Data

Date:: 25-06-2019
Country:: Russian Federation
Number:: A72-18949/2018
Court:: Arbitrazh Court of Ulyanovsk Region
Parties:: UK Dimitrovgrad v. Dimitrovgrad Communal Resources

Keywords

LONG TERM CONTRACT - SERVICE CONTRACT – BETWEEN TWO RUSSIAN COMPANIES - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO CONFIRM THE SOLUTION ADOPTED UNDER THE APPLICABLE LAW (RUSSIAN LAW)

SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE - NOT REQUIRABLE IF IT IS TOO ONEROUS - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES (ART. 7.2.2(b))

Abstract

The Claimant, which managed several residential buildings in the city of Dimitrovgrad, sought to compel the Defendant utility supplier to ensure the provision of hot water of proper quality to a multi-apartment building. The plaintiff alleged that since conclusion of a water supply contract the hot water supplied had consistently failed to meet statutory temperature standards. The plaintiff relied on inspection reports and meter readings confirming temperature deviations.

The Court acknowledged that the Defendant had in fact provided hot water below the required temperature, but dismissed the claim because the Claimant chose an inappropriate remedy, compelling continuous specific performance which was not legally available.

To support this reasoning, the court explicitly invoked the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (1994). Article 7.2.2(b) provides that specific performance cannot be ordered if it would be unreasonably burdensome. The court applied this principle by analogy, noting that compelling the defendant to provide hot water of proper quality indefinitely, with bailiffs supervising compliance, would create an unreasonable and impractical enforcement burden.

Drawing on both Russian law and comparative reference to the UNIDROIT Principles, the court emphasized the principle of enforceability and proportionality of remedies. The Claimant was instead entitled to pursue recalculation of fees or other contractual remedies.

Abstract in English kindly provided by Roman Zykov

Fulltext

}}

Source

}}