The Federal Arbitration Court of the City of Moscow on06.10.2005 left in force the Resolution of the Ninth Arbitration Appeals Court, pursuant to which the Arbitration Court of the City of Moscow revoked the ruling on the claim filed by LLC “Gazkomplektim

The Federal Arbitration Court of the City of Moscow on06.10.2005 left in force the Resolution of the Ninth Arbitration Appeals Court, pursuant to which the Arbitration Court of the City of Moscow revoked the ruling on the claim filed by LLC “Gazkomplektimpex” for the exaction of a sum to the amount of 132.317829,86 rubles, received by National-Production Company “Komplex” as a commission.

On 30 April 2002, LLC “Gazkomplektimpex” and NPC “Komplex” executed Commission Agreement № 50-60/52pr, in accordance with which NPC “Komplex” undertook to carry out agreements on the supply of equipment and material-technical resources for a remuneration established by the Agreement, acting in its own name but in the interests and at the cost of LLC “Gazkompelktimpex.” The Parties agreed to settle the subject, quantity and quality of the goods, terms of delivery, price of the goods and also the method of financing supply in commissioned instructions, the form of which is Appendix № 1 to the Agreement. Moreover, p.4.1. of the Agreement envisages that financing of deliveries may be achieved both by money, promissory notes or other means as established in the commissioning instructions.

LLC “Gazkomplektimpex” paid by cession of rights of demand under the Agreement.

NPC “Komplex” violated the Agreement, and considered that it had no obligations to LLC “Gazkomplektimpex” as payment due under the Agreement was not carried out.

The Arbitration Court of the City of Moscow refused to satisfy the demands of the claim.

In refusing to satisfy the above-mentioned demands, the arbitration court of the first instance indicated that the basis for the refusal was the unproven fact of delivery of goods. The court proceeded on the premises that: a) Rights of demand were not transferred to the republican unitary enterprise “Beltransgaz”; b) The agreements on the cession of rights of demand are deemed void pursuant to art. 168 of the Civil Code as being counter to p.4 art. 575 of the Civil Code of the RF.

LLC “Gazkomplektimpex” rejected the arguments of the first instance, and filed an appeal with the Appeals Court.

The Resolution of the Federal Arbitration Court of the City of Moscow upheld the ruling of the Resolution of the Ninth Arbitration Appeals Court of the City of Moscow. Alexander Alexandrovich Shatunov, an attorney with the Law Firm «YUST», represented LLC «Gazkomplektimpex» in the Federal Arbitration Court of the City of Moscow.