1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of the cost of work actually performed under a project and the refund of funds received by the customer under bank guarantees following the termination of the construction contract.
2. The Supreme Court departed from the formalistic approach of the lower courts, which had dismissed the claim solely due to the absence of signed certificates of acceptance for the work. The Court emphasized that legal consequences are created by the actual business transaction (actual performance of work), rather than merely the existence of source documents. The lower courts were obligated to determine the actual volume of work performed, whether such work has independent value for the customer, and whether it is subject to payment even if the final result of the stage was not achieved. The Supreme Court underscored that “unperformed” work and “improperly performed” work are distinct concepts, and a customer cannot be unjustly enriched at the expense of the contractor’s labor results. Furthermore, the Court clarified that a claim for the recovery of funds under a bank guarantee for the return of an advance payment constitutes a separate monetary obligation; however, if the primary obligation has been partially performed, the recovery of the entire advance amount may be qualified as unjust enrichment. Consequently, the courts must examine evidence of the actual performance of work rather than limiting themselves to noting the absence of signed certificates.
3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, set aside the decisions of the lower courts regarding the denial of the claim for the cost of work and the funds unjustly acquired under the guarantee, and remanded the case in this part for a new trial to the court of first instance.
