The customer decided to terminate the contract unilaterally and sent information about the supplier to the FAS to be included in the RNP. The supervisors decided not to do this: there is no evidence of a significant violation of the terms of the contract. Unilateral refusal is illegal.
To protect the interests of the antimonopoly authority, the supplier hired a representative. Since no grounds were found for unilateral refusal, the supplier incurred unreasonable expenses for legal aid services. He demanded that the customer reimburse them. He did not pay.
The courts supported the supplier, but partially satisfied the claim:
a representative was brought in to take the case to the Federal Antimonopoly Service for the restoration of violated rights. These are losses that have arisen due to illegal actions of the customer. They must be reimbursed within reasonable limits;
the amount of expenses was reduced because the supplier should have chosen legal aid services at a lower price. When making a decision to reduce the amount, the courts took into account the recommendations of the regional council of the Bar chamber on payment for similar services. Losses need to be minimized. Applying for services at a higher price indicates the supplier's bad faith.
Document: Resolution of the AC of the Volga District of 11.10.2021 in case N A12-3814/2021