In fact, arrived in KS from the Perm region, in the role of the victim turned out to be of “Lysva-Teploenergo”. In 2015, the company assumed obligations to provide the Lysva urban district heat and hot water, while the official recipient of the service became a municipal budgetary institution (MBU) “Lysva rural water”. When for services rendered, the accumulated arrears in the energy, appealed to the court. However, to collect 400 thousand rubles, they failed, since the city eliminated the water utility as a legal entity. Lay upon her vicarious liability as the founder of the MBU also failed because the civil law provides no such right. For an explanation of the validity of this approach, the plaintiffs appealed to the constitutional court of the Russian Federation.
According to power engineers, a judicial decision in their case violated the right to private property, and the constitutional principle of equality before the law and court, because “state and municipal forms of ownership creates a clear and unreasonable advantage.”
the COP’s Decision in this case argued previously expressed legal positions of the court. First, the court recalled that not once pointed out the sanctity of property rights, but also the need to balance this against the rights and freedoms of others. Such an approach is fully applied to the relations of debtors and creditors.
however, the state of budget institutions in the legal field has its own characteristics: it is the participant of civil turnover, but has no ownership, but only performs operative management of state or municipal property. So its liabilities may respond partially, and the law sets a “high” responsibility only in the case of harm to citizens. That is, in the system of current legal regulation the article of 123.22 CC “eliminates the opportunity to attract to vicarious liability to a property owner (founder) eliminated MBU for its obligations arising from the public agreement”.
the Federal legislator charged this remove the contradiction. A case of “Lysva-Teploenergo” is subject to revision, as in this case, the decision of the constitutional court for the obligations of MBU eliminated vicarious liability imposed on the owner of the property of the institution.
