Facts of the dispute
Gazprom Komplektatsiya claimed contractual penalties from its supplier, Tsentr Promyshlennogo Snabzheniya i Komplektatsii. The NIRA TEK tribunal reduced recovery in its award of 30 April 2025, partly by applying the 2022 moratorium. The supplier had distributed over RUB 661 million in dividends during that period. The lower state courts refused to set the award aside.
Why finality did not prevent review
The Supreme Court determination explains that a finality agreement does not exclude exceptional public-policy review. Moratorium benefits come with restrictions, including limits on profit distributions. Exemption from penalties cannot be considered while the corresponding restriction is ignored. The dividend-payment arguments required proper assessment.
The precise disposition
The Supreme Court quashed the state-court orders and remitted the case. It did not itself annul the award or calculate a replacement sum. The first-instance court must apply the stated reasoning. The determination also addresses setting aside a separable part of an award that conflicts with public policy.
How to compare the cases
In the 2025 penalty case, the Supreme Court instead rejected an inadequately reasoned reassessment of recovery. Read together, the cases distinguish identifying a fundamental violation from deciding a contractual dispute again. A useful analysis identifies the particular rule, established facts and explanation of their public-policy significance. An abstract appeal to fairness does not supply that explanation.
Related guide
The guide to setting aside and refusal of enforcement explains the different review routes. This note addresses the moratorium in the circumstances of this case; analysis of another dispute still requires checking the applicable period and the debtor’s conduct.
General information. The applicable legal framework depends on the particular dispute, seat and enforcement country.