The case “Les”: a revolution in punitive damages or the question of the competence of the courts

Abstract

The author comments on the ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in case No. A45–19074/2021. There is a view that this ruling classified damages recovered in criminal proceedings in connection with a criminal offense as punitive damages. The author refutes this view, since it is unreasonable to believe that the Supreme Court had the goal of completely reformatting Chapter 59 of the Civil Code in the ruling of the Economic Chamber, and proves that the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation had the goal only of prohibiting the commercial court from resolving the issue of returning the amount paid under the sentence of the general court jurisdiction, that is, it resolved the issue of the competence of the courts. From this ruling, it is impossible to draw any far-reaching conclusions on substantive law. The position of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on the issue of the competence of courts in the assignment of rights has been criticized, since it is based on an unreasonably broad interpretation of Art. 383 Civil Code. In this interpretation, one can only support the Court’s decision to determine courts’ jurisdiction over a substantive relationship based on the moment of its emergence and not on any further developments (such as claim’s assignment, succession, etc.).

References

1. Bershitsky, E.E. (2023). Discretionary restrictions on singular succession in rights of obligation on the creditor’s side: in search of criteria. Bulletin of Economic Justice of the Russian Federation, 2, pp. 50–104 (in Russ).
2. Gromov, A.A. (2022). Commentary on Art. 1082 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation in respect of the claim for compensation in kind. Civil Law Review, 6, pp. 149–196 (in Russ.)
3. Ilyin, A.V. (2011). On the issue of the admissibility of qualifying legal expense as damages. Bulletin of Civil Law, 6, pp. 120–129 (in Russ).
4. Koziol, H. (2014). Traditional approach to prevention in tort law. Civil Law Review, 5, pp. 196–232 (in Russ).
5. Krasheninnikov, P.V. et al. (2022). Transcript of the Scientific Conference “Genesis and Development of Russian Contract Law”, dedicated to the 80th anniversary of the birth of S. A. Khokhlov. Civil Law Review, 2, pp. 7–60 (in Russ).
6. Tololaeva, N.V. (2023). Commentary on Article 1080 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. Civil Law Review, 2, pp. 112–144 (in Russ).
7. Tololaeva, N.V. (2020). Passive solidary obligations: Russian approach and continental European tradition. Moscow (in Russ.).
8. Tuzov, D.O. (2018). On the competition of claims of the owner in case of a subsequent alienation of a thing by its acquirer under an invalid transaction. Commentary on the Ruling of the Judicial Chamber on Economic Disputes of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 9 October 2017 No. 308-ES15–6280. Bulletin of Economic Justice of the Russian Federation, 6, pp. 29–34 (in Russ.).
9. Jansen, N. (2022). From the doctrine of restitution of the Spanish late scholastics to the European law of non-contractual obligations? Civil Law Review, 4, pp. 189–220 (in Russ).
10. Zimmermann, R. (1992). The Law of Obligations: Roman Foundations of the Civilian Tradition. Cape Town.