In this case, a company and an enterprise entered into a works contract. The enterprise performed the work, but the company did not pay for it in full due to lack of funds. The city administration, as the founder of the enterprise, decided to liquidate it. The company filed a claim with the administration for the collection of the debt under the contract and compensatory interest for the retention of funds. The court collected only the principal debt under the contract. Since the administration delayed the execution of the court's decision, the company filed a lawsuit seeking compensatory interest for the retention of funds.
The court of first instance partially dismissed the case, as the company had already filed similar claims in the previous proceedings. The rest of the claim was rejected. It was ruled, that the city administration cannot be brought to subsidiary liability without a claim against the main debtor, that is, against the enterprise. In addition, the company missed the statute of limitations. The same approach was supported by appeal and cassation.
The Supreme Court did not agree with the position of the lower courts regarding the dismissal of the claim. It indicated: the conclusion that the company cannot file a claim to the subsidiary debtor to collect interest under Art. 395 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, is not correct. The obligation to pay compensatory interest for the retention of funds is an accessory (additional) obligation in relation to the main obligation. An additional obligation cannot arise without an obligation to pay the principal amount.
A prohibition on the collection of interest for delay from a subsidiary debtor would contradict the essence of the concept of obligation and the prohibition of limiting liability for intentional violations.
The conclusion about missing the limitation period is also incorrect.
|
NAZALI VERGI & HUKUK |