Data

Date:
05-07-2023
Country:
Russian Federation
Number:
A47-17530/2020
Court:
Eighteenth Arbitrazh Appellate Court
Parties:
UralGazStroyMontazh v Gazpromneft – Orenburg

Keywords

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT - BETWEEN TWO RUSSIAN COMPANIES – REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES TO INTERPRET APPLICABLE NATIONAL LAW (RUSSIAN LAW) - COURT EXRESSLY RECOGNIZING THE PERSUASIVE AUTHORITY OF UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES IN RUSSIAN COMMERCIAL DISPUTES

CERTAINTY OF HARM - BURDEN OF PROOF - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES (ART. 7.4.3)

Abstract

The claims arose between a contractor and a customer regarding payment for construction works under terminated construction contracts. The central issue concerned the sufficiency of evidence to establish whether works had in fact been performed and whether they should be paid.

The court referred to both Russian civil law provisions and international standards of proof, including the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts.

Specifically, the court applied Article 7.4.3 of the UNIDROIT Principles, which formulates the standard of proof as the “balance of probabilities” or “preponderance of evidence.” According to this rule, the burden lies with the claimant to present convincing evidence that reasonably supports the asserted facts. If such evidence outweighs that of the opposing party, the court may deem the fact established. This approach aligns with Russian Supreme Court practice, which has cited the UNIDROIT Principles in defining evidentiary thresholds.

By invoking the UNIDROIT Principles, the court highlighted their persuasive authority in Russian commercial disputes, especially when clarifying general standards of proof and fairness in the evidentiary process. Ultimately, the court found that the claimant’s documentation was insufficient and upheld the lower court’s conclusion, reinforcing the role of UNIDROIT as a harmonizing interpretative tool in international and domestic contract disputes.

Abstract in English kindly provided by Roman Zykov.

Fulltext

}}

Source

}}