The contract and arbitration
Rosseti obtained contractual penalties against Siblesstroy for delayed design work. The contract provided for 0.1% per day. The respondent invoked Civil Code Article 333; the tribunal invited supporting material, but no additional evidence was supplied. The RSPP Arbitration Centre award granted RUB 171,149.25. The state courts refused a writ, considering recovery unfair.
What the Supreme Court examined
The Supreme Court did not exclude proportionality of liability from public policy. It required identification and explanation of a concrete fundamental violation. The lower courts had not explained why the terms of this contract and the amount awarded offended basic principles; they effectively reconsidered arguments already assessed by the tribunal.
Disposition
The chamber quashed both state-court orders, granted the application and directed the Tomsk Region Commercial Court to issue the writ. The determination decided the application rather than remitting it. The complete official text contains the reasoning and operative orders.
Limits and comparison
The case does not mean that a penalty can never engage public policy. The objection’s grounds and supporting explanation matter. Compare the 2026 moratorium and dividends case, which required examination of a particular mandatory restriction. For an argument in another case, distinguish the calculation, evidence already assessed by the tribunal and an independent ground for court review.
Related guide
The enforcement guide covers applications, writs and subsequent recovery. Separately identify the relief requested from the state court: refusal of enforcement, setting aside the award or a reconsideration of the amount awarded.
General information. The applicable legal framework depends on the particular dispute, seat and enforcement country.