Even after the deadline for construction work under the state contract, the customer and the contractor concluded an additional agreement to increase the scope of work without extending the deadline for their completion. This amount of work could not objectively be completed on time, since at the time the contractor assumed these obligations, the deadline for their completion had already passed. Nevertheless, for violating the deadlines, the state customer charged the contractor a penalty. The contractor voluntarily paid this penalty, but then, with the help of our bureau, applied to the court with a claim to recover this amount as unjust enrichment on the part of the customer.
The Arbitration Court of St. Petersburg and the Leningrad Region, in the framework of proceedings in case No. A56-56811/2024, agreed with our arguments that the accrual of penalties for violating deadlines that could not objectively be met is unlawful and unfair. Relying on the basic legal principle “Ad impossibilia nemo tenetur” (No one can be forced to do the impossible), we convinced the court that the contractor’s assumption of an obligation with an already expired performance period excludes the contractor’s fault in violating the performance period, since this period is not logically related to the contractor’s actions. Therefore, the customer had no reasonable grounds to hold the contractor liable in the form of recovering penalty payments. By the decision of October 25, 2024, the court granted the claim in full, and the customer did not appeal this decision.
