1. The subject of the dispute concerns the lawfulness of the court leaving a statement of claim without consideration at the stage of preparatory proceedings due to the plaintiff’s abuse of their procedural rights.<\/p>\n
2. The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court departed from its own previous position (specifically, that set forth in the resolution of the Administrative Cassation Court in case No. 826\/14653\/17) regarding the impossibility of establishing signs of an artificial dispute at the stage of preparatory proceedings. The Court emphasized that preparatory proceedings serve as an optimal “filter” for identifying bad-faith conduct; therefore, the court is not obliged to proceed to the consideration of the case on its merits if the artificial nature of the claim is evident. The Court established that the plaintiff simultaneously initiated contradictory processes in different cases: in some, they acknowledged the debt, while in others, they attempted to have the contract declared invalid or terminated. Such behavior was qualified as manipulation of the judicial process to block bankruptcy procedures and evade the fulfillment of obligations. The Grand Chamber underscored that the right of access to court is not absolute and cannot be used for “brazen procedural games.” Consequently, the court has the right (but not the obligation) to respond to abuses of rights even on its own initiative, provided that the bad faith is beyond doubt.<\/p>\n
3. The Court granted the cassation appeal, overturned the ruling of the appellate court, and upheld the ruling of the court of first instance to leave the statement of claim without consideration.<\/p>\n