ER-Telecom did not give 1.5 million rubles to the Ministry of Digital Development

[tanjimajuha20]

n September 28, 2023, the Ministry of Digital Development, Communications and Mass Media lost the case against ER-Telecom Holding JSC (ER-Telecom) to recover RUB 1.47 million, of which RUB 956,285 was in arrears in mandatory contributions (non-tax payments) to the universal service reserve and penalties in the amount of RUB 513,889.91 for several quarters from 2013 to 2018. At that time, the defendant declared in court that the limitation period had expired. The court took into account the defendant's statement and rejected the claims of the Ministry of Digital Development.

Read also

ER-Telecom avoided paying kazakhstan whatsapp number database the Ministry of Digital Development's claim to the universal service reserve in the amount of 1.5 million rubles. The debt was listed for the Tomsk operator Tomtel, which ER-Telecom acquired in 2018. The court did not satisfy the claim, since the statute of limitations had expired.

The Ministry of Digital Development disagreed with the court's decision and filed an appeal to the Seventeenth Arbitration Court of Appeal of the Perm Territory on November 3, 2023. The hearing took place on November 21, 2023. Following its results, the court left the decision of the previous court unchanged and dismissed the plaintiff's complaint.

Now the Ministry of Digital Development has the opportunity to appeal the current decision within two months (until January 21, 2024) in cassation proceedings in the Arbitration Court of the Ural District through the Arbitration Court of the Perm Territory.

Representatives of the ministry did not answer the ComNews correspondent whether the plaintiff's side would file a cassation appeal.

Natalia Kovalenko, partner and head of the telecommunications group at the Pepeliaev Group law firm, believes that the expiration of the limitation period has indeed become a determining factor in making a decision: "This happens often. Courts cannot ignore a party's statement about the expiration of the limitation period. Clause 2 of Article 199 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation establishes that the expiration of the limitation period, the application of which is declared by a party to the dispute, is the basis for the court to make a decision to reject the claim. There are special cases, for example, if the parties have resorted to the pre-trial dispute resolution procedure provided for by law or an agreement - for example, the claim procedure, mediation - then the limitation period is suspended for a certain period. But in each specific case, many circumstances must be analyzed."

Lawyer, economist, member of the Committee of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation on entrepreneurship in the field of media communications Pavel Katkov believes that the Ministry of Digital Development should continue to appeal this case: "I think the Ministry of Digital Development should go all the way, if only because for such an attitude towards departmental money - they forgot about the payer, then lost the case - they will not be patted on the head and they need to at least fight to show that they did everything they could."

Pavel Katkov is also sure that it will be very difficult for the plaintiff to win this case: "The issue of satisfying a cassation appeal is always a competitive moment. The plaintiff has the right to object, can try to prove that he learned about the violation of his rights later, challenge the moment of calculating the limitation period, etc. There are no solid statistics on the cassation instance, but if we reason by analogies, then, for example, in criminal proceedings, acquittals, expanded by cassation, are fractions of a percent. At the same time, the court for intellectual rights returns up to 25% of cases for a new trial. Here, the arbitration court, the truth lies in the middle between two polar points. In any case, if the plaintiff does not come up with new arguments or a way to highlight the old ones, the appeal is unlikely to yield results."

Leading lawyer in dispute resolution practice at the EBR law firm, expert at the Moscow Digital School educational platform Inayat Beytuganova believes that the court's decision is fair and it will be virtually impossible to achieve a decision in favor of the plaintiff: "This case is standard. Often, agencies miss the statute of limitations due to excessive workload, and the Ministry of Digital Development is no exception in this case. At the same time, the statute of limitations applies only in the event of a statement by a party to the dispute. The legislator's logic is simple: if the defendant does not object to the claims made after a long period of time, it means that he does not mind being held liable for old obligations. After all, the claim made by the Ministry of Digital Development is substantiated in essence. As for the advisability of filing a complaint with a higher authority, the conclusion is unambiguous. The statute of limitations for the claims made (in this case, three years - ComNews note ) has indeed passed, and the cassation court is highly likely to leave the decision unchanged."