The Arbitration Court of the Moscow District, in its ruling dated October 6, 2020, No. Ф05-15092/2020 in case No. А41-108383/2019, upheld the decisions of the lower courts, which concluded that a public customer’s (hereinafter the "Plaintiff" or "Customer") assessment of contractual penalties based on the alleged absence of a marketing authorization (registration certificate) for goods delivered under a state contract was groundless.

The subject matter of the contract comprised the supply of a medical service van equipped with a medical device—specifically, an X-ray mammograph.

The courts noted that the medical service van and the X-ray mammograph constitute independent items that are utilized separately and serve distinct purposes. The Customer argued, however, that the specified goods form an integrated unit intended for a common purpose and should be treated as a single complex item.

Under the terms of the state contract, upon delivery of the goods, the supplier must provide the customer with the vehicle passport, copies of marketing authorizations for the medical equipment included in the delivery package, and the manufacturer’s technical and/or operational documentation.

Furthermore, the delivery and acceptance certificate executed by the parties and submitted into the case record demonstrates that the supplier delivered, and the Customer accepted, the goods in accordance with the specifications set forth in the bill of lading.

In resolving the dispute, the court of first instance determined that the evidence failed to establish any improper performance of contractual obligations by the supplier under the contested state contract.

The courts also established that upon executing the delivery and acceptance certificate, the supplier delivered the following documentation to the Customer: the bill of lading, the vehicle passport, the supplier's warranty, a copy of the certificate of conformity (vehicle type approval), and other contractually required documents (the marketing authorization for the MR "Diamant" X-ray mammograph, operational documentation including the data sheet and/or user manual, the vehicle passport, and the vehicle type approval), thereby satisfying the requirements of the state contract.

Additionally, the contractual terms provided that if the supplier failed to present any required documentation, the public customer could have noted the deficiency upon executing the delivery and acceptance certificate, or refused acceptance outright due to the missing accompanying documentation. The Customer, however, made no such notation during acceptance and did not refuse the delivery. As of the delivery date, the Customer acknowledged full compliance of the goods with the contractual requirements, and deemed the documentation provided for the delivered goods to be sufficient.

The court also emphasized that the Customer failed to assert the claim until after the expiration of the warranty period (one year following the unconditional acceptance of the goods).

Moreover, the appellate court denied the Customer's motion for a forensic product evaluation because the Plaintiff had failed to file this motion during the initial trial court proceedings. The court of cassation held that this denial was legally sound.

We believe this judicial decision underscores the critical importance of conducting diligent product acceptance and asserting claims in a timely manner, as the customer's actual acceptance and subsequent operation of the equipment provided further evidence of the supplier's proper performance of its obligations.