The first thing I thought of when reading the complaints of the bankruptcy trustee of UralSt…

The first thing I thought of when reading the complaints of the bankruptcy manager of UralStroyNeft LLC A.V. Kostyunin on the actions of the judge of the Arbitration Court of St. Petersburg Svetlana Saltykova – this is about another flaring scandal in the judicial system. Statements about violations of the fundamental principles of procedural law, as well as the rights of participants in the process held in the northern capital, were sent to the Chairman of the Arbitration Court of St. Petersburg and the Leningrad Region, the head of the FSB Directorate for St. Petersburg and the Region, to the Council of Judges of the Russian Federation, as well as to the Qualification Board of Judges of St. St. Petersburg.

However, it seems that what was on the judicial agenda was not yet another scandal of those that shake the temples of Themis from time to time, but a much more complex, important and painful question about whether it is permissible for the judicial system, in such a fateful period for the country, to be guided exclusively by geopolitical considerations, leaving the problems of applied law in the background. We are talking about the nuances of the consideration of case No. A56-17572/2022 on the claim of UralStroyNeft LLC against the Transneft company to challenge payment under bank guarantees issued to secure the contractor’s warranty obligations to the monopolist.

The complex issue was considered by Judge Saltykova in just two sessions, with the plaintiff being denied an examination and even barred from allowing representatives of the four guarantor companies to attend the hearings, without any explanation. As a result, the refusal of the claim results in big problems for the two thousand-strong team of UralStroyNeft LLC, which is left without a livelihood, while the company itself is in bankruptcy with a debt to the budget of 200 million rubles.

Advertisement

Of course, politically the issue was resolved competently; the largest Russian company, Transneft PJSC, cannot lose the claim either abroad or within the country, so that opponents do not gloat. However, in the case of case No. A56-17572/2022, the price of such political cover for the monopolist is the aggravation of socio-economic problems in the regions and the growth of distrust in the promises declared from above not to offend small and medium-sized businesses. This is a primary domestic political task, on which the success of the defensive actions of the domestic economy under the pressure of Western sanctions largely depends.

Therefore, as rightly noted in documents sent to various high authorities, the situation with case No. A56-17572/2022 and the actions of Judge Saltykova needs impartial and objective verification so that henceforth participants in the domestic market can be confident in the transparency of the rules and guarantees from kinks.