Ekaterina Abakumova has assessed for Pravo.ru the clarifications of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on the content of a claim in case of flat flooding

Three court instances found the management company guilty of flooding the flat of a resident of Maikop and ordered it to pay the victim the amount of damage, expert examination costs and compensation for moral damage. At the same time, the courts refused to recover more than half a million roubles in penalties and fines: in order to do so, the management company had to reject the consumer’s claims that the consumer had made before going to court. In addition, the appellate and cassation instances noted that the flat owner had raised the issue of the “possible” amount of restorative repairs after the damage, rather than directly demanding compensation for the harm caused, and had not indicated in the pre-trial claim that the management company would collect the consumer fine when the claim was filed.

On the contrary, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation equated the claim to a claim for compensation for harm and emphasised that if the consumer’s claims were not voluntarily satisfied, the court should collect the fine from the defendant, even if the plaintiff did not claim it in court. As a result, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation cancelled the acts of the lower courts and sent the case for a new consideration to the first instance, which recovered the penalty and fine in favour of the plaintiff.

According to Ekaterina Abakumova, Advocate at Maxima Legal, the Supreme Court has provided several important clarifications for consumers.”In particular, it pointed out that in this category of cases it is not obligatory to comply with the pre-trial procedure.Whether it is necessary to send a pre-trial demand to the guilty party or immediately go to court with a statement of claim depends solely on the consumer’s desire. The Supreme Court noted that if the consumer did not specify the amount of damage in the pre-trial claim, it does not prevent the defendant to assess it independently and voluntarily pay the amount to the consumer.This is an important remark, because in other categories of cases, if you do not specify in the claim the amount to be recovered, then the pre-trial procedure will not be considered complied with,” Ekaterina Abakumova explained specially for Pravo.ru legal publishing. At the same time, the Maxima Legal expert still recommended consumers to send a claim. “Specific figures of damage and possible fines can clearly show the guilty party the advantages of pre-trial compensation of damages and help the consumer save time and money on legal costs”, Ekaterina explained.

To read the full article (in Russian), please see Pravo.ru website >>>