The Court explained what circumstances must be clarified in proving the notification of the insolvency receiver of the drawing up of a protocol on an administrative offence in respect of her.

The courts have held that it is impossible to draw up a protocol on an administrative offence in the absence of the court-appointed insolvency receiver in respect of whom it is being drawn up. However, the Supreme Court considered that the courts did not pay attention to a number of circumstances.

ELENA GLADYSHEVA, MANAGING PARTNER OF RI- CONSULTING LAW OFFICE about the Supreme Court ruling and similar cases? What decisions are usually made by the court?

Link to the case 

In the submitted decision, the position of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation is fully consistent with the law and established judicial practice. The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation has consistently, not for the first year, formed a position on the inadmissibility of formal examination of cases, pointing to the need to take into account all the factual circumstances in rendering a judicial act. In the case under consideration, the RF Supreme Court pointed out that the notice was received by the insolvency manager in advance, at the address that was at the disposal of Rosreestr and SRO (self-regulatory organization), in which the insolvency manager is a member.

At the same time, the law entrusts the insolvency receiver with the obligation to notify the SRO of the change of contact details, including the address of registration. SRO, in its turn, places in the public domain information on the contacts of the insolvency receiver on its website, which may be used by all persons, including Rosreestr, when interacting with the insolvency receiver.

Under such circumstances, the insolvency receiver himself had to ensure the accuracy of the address available in the SRO and in the public domain, guided, among other things, by the principle of good faith. Moreover, the receipt of correspondence to the old address, and then the reference to the lack of notification on the changed data, indicates bad faith behavior of the insolvency receiver in this regard, and the position of the RF Supreme Court in the dispute under consideration is reasonable and lawful.

In our practice there are also similar cases regarding notification of persons involved in the case or the sending of documents for court hearings. As a rule, courts also avoid a formal approach in such cases: it is acceptable, for example, to send documents to the opponent's available email address or to send them via messenger. In such cases, the parties, guided by the principle of good faith, do not dispute the receipt of documents, formally referring to the absence of a postal receipt, thus significantly saving each other both time and money for postal expenses.

Read more here