Problematic Aspects in Reduction of Penalty by Russian Courts

The paper is devoted to the problem of application of Art. 333 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation by Russian courts. The subject of the research is the common features of legal regulation, allowing for a penalty reduction. Formal legal and comparative legal methods, as well as the method of modeling legal situations were used in the course of the research. The study revealed a number of problems related to the correct application of the provisions of this article. An analysis of cases considered by Russian courts shows that the courts often reduce the penalty arbitrarily, without a clear justification of the motives. In order to improve this situation, it is proposed to supplement the Civil Code of the Russian Federation with Chapter 22.1, expanding the grounds for suspending the performance of an obligation, and to change the wording of Art. 333 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, excluding the possibility of reducing the penalty in legal relations related to the implementation of shared housing construction, as well as in other legal relations with the participation of a citizen-consumer in the event of a breach by an organization or an individual entrepreneur, except for cases of suspension of the obligation.

1. Asoskov A. V. Novoe postanovlenie Plenuma Verhovnogo Suda RF o primenenii norm mezhdunarodnogo chastnogo prava: klyuchevye raz«yasneniya // Sud’ya. — 2019. — № 11. — S. 12–19.

2. Braginskij M. I., Vitryanskij V. V. Dogovornoe pravo. Obshchie polozheniya. — M. : Statut, 2001.

3. Brajg B., Mutaj I. M. Res publica i res mercatoria v proformah FIDIK i GK RF // Vestnik ekonomicheskogo pravosudiya Rossijskoj Federacii. — 2016. — № 1. — S. 111–144.

4. Dogovornoe i obyazatel’stvennoe pravo (obshchaya chast’) : postatejnyj kommentarij k stat’yam 307–453 Grazhdanskogo kodeksa Rossijskoj Federacii / V. V. Bajbak, R. S. Bevzenko, O. A. Belyaeva [i dr.] ; otv. red. A. G. Karapetov. — M. : M-Logos, 2017. — Elektronnoe izdanie. Redakciya 1.0. — 1120 s.

5. Zhestovskaya D. A. Snizhenie neustojki po st. 333 GK RF i koncepciya nespravedlivyh dogovornyh uslovij // Vestnik ekonomicheskogo pravosudiya Rossijskoj Federacii. — 2018. — № 2. — S. 190–206.

6. Karapetov A. G. Neustojka kak sredstvo zashchity prav kreditora v rossijskom i zarubezhnom prave. — M. : Statut, 2005. — 286 s.

7. Kubrava A. B. Snizhenie neustojki kak ogranichenie principa svobody dogovora // Arbitrazhnyj i grazhdanskij process. — 2019. — № 9. — S. 34–37.

8. Plastinina N. Obmanutye dol’shchiki vse ravno ostayutsya s pustymi rukami? // Zhilishchnoe pravo. — 2018. — № 1. — S. 97–112.

9. Svirin Yu. A. Pravomernost’ snizheniya neustojki sudom // Sovremennoe pravo. — 2018. — № 12. — S. 74–78.

10. Sinicyn S. A. Pravo suda na snizhenie vzyskivaemoj neustojki: pravovaya priroda, usloviya i oblast’ prakticheskogo primeneniya v sovremennyh usloviyah // Advokat. — 2015. — № 6. — S. 18–29.

11. Slesarev V. L., Kravec V. D. Primenenie sudami stat’i 333 Grazhdanskogo kodeksa RF po delam o zashchite prav potrebitelej // Yurist. — 2020. — № 3. — S. 10–15. — DOI: 10.18572/1812-3929-2020-3-10-15.

12. Strigunova D. P. Princip svobody dogovora: rossijskij i zarubezhnyj opyt // Grazhdanskoe pravo. — 2018. — № 3. — S. 10–13. — DOI: 10.18572/2070-2140-2018-3-10-13.

13. Shibanov N. A. Kontraktnaya sistema i dogovor prisoedineniya: istoriya otnoshenij // Progoszakaz.rf. — 2018. — № 10. — S. 47–53.