A penalty counter-calculation lets a defendant identify an error in the inputs, period or formula and propose a result that can be checked. My note of 10 June 2020 described a case in which we prepared a defence submission and our own calculation, which the court accepted. The attached document is the operative part of the judgment in case A40-314207/2019.
⚖️ Case A40-314207/2019 and the original document
The Moscow Arbitrazh Court announced the operative part on 8 June 2020. Judge V. G. Druzhinina heard the case. Moscow’s Department of City Property was the claimant, Olimp LLC the defendant. L. Z. Kozhevnikova represented the defendant at the hearing.
| Item | What the document establishes |
|---|---|
| Reference | A40-314207/19-11-2479 |
| Court and date | Moscow Arbitrazh Court, 8 June 2020 |
| Claim subjects | Money recovery, termination and eviction |
| Penalty | RUB 108,065.59 awarded to DGI |
| Remainder | Claims refused |
| Court fee | RUB 4,241.97 payable to the federal budget under the 2020 judgment |
My historical note attributed the result to the claimant’s incorrect calculation and our defence with a counter-calculation. The disclosed document, however, gives no reasons, original amount, formula or specific error. It cannot establish that the court corrected a particular rate, excluded particular days or applied Civil Code Article 333. The reasoned judgment and calculation materials would be needed.
At the time, I hoped the decision would stand if appealed. That is not confirmation that an appeal was filed or resolved. Subsequent review and payment are not documented here.
⚖️ Correcting a calculation and Article 333 are different arguments
The first question is whether the sum is correctly calculated under the contract or statute: base amount, rate, dates, payments and arithmetic. The second is whether an otherwise correctly calculated penalty should be reduced as manifestly disproportionate under Article 333. Where both apply, state the grounds separately.
Article 330 defines a penalty as a monetary sanction under law or contract; the creditor need not prove losses to claim it. The breach and calculation still require substantiation. Lack of proven losses is not itself an arithmetic error.
⚖️ Which calculation lines to examine
| Element | Check against the evidence |
|---|---|
| Base amount | Obligation amount, debt components and the contractual accrual base |
| Period | Performance deadline, breach date, end event and inclusion of days |
| Payments | Dates, purpose, allocation and changes in the outstanding balance |
| Rate | Contract or applicable law; daily, monthly or annual percentage |
| Arithmetic | Days, percentage conversion, rounding and total |
| Special provisions | Excluded periods or limits where applicable to the obligation |
This is a general review method, not a reconstruction of DGI’s error in this case. Period-by-period calculations help when the debt balance or rate changes. Explain every adjustment with the document and rule supporting it. An alternative total without the calculation sequence does not explain why the claimant’s sum is wrong.
⚖️ Presenting the calculation with the defence
Arbitrazh Procedure Code Article 131 requires responses to the claim’s arguments and supporting attachments. Send the defence to the court and participants in time for review before the hearing. Article 65 governs proof of a party’s arguments and advance disclosure of evidence.
A useful appendix identifies the line, period, base, rate, days, operation, result and source. Place the claimant’s corresponding line alongside it and explain the difference. Legal objections to the basis of accrual should accompany the arithmetic separately.
- 1. Obtain the claimant’s calculation.
Compare it with the claim, contract and claimed period. - 2. Verify inputs.
Check deadlines and payments against primary documents. - 3. Prepare the counter-calculation.
Show changes, sources and totals by period. - 4. Submit the defence.
Send it with attachments to the court and participants; keep confirmation.
A counter-calculation is not itself a counterclaim and does not replace a response to termination or eviction demands. Several claims require a position on each. The court checks the proposed figures against both sides’ evidence; acceptance is not guaranteed.
⚖️ Frequently asked questions
What is a penalty counter-calculation?
The defendant’s calculation identifies specific objections to the claimant’s amount and substantiates an alternative with source documents.
Can I just say that the amount is excessive?
Identify disputed lines, the basis for changing them and the supporting documents.
Is this the same as an Article 333 application?
No. Correcting an erroneous calculation and reducing a disproportionate penalty are different grounds.
How much was the claim reduced in A40-314207/2019?
The award is RUB 108,065.59 in penalties. The original amount is absent from the operative part, so no reduction ratio or percentage is calculated.
Was the judgment upheld on appeal?
No appeal-outcome document is included. The old note only discussed the possibility of an appeal.
⚖️ Sources and related practice
Checked: 10 October 2026. The award follows the operative part; the explanation about our defence and calculation follows my 10 June 2020 note. General preparation guidance is separated from undisclosed case details. Original sources are in Russian.
- 📄 Operative judgment, case A40-314207/2019.
- Arbitrazh Procedure Code Article 131: defence.
- Article 65: proof.
- Civil Code Article 330.
- Civil Code Article 333.
Other DGI disputes: claim withdrawal in A40-126240/2020; apartment-building land rent charges. Each outcome has its own evidence and grounds.
This text is for information only and is not legal advice. Document forms are used at your own risk and require review for the specific matter. Another dispute’s outcome does not guarantee yours.