The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation has figured out whether it is possible to attract under Part 7 of Article 7.32 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation for late execution of the state contract
The parties signed a contract for the supply of spare parts for a rural power plant. The contractor delivered the goods with a delay and paid a penalty fee to the customer.
Later, at the request of the supervisory authority, the courts fined the supplier under Part 7 of Article 7.32 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation for non-performance of obligations under the contract with harm to society and the state. Their motive was as follows:
- delivery of goods with delay means that the contract is not executed;
- the untimely execution of the contract infringed on the rights of rural citizens, as they were left without electricity, disrupted the normal operation of institutions and enterprises.
The supplier did not agree with this and appealed to the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation: this provision contradicts the Constitution, since it allows for a broad interpretation. It can be punished not only for non-performance of obligations, but also for their delay. In this case, the contract was still executed, albeit with a delay. So, there are no outstanding obligations.
The RF Constitutional Court did not support the supplier. Among other things, he noted that
the normal liability is not for non-performance of the contract, but for the actions (inaction) that led to this. They mean not only non-performance of the contract in the literal sense, but also delay;
In each case, they establish the real harm to society and the state, as well as the causal relationship between actions (inaction) and the occurrence of harm. The significance of the damage may be in material damage, violation of the normal operation of local self-government bodies and municipal institutions, as in this situation;
it does not matter that the law does not distinguish exactly how the damage was caused — by non-performance or delay. The latter can also lead to socially dangerous consequences;
the protection of relations by this norm should not depend on the nature and type of violations committed by the guilty person, since this may lead to exemption from liability for harm from his actions;
the norm is necessary to stimulate the performance of contractual obligations and prevent significant harm to society and the state. It cannot be called unconstitutional.
When considering this case, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation relied on judicial practice and the position of the FAS.
Document:
Resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of 18.03.2021 N 7-P