1. Subject of the dispute – recovery of penalty for non-compliance with the terms of equipment installation under the supply contract.
2. The court of cassation instance overturned the decisions of previous instances regarding the satisfaction of the counterclaim for the recovery of penalty, as the courts of previous instances violated the norms of procedural law when accepting evidence submitted in violation of the established deadline, and did not properly assess electronic evidence, in particular, the video recording, rejecting it solely due to the absence of an electronic digital signature, without taking into account that electronic evidence can be evaluated based on general principles of evidence. The court of cassation instance emphasized that the courts should have assessed all the evidence in its totality, and not rejected it formally. The Court noted that the courts of previous instances did not take into account the conclusions of the Supreme Court in case No. 910/12005/22 regarding the procedure for accepting evidence submitted in violation of procedural deadlines.
3. The court overturned the decisions of previous instances in the part of satisfying the counterclaim and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Skip to content
Skip to sidebar
Skip to footer
