 4, 2006.
2. Are the works performed by PJSC "..." from July 4, 2006, to October 12, 2017, necessary for technological connection, providing the capacity declared by the applicant (3,956 MW), reliable and stable power supply of the commercial entertainment center and the aqua park under the connection characteristics of the object under the agreement dd. July 4, 2006?
Among these five cases, only the last one has the court raising the right questions for experts since they accurately cover all legally significant facts included in the subject of proof. At the same time, the court did not raise unnecessary, purely construction questions that would increase the time and cost of the examination.
In cases when power supply companies file claims against state or municipal budget institutions, the latter often refers to the termination of financing support and, hence, their failure to fulfill obligations under the agreement (Art. 416 of the Civil Code). Meanwhile, even if the state stops the financing support, the customer s obligations before a power supply company cannot be over due to his/her failure to fulfill the said obligations. This conclusion of the Ruling of the Judicial Board for Economic Disputes of the Supreme Court dd. February 24, 2022, No. 308-ES21-20570 in case No. A63-8366/2020, explains as follows.
If a chief administrator (manager) reduces the previous budget financing limits for a state institution, as the recipient of budgetary resources, and it leads to the state institution s failure to fulfill budget obligations arising from the concluded state (municipal) agreements, per the legislation on the contract system, the state institution must ensure new terms of such contracts and agreements, including prices and (or) terms of performance and (or) quantity (volume) of goods (work, services) (cl. 6, Art. 161 of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation).
By cl. 6.1, Art. 161 of the Budget Code, if the provisions of the law (decision) on the budget for the current financial year and the planning period related to the planning period are recognized as invalid under the Budget Code, the state institution has the right to not terminate previously concluded contracts and agreements payable in the planning period, on conditions of new additional agreements to the specified contracts and agreements defining the terms for their execution in the planned period.
According to the provisions of Art. 767 of the Civil Code, when the relevant state bodies or local self–government bodies reduce the funds of the relevant budget allocated to finance contractual works in the prescribed manner, the parties must agree on new deadlines and other conditions for the performance of the works, if any. The contractor has the right to demand from the state or municipal customer compensation for losses caused by a change in the terms of work. These regulations on agreeing on new terms and conditions for the performance of work regarding the obligations of the parties under the contract correspond to the provisions of cl.6, p. 1, Art. 95 of the Law on the Contract System, and Art. 161 of the Budget Code.
In civil cases, when parties could not reasonably foresee or prevent these circumstances (which is an exceptional case for an ordinary participant engaged in entrepreneurial (economic) activity), it is considered possible to apply Art. 451 of the Civil Code.
In another case, the Supreme Court clarified that the termination of budget financing of a state-owned institution can become grounds to impose subsidiary liability for debts of the institution on the chief administrator of budgetary funds rather than to terminate the obligations, according to cl. 7, Art. 63 and cl. 4, Art. 123.22 of the Civil Code, as well as cl.7, Art. 161 of the Budget Code.16
The practice of district commercial courts develops similarly. In particular, the termination of budget financial support is recognized as the grounds to terminate an
agreement following Art. 450 of the Civil Code and recover incurred expenses rather than the grounds to terminate the obligations under Art.416 of the Civil Code.17
If the applicant cannot fulfill the technical conditions (for example, due to the termination of his/her rights to a land plot where energy facilities are located), it is recognized as the grounds to terminate the agreement under Art. 450 of the Code and recover incurred expenses18 rather than the grounds to terminate the obligations under Article 416 of the Civil Code.
The failure to carry out technological connection measures due to the prohibition of construction works on the territory of a natural monument is recognized as the grounds to terminate an agreement under the claim of a power supply company following Art. 451 of the Civil Code19 rather than the grounds to terminate the obligations under Art. 416 of the Civil Code.
The failure to provide technological connection due to the actions of third parties is recognized as the grounds to terminate the power transmission agreement through judicial procedure under Art. 450, 450.1, cl.1, Art. 782, cl.4, Art. 453 and Art. 1102 of the Civil Code.20
Despite failing to fulfill the power supply agreement due to objective circumstances, the plaintiff [power supply company] cannot bear negative consequences by continuing the agreement indefinitely. Failing to ensure the technological connection of the object to the plaintiff s electrical grids is a significant violation of the disputed agreement by the defendant. Since the department [applicant] committed a significant violation of obligations under the agreement, which is the grounds to terminate the agreement under cl. 2, art. 450 of the Civil Code, the claim of [the power supply company] regarding the agreement termination was lawfully satisfied by the courts.
Regarding the satisfaction of claims on the recovery of incurred expenses, the cassation court noted that the department s failure to comply with the measures prescribed by the technical conditions, required to connect the facility s power-receiving devices to the electrical grids, does not exempt the customer from paying the contractor for the incurred expenses related to fulfilling terms of the agreement. At the same time, technological connection, as the obligation to achieve a certain result, terminates at the moment of the actual connection of the consumer s object to the electrical grid and the signing of the documents listed in cl. 19 of Rules No. 861. The public nature of the power transmission agreement does not mean that it cannot be terminated at the initiative of the power supply company in case the applicant significantly violates its terms, resulting in the power supply company losing everything it is entitled to have under the concluded agreement (cl.2, Art. 450 of the Civil Code, sub-cl. "C", cl. 16, p. 16 (5) of Regulation No. 861).21
In the judicial practice of 2021-2022, the customer s organizational and legal form of a state-owned budgetary institution is not considered as the grounds to refuse a claim on termination of the power transmission agreement and recovery of expenses incurred by the power supply company. Thus, the courts satisfied the claims of power supply companies against the following state-owned and other budgetary institutions on termination of the power transmission agreement and recovery of expenses: State-owned Federal State Institution (SOFSI) "Directorate for Construction, Reconstruction and Restoration"22, SOFSI "9th Center of the customer-builder of the Troops of the National Guard of the Russian Federation"23, SOFSI industrial complex "Vzmorye"24, SOFSI "Department of Federal Highways North-West"25, Municipal Public Institution (MPI) of the town Shakhty "Shakhtystroyzakazchik"26, Municipal Administration "Selinginsky district"27, Department of Coordination of Construction and Long-term Development of Rostov-on-Don28, Ministry of Transport and Road Management of Krasnodar region29, Ministry of Defense of Russia.30
In conclusion, I would like to note that one of the most important features in power industry disputes manifests itself in disputes on termination of power transmission agreements. It is a combination of civil law and special technical standards that demonstrates the peculiarities of the electrical grids functioning. Taking into account this feature allows you to develop a proper position in a dispute and assess the prospects of its resolution in court.
1 For example, over 3.8 billion rubles (see case No. A40-92322/2021).
2 See the Rulings of the Judicial Board for Economic Disputes of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 304-ES16-16246 dated March 24, 2017; No. 305-ES17-11195 dated December 25, 2017, and No. 305-ES19-1106 dated June 24, 2019; cl. 23 of the Review of Judicial Practice of the Supreme Court No. 1 (2018) (approved by the Presidium of the Supreme Court on March 28, 2018); resolutions of the Moscow District Commercial Court dated February 11, 2019, in case No. A41-15449/2018; Commercial Court of the North-Western District dated April 6, 2017, in case No. A56-74579/2015; dated June 20, 2018, in case No. A05-12217/2017; Volga District Commercial Court dated May 29, 2017, in case No. A72-12955/2016; dated November 28, 2019, in case No. A55-F06-54412/2019; Ural District Commercial Court dated March 5, 2019, in case No. A60-21668/2017; the Volga-Vyatka District of October 23, 2019, in case No. A82-4271/2019.
3 See the Resolution of the Commercial Court of the West Siberian District dated May 20, 2021, No. F04-2337/2021; dated May 20, 2021, in case No. A45-43785/2019, and dated July 12, 2021, in case No. A46-14308/2020.
4 See Ruling of the Supreme Commercial Court of the Russian Federation dated April 28, 2014, No. SCC-4782/14.
5 See Resolutions of the Moscow District Commercial Court dated October 18, 2018, in case No. A40-136541/2017; dated June 6, 2019, in case No. A41-53450/2018; dated May 23, 2019, in case No. A40-191122/2017 and dated July 1, 2021, in case No. A41-47160/2020; of the Central District Commercial Court dated 16 July 2019 in case No. A36-6554/2017; Commercial Court of the Volga-Vyatka District dated October 23, 2019, in case No. A82-4271/2019; Commercial Court of the Ural District dated July 6, 2020, in case No. A50-29660/2019; Commercial Court of the West Siberian District dated June 5, 2020, in case No. A03-11178/2019 and dated February 1, 2022, in case No. A46-21014/2022; Commercial Court of the North Caucasus District dated May 21, 2021, in case No. A63-7215/2020; Commercial Court of the North-Western District dated July 7, 2021, in case No. A56-68980/2020; Commercial Court of the East Siberian District dated November 18, 2021, in case No. A19-25712/2019; Commercial Court of the Far Eastern District dated March 18, 2022, No. F03-630/2022 and dated March 22, 2022, No. F03-522/2022.
6 See Decisions of the Commercial Court of the West Siberian District dated July 13, 2021, in case No. A46-8647/2020 and dated July 13, 2021, in case No. A46-6454/2020.
7 Decisions of the Moscow District Commercial Court of dated September 1, 2021, in case No. A41-6558/21; Commercial Court of the East Siberian District dated September 28, 2021, in case No. A10-3987/2020.
8 See Resolutions of the Commercial Court of the North-Western District dated February 27, 2020, in case No. A66-1310/2019; dated October 14, 2020, in case No. A56-92347/2019 and dated May 13, 2021, in case No. A56-124518/2019); Commercial Court of the Ural District dated December 25, 2020, in case No. A50-30911/2019; Commercial Court of Volga-Vyatsky dated July 12, 2017, in case No. A29-630/2016.
9 See Resolutions of the Commercial Court of the Volga-Vyatka District dated July 12, 2017, in case No. A29-630/2016; the Far Eastern District Commercial Court dated September 18, 2018, in case No. A59-2621/2017; the North-Western District Commercial Court dated November 6, 2019, in case No. A26-4228/2018; dated June 23, 2020, in case No. A56-92372/2019 and dated October 14, 2020, in case No. A56-92374/2019; Commercial Court of the North Caucasus District dated May 21, 2019, in case No. A53-16869/2018 and dated July 6, 2021, in case No. A53-29006/2020.
10 See the resolution of the Moscow District Commercial Court dated June 18, 2020, on case No. A41-93223/2018.
11 See Resolutions of the Moscow District Commercial Court dated June 28, 2021, in case No. A41-32003/2020; the Commercial Court of the West Siberian District dated August 10, 2021, in case No. A46-5528/2020.
12 See Resolutions of the Commercial Court of the West Siberian District dated August 23, 2021, in case No. A46-6296/2020 and dated February 1, 2022, in case No. A46-21014/2019; Commercial Court of the Volga-Vyatka District dated October 13, 2021, in case No. A43-12014/2020; Commercial Court of the Far Eastern District dated March 22, 2022, No. F03-522/2022.
13 See Resolutions of the Commercial Court of the West Siberian District dated January 21, 2021, in case No. A27-2024/2020; dated July 12, 2021, in case No. A46-14308/2020; dated July 13, 2021, in cases No. A46-8647/2020 and no. A46-6454/2020; dated July 22, 2021, in case No. A45-14349/2020; dated September 2, 2021, in case No. A45-13281/2020; Commercial Court of the Far Eastern District dated June 9, 2022, No. F03-1746/2022.
14 See Resolutions of the Commercial Court of the Ural District dated December 25, 2020, No. F09-8264/2020; dated July 6, 2020 in case No. A50-299660/2019 and dated June 30, 2021 No. F09-2861/21; Commercial Court of the North-Western District dated August 23, 2021, in case No. A46-6296/2020; Commercial Court of the West Siberian Districts dated January 1, 2022, in case No. A46-21014/2019; dated September 7, 2021, in case No. A46-7424/2020; dated November 22, 2021, in case No. A75-10218/2020 and dated July 12, 2021, in case No. A46-14308/2020; Commercial Court of the Far Eastern District of June 9, 2022, No. F03-1746/2022; dated March 22, 2022, No. F03-522/2022 and dated March 18, 2022, No. F03-630/2022; Commercial Court of the North Caucasus District dated February 3, 2022, in case No. A53-3284/2021; Commercial Court of the Volga District dated October 3, 2022, No. F06-2284/2022.
15 See Decisions of the Commercial Court of the North-Western District dated February 27, 2020, in case No. A66-1310/2019 and dated May 13, 2021 No. F07-2377/2021; Commercial Court of the North Caucasus District dated July 6, 2021, No. F08-6131/2021.
16 See the Ruling of the Judicial Board for Economic Disputes of the Supreme Court dated June 15, 2022, No. 305-ES22-1225.
17 See the Resolution of the Commercial Court of the North Caucasus District dated July 6, 2021, in case No. A53-29006/2020.
18 See the Resolution of the Commercial Court of the West Siberian District dated July 22, 2021, in case No. A45-14349/2020.
19 See the Resolution No. F09-5024/21 of the Commercial Court of the Ural District dated August 23, 2021.
20 See the Resolution of the Commercial Court of the East Siberian District dated September 3, 2021, in case No. A78-8667/2020.
21 The Resolution of the AC of the North Caucasian District dated November 11, 2021, No. F08-10940/2021.
22 The Resolution of the Commercial Court of the North Caucasus District dated July 6, 2021, on case No. A53-29006/2020.
23 The Decision of the Commercial Court of the West Siberian District dated September 2, 2021, in case No. A45-13281/2020.
24 The Resolution of the Commercial Court of the Far Eastern District dated July 5, 2022, No. F03-2230/2022 in case No. A45-889/2021.
25 The Resolution of the Commercial Court of the North-Western District dated November 16, 2022, No. F07-16904/2022 in case No. A56-19652/2021.
26 The Resolution of the Commercial Court of the North Caucasus District dated February 3, 2022, on case No. A53-3284/2021.
27 The Resolution of the Commercial Court of the East Siberian District dated September 28, 2021, in case No. A10-3987/2020.
28 The Resolution of the Commercial Court of the North Caucasus District dated November 11, 2021, in case No. A53-13617/2020.
29 Decisions of the Commercial Court of the North Caucasus District dated December 3, 2021, in case No. A32-40955/2020 and dated April 13, 2022, in case No. A32-16815/2021.
30 Decisions of the Moscow District Commercial Court dated July 1, 2021, in case No. A41-47160/2020 and dated July 22, 2021.
Назначить встречу!
Назначить встречу со специалистами АБ "Юг" - просто! Для этого в соответствующих полях Вам необходимо выбрать тему и две удобных для Вас даты с обязательным указанием времени начала встречи. Затем Вам необходимо указать свои контаткные данные, по которым мы сможем подтвердить одну из дат и согласовать нашу встречу!
Задать вопрос!
Прямое общение со специалистами АБ "Юг" по системе "Вопрос-ответ" - это хорошая возможность для наших потенциальных клиентов получить профессиональные разьяснения по интересующей правовой проблеме. Для этого необходимо заполнить все поля данной формы и мы обязательно Вам ответим!
Адвокатское бюро "Юг"