Alexander A. Yagelnitskiy

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.).