In its ruling of 03.07.2006, the Federal Arbitration Court of the Moscow Circuit upheld the decision of the Arbitration Court of the City of Moscow of 10.01.2006 and the ruling of the Ninth Arbitration Appeals Court of 20.03.2006, in accordance with which

In its ruling of 03.07.2006, the Federal Arbitration Court of the Moscow Circuit upheld the decision of the Arbitration Court of the City of Moscow of 10.01.2006 and the ruling of the Ninth Arbitration Appeals Court of 20.03.2006, in accordance with which LLC “HUNTER-SK” (Republic of Moldova) was denied satisfaction of its claims against LLC “Gazkomplektimpex” (Russia) for reovery of the debt for supplied but unpaid for production, losses (in the form of real loss and loss of profit), and also for interest for the use of another party’s financial means/

LLC “HUNTER-SK” filed a claim with the Arbitration Court of the City of Moscow against LLC “Gazkomplektimpex ” for recovery of the following to the benefit of the Claimant: - debt for supplied but unpaid for production; - interest for the use of another party’s financial means; - losses to the sum of the fine levied by the Center for the countering of economic crimes and corruption in the Republic of Moldova; - losses (in the form of real loss), suffered by the claimant upon the purchase of canned production, unaccepted by the respondent; - losses (in the form of loss of profit), suffered by the claimant upon the realization of the production at a lowered price; - losses connected with the claimant’s expenses for transportation of the production to a warehouse.

In the course of the consideration of the matter, attorneys of the law firm “YUST”, acting on instructions of LLC “Gazkomplektimpex” argued that the limitation of actions period had expired concerning the part of the claimant’s demands for recovery of debt from the respondent for supplied but unpaid for production, and also interest for the use of another party’s financial means.

By virtue of the provisions of art. 404 of the Civil Code of the RF, the respondent is not liable to the claimant in the form of compensation for losses to the sum of the fine levied by the Center for the countering of economic crimes and corruption of the Republic of Moldova for violation of the period for repatriation of monetary means.

The claimant’s demand for compensation of losses (in the form of real loss) by the respondent, borne by the claimant upon the purchase of canned production not accepted by the respondent, and also losses (in the form of loss of profit) suffered by the claimant upon realization of the production at lowered prices, is unfounded, insofar as the claimant furnished no proof of losses borne in the amount claimed, the existence of cause and effect consequences between the actions of the respondent and the losses indicated by the claimant, nor evidence confirming any measures by the claimant for averting losses or decreasing their scope.

The claimant’s demand for the recompense of losses arising in connection with the respondent’s failure to fulfill its obligations regarding acceptance of goods, dependent, in its turn, on the claimant’s fulfillment of its own obligations concerning supply of goods (which were not fulfilled) cannot be deemed legal by virtue of art. 328 CC RF.

In view of the failure by the claimant (supplier) and the respondent (the buyer) to reach an agreement on the terms for the supply of the production after June 2001, i.e. the failure to execute an agreement on supply in the indicated part, the supplier was under no obligation to supply the production to the address of the buyer, and the buyer, consequently, was under no obligation to accept and pay for the production of the supplier. Therefore, any expenses incurred by the supplier for storage of the production, the supply of which was not agreed with the buyer, were undertaken by the supplier at its own risk; such expenses cannot be deemed losses, arising from the actions of the respondent, due the absence of the fact of a violation of the claimant’s rights by the respondent.

The Arbitration Court of the City of Moscow agreed with the arguments of “YUST” attorneys, and dismissed all the claims against LLC “HUNTER-SK” in its decision of 10.01.2006.

The ruling of the Ninth Arbitration Appeals Court of 20.03.2006 on the same matter left the decision of the court of the first instance unchanged, and dismissed the appeals complaint filed by LLC “HUNTER-SK.”

The ruling of the Federal Arbitration Court of the Moscow Circuit of 03.07.2006 left the abovementioned ruling and decision unchanged, and dismissed the cassational complaint filed by LLC “HUNTER-SK.”