This Russian case concerns LSR and the historical delay-penalty calculation for that dispute. For the general calculation and pre-action demand process, see the DDU delay-penalty guide. This case’s amounts and periods are not a calculation for a new claim.
⚖️ Pavel Petrov’s practice · case No. 2-1269/21 · Simonovsky District Court, Moscow
The court awarded a statutory delay penalty, compensation for non-pecuniary damage and a consumer fine against LSR. Object-M LLC in a Russian shared-construction agreement dispute. The claim succeeded in part and the resulting judgment was subsequently paid in full. A distinctive point in the original case note was exclusion of the temporary 2020 COVID period from the calculation.
Sources checked: 9 October 2026. The judgment dates from 3 February 2021. This page separates the historical case facts from the issues that require fresh review in a current developer-delay claim.
✅ Court award and actual payment
We completed a claim for a statutory delay penalty under a Russian shared-construction agreement, commonly called a DDU. The published judgment identifies Petrov P. I. as the claimant’s representative acting under a power of attorney. The defendant was LSR. Object-M LLC.
The court awarded a penalty, compensation for non-pecuniary damage and a fine for failure to satisfy the consumer’s claim voluntarily. It granted the claim in part: following the defendant’s request, it reduced the penalty under Article 333 of the Russian Civil Code. It also granted the non-pecuniary-damage claim in part. The developer was ordered to pay the court fee to the public budget.
This Russian case concerns LSR and the historical delay-penalty calculation for that dispute. For the general calculation and pre-action demand process, see the DDU delay-penalty guide. This case’s amounts and periods are not a calculation for a new claim.
My original report on payment: the judgment was paid in full. This comes from the original publication about our work. The judgment itself establishes the award; it is not a bank record proving payment.📋 Facts supported by the court record
| Court and date | Simonovsky District Court of Moscow, 3 February 2021 |
|---|---|
| Case number | 2-1269/21 |
| Defendant | LSR. Object-M LLC |
| Breach | The flat was handed over after the contractual deadline |
| Evidence | Shared-construction agreement, payment records, written demand to the developer and handover certificate |
| Defence | Written objections and a request to reduce the sanctions |
| Outcome | Claim granted in part; delay penalty, non-pecuniary compensation and consumer fine awarded |
The published copy redacts personal details, amounts and some dates. This article therefore does not invent the award amount, purchase price or number of delay days. The judgment does not say that the claimant’s original calculation was awarded without reduction.
🗓️ Excluding the 2020 COVID period from a DDU penalty
In my original case note I explained that the delay period from 3 April to 31 December 2020 was excluded. The basis was paragraph 1 of Russian Government Resolution No. 423 of 2 April 2020. It excluded the period from the resolution’s entry into force until 1 January 2021 from the relevant penalty calculation.
The rule concerned a defined calendar interval. It did not cancel the developer’s duty to hand over the flat or automatically remove liability for other delay days. The relevant dates are the days for which the penalty is claimed, rather than simply the year when the claim was filed.
| Question | What to check |
|---|---|
| Accrual | Which days count and which a special legal measure excludes |
| Amount awarded | The calculation and the defendant’s request for reduction |
| Receiving payment | Enforcement and whether a payment deferral applies to the particular claim |
🔎 What this case means for a claim in 2026
The practical lesson is to divide the delay into legally relevant periods and check the rules governing each. The 2020 exclusion cannot simply be extended to every later delay. An old judgment is not a ready-made calculator for a new claim.
Article 6 of Federal Law No. 214-FZ provides the basic handover obligation and liability. A new case requires review of the applicable wording, the participant’s status, handover evidence and special rules for the dates concerned.
As checked on the stated date, Government Resolution No. 326, as amended on 30 December 2025, excludes 22 March 2024 through 31 December 2025 from accrual under Article 6(2). It also provides payment deferrals through 31 December 2026 for defined categories of claims. Excluding days from accrual and deferring payment are different mechanisms: the latter depends on the type of claim and when it was presented.
Accordingly, saying that no developer-delay penalty can be recovered in 2026 is too broad without examining the documents. Equally, immediate payment cannot be promised under every judgment. See the general guide to DDU delay claims for preparing a new claim. This page has a separate purpose: explaining an actually paid case against LSR.
🧾 Documents and review sequence
- 1. Handover deadlineCompare the DDU and signed amendments.
- 2. Actual handoverReview the certificate and acceptance correspondence.
- 3. Calculation periodsSeparate days governed by temporary rules.
- 4. Demand and paymentProve presentation of the demand and review the payment route.
In our case, payment documents supported performance of the participant’s obligations. The written demand and handover certificate enabled assessment of the developer’s breach. A new claimant needs their own evidence rather than inserting assumed facts into a redacted judgment.
| Document | Purpose |
|---|---|
| DDU and signed amendments | Establish the obligations, price and agreed handover deadline |
| Payment records | Prove payment of the price and performance of the participant’s obligations |
| Handover certificate and notices | Identify acceptance circumstances and the delay boundaries |
| Written demand and delivery evidence | Record what was requested and when it was presented |
| Calculation divided by period | Make the amount auditable and apply the relevant temporary rules |
❓ Frequently asked questions
Was the entire penalty claimed awarded?
No. The judgment expressly grants the claim in part and reduces the penalty. Full payment refers to the amount awarded, rather than the claimant’s initial calculation.
What was the award amount?
The published copy redacts the figures. They cannot be stated reliably from that document, so this article does not give a numerical result.
Must the 2020 period be excluded from every current calculation?
Only where those days form part of the delay claimed and the measure applies. Other rules need to be checked for later periods.
Why is a judgment different from receiving the money?
A judgment establishes an award. Receipt of money is a separate step. In this case, payment was reported in my original publication.
Can the judgment help in a dispute with another developer?
It can illustrate an approach after the facts and applicable rules are compared. It does not guarantee the same result or replace evidence under another DDU.
📄 Original judgment and primary legal sources
Two scanned sheets containing three pages of the judgment text. Some details are redacted; the file is unchanged.
- Government Resolution No. 423 of 2 April 2020, paragraph 1: the historical-period rule.
- Federal Law No. 214-FZ, Article 6: handover deadline and liability.
- Government Resolution No. 326 of 18 March 2024: special rules for defined periods.
- Government Resolution No. 2227 of 30 December 2025: deferral amendments.
Related case: a DDU penalty where the proposed amendment was not signed. More cases from my practice.
An initial legal consultation can examine the handover deadline, evidence and relevant calculation periods. Success in this case is not a promise of the outcome of another dispute.
This article is for information only and is not individual legal advice. Use of documents or conclusions without checking the circumstances of your case is at your own risk.