The Supreme Court has once again summarised judicial practice for 2024.

At the end of November, the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation approved another review of judicial practice. It includes 55 positions, of which 16 are presented by the Judicial Board for Economic Disputes and 16 by the Judicial Board for Civil Cases. 

‘In paragraph 17 of the Review of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, following the position previously expressed in paragraph 3 of the Review of judicial practice in cases on the protection of consumer rights (approved by the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation 20.10.2021), drew attention to the fact that the expiry of the warranty period for the goods does not always indicate the loss of the buyer's rights under Art. 475 OF THE CIVIL CODE OF THE RF. 

In particular, in case of detection of defects in the goods after the expiration of the warranty period, if these defects were not eliminated during the warranty repair, the buyer retains the rights arising in connection with the transfer of goods of inadequate quality. At the same time, the general rule on the distribution of liability for defects of goods, enshrined in Article 476 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, has not received a fundamentally new reading in the reviewed Review. 

In paragraph 19 of the Review, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation also pointed out the right of the lessee to claim from the seller compensation for losses in the form of interest paid under the leasing agreement in case of delivery of a knowingly low-quality leasing object, the operation of which turned out to be initially impossible. 

At the same time, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation noted that the position expressed earlier in paragraph 10 of the Review of Judicial Practice on Disputes Related to Financial Lease Contracts (approved by the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 27.10.2021) is not applicable, since the leasing object cannot be used in principle, but not for a certain period of time. 

It seems fair that in such a case the lessee should not pay for the use of financing provided by the leasing company, since the property interest pursued by it in obtaining the leasing object is unattainable. This approach is intended to facilitate the proper fulfilment by sellers of their obligations and prevent the latter from benefiting from their unfair behaviour. 

In paragraph 23 of the Review, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation once again noted that the fee charged by a credit organisation for making transactions on an account cannot be set in an amount which, due to its significance, prevents the client from making legitimate transactions involving the transfer of funds to other clients. 

Previously, such an approach was already encountered in the practice of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation (e.g., Ruling No. 310-ES23-14161 of 22.11.2023 in case No. A14-2462/2022). Using the right granted by an agreement to unilaterally change the terms and conditions of remuneration for cash and settlement services, a credit organisation should act reasonably and in good faith without undermining client confidence. 

It seems right that in this case a balance of interests of credit organisations and customers should be struck. This position may encourage credit organisations to adjust their approaches to setting such ‘barrier’ fees for account transactions. 

• By pointing out in paragraph 30 of the Review that the financial manager has the right to demand out-of-court provision of documents that were the basis for the alienation of property, the panel continues to consistently form a practice that has a positive impact on the conduct of bankruptcy proceedings and makes it possible to promptly obtain the necessary information without going to court (see also the RF Supreme Court's Ruling of 25.03.2024 No. 305-ES23-23904 in case No. A40-11386/2023). 

In fact, the RF Supreme Court once again confirms the provisions contained in Article 20.3 of Law No. 127-FZ. This position is also aimed at reducing the burden on arbitration courts in connection with appealing against such refusals to provide information’.

You can read the full version of the article on the website of the professional publication ‘Economy and Life’