This Russian case focuses on the apartment delivery date and an unsigned DDU addendum. The general delay-penalty calculation and pre-action demand process are covered in the DDU delay-penalty guide. This page preserves the facts of the individual dispute.
A DDU amendment extending the handover date can affect the delay period and the buyer’s monetary claims. My note of 26 June 2020 described repeated developer proposals to move the dates; the amendment was not signed. The attached Ostankinsky District Court judgment of 9 July 2019, case 2-2659/2019, awarded a delay penalty but reduced it under Civil Code Article 333.
⚖️ Case 2-2659/2019 and the original judgment
Judge O. A. Menshova heard the case in Moscow’s Ostankinsky District Court. The judgment identifies L. Z. Kozhevnikova as the claimant’s representative. It establishes a registered shared-construction agreement, full payment for the apartment and failure to hand it over on time. The apartment had not been transferred when the dispute was considered.
| Issue | What the judgment establishes |
|---|---|
| Court and date | Ostankinsky District Court, Moscow, 9 July 2019 |
| Case number | 2-2659/2019 |
| Obligation | Handover of a fully paid apartment under a registered DDU |
| Developer’s objection | An application to reduce the penalty and consumer fine |
| Outcome | Claims allowed in part; penalty reduced and consumer fine awarded |
| Source limits | Most amounts, contract dates and personal details are redacted; subsequent payment is not documented |
This is a redacted copy. Hidden amounts, names and addresses are not reconstructed. The last page is the reverse of the certified copy.
The proposed amendments are described in my historical note. The disclosed judgment does not reproduce that correspondence or separately determine the validity of a particular amendment. This case is therefore not presented as a court invalidating a document absent from the published evidence.
⚖️ What a DDU date amendment can change
My practical position remains: do not sign a later date merely as a goodwill gesture without assessing the consequences and discussing reciprocal terms. The new deadline, any promised compensation, payment arrangements and treatment of existing claims should be clear before signature. This does not rule out every amendment: a negotiated solution may be acceptable when its terms actually suit the buyer.
Law 214-FZ Article 6 distinguishes the contractual handover date from a proposal to change the agreement. Where construction cannot be completed on time, the developer must provide information and a proposed amendment at least two months before the relevant deadline. Changes to the handover date follow civil-law rules. A proposal letter alone is not a concluded amendment.
| Draft provision | Question before signing |
|---|---|
| New date | Does it change construction completion or actual apartment handover? What event determines it? |
| Existing delay | Are earlier claims preserved, and how does the draft describe their settlement? |
| Compensation | Are its amount, payment deadline and consequences of non-payment clear? |
| No-claims wording | Which claims does it cover, and is it broader than the agreed settlement? |
| Formalities | Who signs, and are the necessary form and registration requirements met? |
This is a review checklist for a new draft, not the disclosed contents of the proposals in the historical case. Registration and the effect of a particular amendment require reviewing the agreement and applicable provisions, rather than relying on the filename.
⚖️ Why the penalty was reduced
The developer asked for Article 333 to be applied. The court reduced the penalty after considering the circumstances. The old general observation that almost the entire amount can sometimes be recovered is not this case’s outcome. Redacted amounts prevent calculating the proportion awarded.
Article 333 permits reduction of a manifestly disproportionate penalty and requires the debtor’s application for a business obligation. Supreme Court Plenum Resolution 7 of 24 March 2016, paragraphs 71, 73 and 74, addresses a reasoned application, the proof burden and the creditor’s objections. Filing the motion does not automatically produce a reduction. Useful objections can address the length and consequences of the delay, documented expenses and the developer’s specific arguments. This does not claim that every listed document was filed in the 2019 case.
The judgment separately examines legal costs. It awarded representative and postal costs but refused the cost of the power of attorney: its broad authority was not limited to this case, and the original was not submitted to the court. This is the court’s finding on the documents before it.
⚖️ Why the 2019 calculation cannot be copied into 2026
The judgment uses a historical calculation for 283 days at 7.75%, and a 50% consumer fine. These figures must not be inserted into a modern claim without checking the period and applicable law.
Current Law 214-FZ Article 10(3) provides a 5% fine under its stated conditions. Selecting the rule for earlier obligations also requires Constitutional Court Resolution 24-P of 14 April 2026: the new calculation does not automatically govern an obligation to pay a fine arising before its introduction; when that obligation arose depends on the circumstances. The DDU’s signing date alone does not decide it.
⚖️ Preparing a claim when the amendment was not signed
- 1. Establish the deadline.
Assemble the DDU, effective amendments, proposals and formalities evidence. - 2. Collect proof.
Payment, handover or non-handover records, notices, correspondence, demand and dispatch evidence. - 3. Separate periods.
Check rates, excluded days, consumer-fine rules and any payment deferral. - 4. Develop the position.
State the claim, respond separately to reduction arguments and substantiate costs.
Refusing a date amendment and avoiding acceptance of a ready apartment are different situations with different legal consequences. The actual notice and handover conditions require a separate assessment.
⚖️ Frequently asked questions
Does a developer’s letter itself extend the DDU date?
A proposal is not the same as a concluded amendment. Agreement, form and necessary formalities need checking.
Is the full penalty guaranteed if I did not sign?
No. The breach, calculation period, special provisions and objections still matter. This case’s penalty was reduced.
Can a date extension be agreed for compensation?
The terms can be negotiated. Assess payment, the new date, preservation of previous claims and other provisions before signature.
Is a 50% consumer fine automatically added today?
No. The 2019 judgment used historical rules. Current Article 10, transitional provisions and Constitutional Court Resolution 24-P must be considered.
Does the publication prove that the buyer received the money?
No. It includes an award judgment; evidence of later execution is not provided.
⚖️ Sources and related practice
Checked: 10 October 2026. Case facts follow the disclosed judgment. Amendment correspondence comes only from my note of 26 June 2020. Modern provisions are separated from the historical calculation. Original sources are in Russian.
- 📄 Ostankinsky District Court judgment, 9 July 2019.
- Law 214-FZ Article 6: handover date and penalty.
- Civil Code Article 333.
- Supreme Court Plenum Resolution 7: reduction of penalties.
- Government Resolution 326, current version.
- Government Resolution 2227.
- Law 214-FZ Article 10.
- Constitutional Court Resolution 24-P, 14 April 2026.
Separate delay practice: LSR penalty and case 2-1269/21. That case has its own calculation period and execution information.
This text is for information only and is not legal advice. Document forms are used at your own risk and require review for the particular circumstances. Another case’s result does not guarantee your outcome.