Sanctions and price increases cannot justify the non-delivery of medical equipment to clinics

In August 2023, the Ninth Arbitration Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the first istat, according to which sanctions and price increases cannot justify the non-delivery of medical equipment to clinics. We are talking about the proceedings between the N.V. Sklifosovsky Research Institute of Emergency Medicine and the supplier company A-Compr. Ru.

According to "Medical Bulletin" with reference to the materials of the courts, in March 2022 the clinic entered into an agreement with LLC "A-Compr. Ru" for the supply of a screw-brand compressor SPINN in the amount of 336 thousand rubles. But the supplier did not deliver the equipment within the time frame established by the contract, citing force majeure due to sanctions and an increase in prices for the goods, and asked to extend the delivery time.

Sanctions and price increases cannot justify the non-delivery of medical equipment to clinics

The research institute refused to do this and independently confirmed the presence of equipment on the market, as informed the supplier. Despite this, the company evaded the supply of the compressor, which became the basis for the unilateral termination of the state contract.

The supplier did not agree with this decision of the clinic and appealed it to the OFAS of the Moscow Region. The regulator considered the arguments of A-Compr. Ru LLC convincing and recognized the termination of the contract of the research institute as illegal. After that, the proceedings became judicial.

The Moscow Arbitration Court agreed with the clinic's position, pointing out that "the introduction of economic sanctions in itself does not indicate that this circumstance was the reason for the increase in the delivery time of equipment, and also cannot serve as a basis for exemption from the obligation to supply equipment within the period established by the contract."

The court also noted that the increase in the purchase price of goods does not serve as a significant circumstance, the occurrence of which could not be foreseen before the conclusion of the contract. The parties could not exclude the likelihood of a sharp weakening of the national currency during the execution of the transaction, the court summed up.^[1]

Notes