State Agency (hereinafter referred to as the\nPlaintiff) has filed a claim against our Principal (hereinafter referred to as\nthe Defendant) for the recovery of funds in the amount of about 20 million\nrubles to the budget of Moscow.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In support of the stated requirements, the\nPlaintiff referred to the fact that the Principal did not confirm the targeted\nexpenditure of funds allocated by the Plaintiff from the budget of Moscow for\nthe purposes established by the agreement concluded between the parties\n(hereinafter – the agreement).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Lawyers of MCBA “Bureau of Lawyers “De\njure” fully studied the case materials of our Principal, developed the\ntactics of defense for the present dispute and submitted the necessary\ndocuments to the court, including an out-of-court audit report on the intended\nuse of the grant.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In the course of consideration of the present\ncase, we proved that the agreement does not provide for a mandatory list of\ndocuments provided together with the financial report on the intended use of\ngrant funds, and does not provide for their mandatory form and content, and\ntherefore does not contain any specific requirements for their quantity,\ncontent and form.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The proper execution by the Principal of\nobligations under the agreement is confirmed by the fact that the excess of the\nlimit of the received grant was not allowed by the Principal, as well as all\nthe budget funds received were spent by him according to their intended purpose\nfor the implementation of the program (projects) for information support of\nforeign citizens regarding issues arising in connection with their labor activities\nin Moscow.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In the first instance court session we proved\nthat the most important condition for classifying costs as intended use is the\nfact that the costs are consistent with the goals of the grant itself. Discrepancy of expenses concerning one item\nof the estimate and allocation of these costs to another budget line (i.e.,\ntheir redistribution), but in accordance with the objectives of the grant, does\nnot entail negative consequences for the recipient of such a grant and,\naccordingly, these costs are recognized as targeted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In accordance with sections 14 and 23 of the\nResolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian\nFederation of June 22, 2006 N 23 \u201cABOUT\nSOME QUESTIONS OF APPLICATION by the\nARBITRATION COURTS OF NORMS OF THE BUDGET CODE of the Russian Federation\u201d, if\nit is established by the court that, based on the contents of the lists, names\nof articles and sub-articles of classification, it is impossible to establish\nwith certainty the article (in the case\nwhen the article is not detailed by sub-articles) or the classification of\nsub-item, the Participant of the budget process should include the expenses\nincurred by him (i.e., when these expenses could be equally allocated to various items and sub-articles), the financing\nof these costs at the expense of funds allocated to any of the potential for\nuse of articles and sub-articles of classification is not considered misuse of\nbudgetary funds.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The participants in the budget process, within\nthe framework of the implementation of the tasks set for them and within the\nbudget allocated for specific purposes, independently determine the need,\nfeasibility and economic justification of a specific expenditure transaction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In this\nregard, a specific expenditure operation can be recognized as inefficient\nspending of budget funds only if the authorized body proves that the tasks set\nfor the participant in the budget process could be performed using a smaller\namount of funds or that with using the amount of funds determined by the budget,\nthe participant in the budget process could achieve a better result.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Plaintiff\ndid not provide evidence in the materials of the present case that the\nallocated funds were spent on purposes not related to the purpose of the\ngrant. All expenses incurred by the\nPrincipal are directly related to the objectives of the project.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
During the\nconsideration of the case at our request, a forensic examination was carried\nout, which additionally confirmed our arguments that the expenses incurred by\nthe Principal are consistent with the objectives of issuing a grant for the\nimplementation of programs (projects) for information support of foreign\ncitizens regarding issues arising in connection with their employment activities in Moscow and the terms of the agreement\non the provision of targeted budget funds in the form of a grant concluded\nbetween the parties.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
03.12.2018\nMoscow Arbitration Court refused to satisfy the Plaintiff’s requirements for\nthe return of the grant in the amount of about 20 million rubles.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
N.V.Filippov,\nHead of MCBA \u201cBureau of Lawyers \u201dDe jure\u201d,\nand lawyer of it J.M.Martynenko represented the Defendant\u2019s (our Principal)\ninterests in the court of the first\ninstance.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
State Agency (hereinafter referred to as the Plaintiff) has filed a claim against our Principal (hereinafter referred to as the Defendant) for the recovery of funds in the amount of about 20 million rubles to the budget of Moscow. In support of the stated requirements, the Plaintiff referred to the fact that the Principal did…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[111,109],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/de-ure.ru\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/33160"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/de-ure.ru\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/de-ure.ru\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/de-ure.ru\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/de-ure.ru\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=33160"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/de-ure.ru\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/33160\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":33161,"href":"https:\/\/de-ure.ru\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/33160\/revisions\/33161"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/de-ure.ru\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=33160"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/de-ure.ru\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=33160"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/de-ure.ru\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=33160"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}