Особенности возмещения убытков при одностороннем отказе от государственного контракта

Abstract

IntroductionIntroduction. With the development of the contract system in public and municipal procurement, the issue of civil liability of contracting parties and mechanisms for compensating for property losses has become particularly important. The growing role of public interests and the simultaneous need to ensure fair protection of the rights of procurement participants have generated persistent academic and practical interest in the issue of compensation for damages, particularly lost profits due to unilateral contract termination. This issue is particularly relevant in light of the ambiguity of law enforcement practices and existing legislative restrictions.The purpose of this study is to comprehensively analyze the legal nature and features of compensation for damages in the system of state and municipal procurement, as well as to identify conflicts between the general norms of civil legislation and special regulation of the contract system.MethodsMethods. The study utilized general scientific and legal research methods: formal legal analysis of regulatory legal acts, comparative legal methods, a systems analysis of the judicial practice of arbitration courts, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, and the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, as well as elements of doctrinal analysis of scholarly sources.ResultsResults. It was established that current legislation creates a model of limited liability in the event of unilateral contract termination, excluding the possibility of recovering lost profits and thereby deviating from the principle of full compensation for damages enshrined in civil law. Key enforcement issues related to proving actual damages, qualifying the customer's unlawful unilateral termination, and the risks of abuse of rights were identified.ConclusionsConclusions. The need to clarify the scope of application of the special limitation of liability and develop uniform guidelines for judicial assessment of the parties' conduct is substantiated. A conclusion is reached on the advisability of statutory differentiation between the consequences of lawful and unlawful unilateral refusal to perform a contract, which will ensure a balance between public and private interests and improve the predictability of law enforcement practice.