Article 215.1. Stopping or limiting the supply of electrical energy or disconnecting from other sources of life support

ST 215.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

1. Illegal termination or restriction of the supply of electrical energy to consumers or disconnection of them from other sources of life support, committed by an official, as well as a person performing managerial functions in a commercial or other organization, if this entailed through negligence the infliction of major damage, serious harm to health or other serious consequences - shall be punishable by a fine in the amount of up to two hundred thousand rubles, or in the amount of the wages or other income of the convicted person for a period of up to eighteen months, or by restriction of liberty for a term of up to three years, or by forced labor for a term of up to two years, or by imprisonment for the same term.

2. The same acts, which through negligence resulted in the death of a person, are punishable by forced labor for a term of up to five years with deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities for a term of up to three years or without it, or imprisonment for a term of up to five years with deprivation of the right hold certain positions or engage in certain activities for a period of up to three years or without it.

The law is harsh

As of January 1, 2021, the moratorium on power outages and the accrual of penalties for late payments ceased to apply. Let us remember that the relaxations introduced a year earlier were related to the pandemic. This does not mean that all debts were forgiven in 2021, but defaulters did not risk being left without electricity.

Now the conditions return to the original ones, which means that:

• Penalties will be charged for late payment.
• If payments are delayed for a long time, electricity supply may be suspended or terminated.
• In order for the light to return, you will have to pay a certain amount, and this will not happen immediately, but only within two days.

Commentary to Art. 215.1 of the Criminal Code

1. The objective side is characterized by alternatively provided actions: a) stopping or b) limiting the supply of electricity or c) turning off other sources of life support. These actions must be illegal, i.e. be carried out in violation of the procedure established by law for the complete or partial deprivation of consumers’ access to electricity and other sources of life support.

2. The crime is considered completed from the moment of causing serious harm to human health, major damage (note to Article 216 of the Criminal Code) or other grave consequences (for example, disruption of the work of enterprises, institutions, organizations).

What is considered debt?

The law contains the concept of “incomplete payment for services”. They talk about it when the consumer has a debt of two months' rent (the average monthly fee is calculated from the consumption standard, installed meters do not affect it).

If the consumer pays for the services provided (this means all services: for example, one receipt may include a bill for heat and electricity) partially, then the amount received is distributed among all categories of services in proportion to the cost of each. The unpaid portion is counted as debt.

Once the amount owed exceeds two months' average payments, the utility provider may impose certain “sanctions,” including limiting the supply of electricity.

What to do if the lights in the apartment are turned off contrary to the law?

You should act in stages:

1. File a claim with your electricity supplier.
2. If the answer is negative or there is none, collect a package of documents and prepare a complaint to government agencies.
3. Wait for the review result.
4. If there is damage caused, a claim is filed in court.

Preliminary proceedings

Where to contact?

1. First, the claim must be sent to the company that is the supplier of electrical energy. This is your management company, Energosbyt or HOA.
2. If the appeal remains unanswered, you must send a complaint to Rospotrebnadzor, the prosecutor's office or the district administration.
3. If damage occurs as a result of a power outage, try to hold the supplier accountable. To do this, you need to file a claim in the district court.

Required documents and evidence

If there is an illegal power outage, it is important to first determine which organization to contact.

• If you file a complaint, contact Rospotrebnadzor, the Housing Inspectorate or the prosecutor's office, in which case you will need to provide a response from the supplier to whom you previously filed a complaint.
• Receipts for payment of electricity and a document confirming the ownership of the residential premises are attached.
• Also, there may be other evidence, for example, written testimony from neighbors who also talk about illegal shutdowns.

Drawing up a complaint

The complaint is drawn up on a white A4 sheet.

1. At the top, the initials and position of the employee of the prosecutor's office (Rospotrebnadzor) to whom the complaint is being filed are indicated.
2. Below is the address of the location of the government agency.
3. The initials of the applicant are indicated along with contact information. Residence and registration address.
4. The date is set.
5. In the middle is the name of the document.
6. Complaints can be collective or sent by you personally.
7. You must indicate where you live and whether you are the owner of the premises in which the lights are systematically turned off.
8. The circumstances that preceded the power outage are indicated. Perhaps this is a violation of the supplier's duties or your failure to pay for services, but in the absence of notification from the supplier.
9. We need to indicate that we pay for electricity every month, but the electricity supply service was still turned off.
10. Information is provided when the lights were turned off, and how electricity suppliers responded to your request to turn them on.
11. Also, there is a requirement to recalculate payments for electrical energy, as well as requirements for inclusion.
12. Date and signature are added.
13. The consumer consents to the processing of his personal data.

We do not recommend completing the documents yourself. Save time - contact our lawyers by phone:

8 (800) 350-14-90

Depending on the specifics of the individual situation, the text of the complaint may vary.

Terms of its consideration

In accordance with Federal Law No. 59 of May 2, 2006, applications from citizens must be considered within thirty days from the day your application was registered; this is stated in Article 12.

Trial

Statement of claim to court

The statement of claim is drawn up on a blank white sheet of A4 format.

1. The right side indicates the name of the court where the case will be heard.
2. Even lower is information about the plaintiff, indicating contact phone numbers and residential addresses.
3. In the middle of the line indicate the word “Statement of Claim”.
4. Below are the circumstances of the case with references to the legislation of the Russian Federation.
5. It is established in which room the power was cut off and what reasons preceded it. Which is a direct violation of the rights, interests and legal requirements of the plaintiff.
6. If necessary, indicate the status of the recorded readings of electrical energy meters.
7. Requirements are established for the recalculation of electrical energy that was not consumed due to the shutdown, as well as a requirement for the inclusion of electrical energy.
8. If damage has been caused, it also needs to be reported.
9. Additionally, you can recover moral damages, lost profits, and so on.
10. A list of attached documents is listed.
11. Date and signature are added.

We do not recommend completing the documents yourself. Save time - contact our lawyers by phone:

8 (800) 350-14-90

Duration of the procedure

If the case is filed in the magistrate's court, then the statement of claim is considered before the expiration of the calendar month, Art. 154 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, after which a date for the meeting is set.

State duty and other financial expenses

During the process, you may need the services of a lawyer. If the court finds the defendant guilty, this amount can be recovered from him.

The amount of the state duty depends on the price of the claim, this is regulated by Art. 333.19 Tax Code of the Russian Federation. If it is less than 20,000 rubles, then the amount of the state duty will be 4% of the amount, but not less than 400 rubles. If the cost is higher, the amount increases.

If the damage due to the blackout was not caused and the claims in the statement of claim are not of a property nature, then the amount of the state duty for individuals will be 300 rubles, and for organizations 600 rubles. in accordance with paragraph 1 of Article 333.19 of the Tax Code.

There are many reasons for a power outage: power failures, scheduled repairs, debts to pay for electricity. Every situation has its limitations. Where to go in case of frequent interruptions, how the owner can refuse power supply, and whether the chairman of SNT or the management company has the right to stop the supply of electricity - read our materials.

On what basis can utility workers turn off the lights?

This right is enshrined in Art. 119 of the Decree of the Russian Federation “On the provision of utility services to owners and users of premises in apartment buildings and residential buildings.”

In doing so, they must follow a certain order:

• First, a notice is sent stating that if the debt is not repaid within 20 days, the service will be first limited and then suspended. If it is not possible to restrict the service, its provision will be suspended without an intermediate step.

Important! A notice is considered given only if there is confirmation of it. This means that it must be handed over to the debtor against receipt or by registered mail with acknowledgment of receipt. If this is not done, further “sanctions” will be illegal. The service provider may use other methods of transmitting a message: a call with a recording, an email with confirmation of receipt, information through the state housing and communal services information system or the Internet.

• If the consumer ignores the warning and does not pay the fee, the provider may limit consumption of the service. If this does not lead to results, the provision of the service may be suspended. Exceptions are heating and cold water supply in apartment buildings. Electricity may be cut off if you do not respond to the demand to pay in time.

Complete restriction or suspension of the provision of services - cessation of the supply of electrical energy.

Second commentary to Art. 215.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation

1. The objective side is characterized by a socially dangerous act that has alternative forms:

a) illegal termination or restriction of the supply of electrical energy to consumers;

b) disconnecting consumers from other sources of life support. Stopping the supply means a complete (temporary or permanent) disconnection of consumers from the power grid. Restricting the supply of electricity means either reducing the amount of energy supplied to a level below the minimum required for the consumer, or limiting the supply of energy over time. Disconnecting consumers from other sources of life support means stopping water, gas, and heat supply during the heating season.

2. The crime is considered completed from the moment at least one of those listed in Part 1 of Art. 2151 consequences:

a) major damage (amounting to more than 500 thousand rubles - note to Article 216 of the Criminal Code);

b) serious harm to health;

c) other serious consequences (for example, shutdown of large production facilities with a continuous cycle of work; disorganization of the work of enterprises, institutions or organizations; radioactive, chemical or bacteriological contamination of the environment, etc.).

3. The subjective side is characterized by a careless form of guilt.

4. The subject of the crime is special: an official or a person performing managerial functions in a commercial or other organization.

5. Causing the death of a person through negligence entails criminal liability under Part 2 of Art. 215.1.

Review of the practice of the RF Armed Forces on unmetered electricity consumption. August – September 2021

Review of the practice of the RF Armed Forces on unmetered electricity consumption. August – September 2021

The review selected cases from August – September 2021 that reached the RF Armed Forces. Unfortunately, none of the cases were referred to the board for consideration. All definitions from the review are “refusal”.

And there was something to convey. It is high time to decide on such issues as violation of the procedure for notifying the consumer about checking the meter; signing of the act not by the consumer (owner), but by the tenant’s employee, watchman, watchman, etc.; the influence on the consumer's guilt of such a factor as the ability to detect a malfunction of the metering device only through instrumental testing; using such a method of defense as a claim to invalidate an act on unaccounted-for electricity consumption, etc.

Unfortunately, there is still no legal certainty regarding these issues in various district courts. The RF Armed Forces cannot help but see this. All these problems were in the focus of attention of the judges of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation during the period under review.

Determination of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 08/02/2021 under No. 307-ES21-12294

The absence of evidence of sending an act on non-contractual (unmetered) electricity consumption to the consumer makes the further introduction of restrictions on the consumption regime illegal.

The network company appealed to the Arbitration Court of the city of St. Petersburg with an application to challenge the decision of the Office of the Federal Antimonopoly Service for St. Petersburg to recognize the Network company as violating the Law on Protection of Competition.

The courts rejected the claim.

When examining the circumstances of the case, it was established that during the inspection, the Network Company drew up acts in which it recorded the violation by the Consumer of its obligations, expressed in violation of the characteristics of the technological connection specified in the documents on technological connection, which was the basis for introducing restrictions on the consumption regime.

At the same time, acts on illegal (non-contractual) consumption of electricity were drawn up in the absence of the consumer; acts on unaccounted for (non-contractual) consumption were not sent to the consumer, which led to a violation of the procedure for introducing restrictions on the mode of consumption of electrical energy.

Determination of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation dated August 2, 2021 No. 307-ES21-11713

If the fact of unmetered consumption was not identified during the validity period of the previous electricity supply contract, then the consumer cannot be burdened with negative consequences in the form of charging for unmetered electricity consumption both under the “old” and under the “new” energy supply contract (if such a fact is revealed in period of validity of the “new” contract).

The network company filed a claim with the Arbitration Court of the Arkhangelsk Region to recover unjust enrichment from the Consumer in connection with the unaccounted consumption of electricity.

The case went through several rounds of consideration, and, in the end, the courts rejected the Network Company’s claim.

The court of first instance proceeded from the lack of evidence of reasonableness and good faith in the company’s actions, the latter’s fulfillment as a guarantee supplier during the period of validity of the contract dated 01/01/2018 N 91-03569 (until 09/30/2018) timely and proper fulfillment of the obligations arising from the requirements of the law to conduct inspections of the disputed metering devices of the company, and therefore refused to satisfy the demand for recovery of unmetered electricity consumption under the above agreement for the period from 01/01/2018 to 09/30/2018.

The court also noted that the company had no debt at the time of termination of contract No. 91-03569 dated January 1, 2018 due to the change of the guaranteeing supplier and the assignment of this status to the plaintiff, which was not denied by a third party.

The district court supported the conclusions of the court of first instance, noting that since as of October 1, 2018 (the start of the energy supply agreement concluded between the plaintiff, a new supplier of last resort, and the defendant), the fact of unmetered electricity consumption had not been identified, there is no basis for calculating the volume of such consumption for the period preceding the specified date.

Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 08/02/2021 in case No. 306-ES21-11877

Connecting 2 cable lines in violation of the order of technological connection (bypassing metering devices) should be qualified as unmetered electricity consumption.

The supplier of last resort filed a claim with the Consumer to recover unmetered electricity consumption.

The claim was granted.

The courts established that the basis for the company's (guarantee supplier) appeal to the arbitration court was the discovery of a violation as a result of an instrumental check of the metering device carried out with the participation of the defendant's representative (unauthorized connection of 2 cable lines to the defendant's metering device), which served as the basis for drawing up act on unaccounted consumption and calculation of the cost of unaccounted consumption.

Having established the fact of connecting 2 cable lines to the defendant’s networks in violation of the procedure for technological connection (bypassing metering devices, which does not exclude electricity consumption), the court of first instance considered confirmed the violation by the entrepreneur of obligations to ensure compliance of electricity metering circuits with established requirements, recognizing the fact of unmetered electricity consumption proven.

Overturning the decision of the court of first instance and refusing to satisfy the claim, the appellate court came to the conclusion that there was no proof of the presence of illegal connection of cable lines directly in the entrepreneur’s networks, and as a consequence, unmetered consumption, also pointing out the presence of violations during the procedure for checking the metering device and drawing up an act of unmetered resource consumption.

The district court overturned the appeal ruling and upheld the findings of the trial court, pointing out the validity of the conclusion that the defendant’s actions in accordance with Basic Provisions No. 442 should be qualified as unmetered consumption of electrical energy; The requirements for the content of the act on unaccounted-for electricity consumption, provided for by current legislation, were fully complied with by representatives of the network organization when drawing up the act.

Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 08/05/2021 in case No. 305-ES21-12544

Interfering with the design of a metering device and installing an unknown device connected to the internal power supply circuit of the metering device is considered unmetered electricity consumption.

The sales company filed a claim with the Moscow Region AS against the Consumer for the collection of debt for unmetered electricity consumption.

The courts granted the claim.

In satisfying the claim, the courts were guided by Articles 309, 310, 539, 544 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, Federal Law dated March 26, 2003 N 35-FZ “On Electric Power Industry”, Basic provisions for the functioning of retail electricity markets, approved by the Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated May 4, 2012 No. 422, and, having examined and assessed the evidence presented in the case according to the rules of Article 71 of the Arbitration Procedural Code of the Russian Federation, came to the conclusion that there are no grounds for releasing the defendant from the obligation to pay for unmetered electricity consumption due to the identified interference in the design of the meter and the installation of an unknown device, connected to the internal power supply circuit of the metering device, which led to a distortion of the actual value of the amount of electricity consumed.

Arguments about the absence of such evidence as consumer intervention in the operation of the meter, as well as the lack of proper notification to the defendant about the preparation of an act on unmetered electricity consumption, were the subject of study by the lower courts and were reasonably rejected with reference to the current legislation and the factual circumstances of the dispute, therefore the repeated statement of similar arguments in the present complaint does not in itself constitute the necessary grounds for reviewing the appealed judicial acts in cassation.

Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 08/05/2021 in case No. 306-ES21-12371

The fact of failure by the consumer to fulfill the obligation to preserve the visual control seals installed on the metering device (guilty actions of the consumer in influencing the seals) indicates unaccounted consumption of electricity.

The supplier of last resort filed a claim with the Volgograd region AS against the Consumer for the collection of debt for unmetered electricity consumption in the amount of RUB 2,953,812.84.

The courts granted the claim.

Guided by Articles 539, 541, 543, 544 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the provisions of Federal Law dated 03/26/2003 N 35-FZ “On Electric Power Industry”, the Basic provisions for the functioning of retail electricity markets, approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated 05/04/2012 N 442, the court of first instance assessed the evidence presented in the case file in accordance with Article 71 of the Arbitration Procedural Code of the Russian Federation and came to the conclusion that there were legal grounds for partial satisfaction of the stated requirements, recognizing as justified the demands for recovery of the cost of unaccounted consumption of electrical energy, confirmed by the act of unaccounted consumption of electricity from 08.10.2019 N 000035/19. Regarding the demand for recovery of the cost of unaccounted consumption of electrical energy under the act on unaccounted consumption of electricity dated December 11, 2019 N 000130/19, the court came to the conclusion that the defendant’s guilt had not been proven, pointing to his timely notification of the emergency situation that had occurred, and refused to satisfy the demand for recovery debt in this part.

In overturning the decision of the court of first instance regarding the refusal to satisfy the claim, the appellate court proceeded from the conclusion of the manufacturer dated 02/04/2020 and, having established the fact of failure by the consumer to fulfill the obligation to preserve the visual control seals installed on the metering device (guilty actions of the consumer in influencing the seals) , recognized as proven the fact of unaccounted consumption of electrical energy, established by act dated December 11, 2019 N 000130/19.

The district court agreed with the conclusions of the appellate court about the non-compliance of the consumer's metering devices with the requirements of commercial metering, the need to qualify the defendant's actions as unmetered consumption of electrical energy and the collection of the disputed debt and penalties from the defendant in favor of the plaintiff, pointing out that the defendant's notification of an emergency situation in itself does not excludes the fact of consumer intervention in the operation of the meter.

Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 08/06/2021 in case No. 304-ES21-13018

Breaking the seal on the input machine means the possibility of unauthorized access to live parts of the electrical installation up to the metering device.

The sales company filed a claim with the Novosibirsk region AS against the Grid Company to recognize the act of unaccounted-for electricity consumption as illegal.

The court of first instance granted the claim. The appeal and cassation rejected the claim.

Refusing the claim, the appellate court, whose conclusions were supported by the district court, came to the conclusion that the case materials proved that a third party (consumer), after breaking the seal on the input machine, had the possibility of unauthorized access to live parts of the electrical installation up to the meter.

Author's comment : once again the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation indirectly confirmed the possibility of filing a claim to invalidate the act on unaccounted-for electricity consumption. Although the claim was ultimately denied, the basis for denial was an actual violation of Fundamental Provisions No. 442 by the consumer. The courts, when rejecting the claim, did not refer to the improper method of protecting the right.

Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 08/09/2021 in case No. 306-ES21-13287

If the metering device, in respect of which a report on unaccounted energy consumption has been drawn up, is located in a transformer substation owned by a network organization, and the consumer does not have access to this transformer substation, there are no grounds for collecting the cost of unaccounted electricity consumption.

The supplier of last resort filed a claim with the Volgograd region AS against the Consumer for collection of debt for unmetered electricity consumption.

The courts rejected the claim.

The courts found that the metering device, in respect of which a report on unaccounted energy consumption was drawn up, is located in a transformer substation owned by a network organization. Representatives of the Consumer did not have free access to the transformer substation.

In refusing to satisfy the claim, the courts were guided by Articles 539, 544 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, Federal Law dated 03/26/2003 N 35-FZ “On Electric Power Industry”, Basic provisions for the functioning of retail electricity markets, approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated 05/04/2012 N 422 , and, having examined and assessed the evidence presented in the case in accordance with the rules of Article 71 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, came to the conclusion that the fact of unaccounted consumption on the side of the defendant (consumer) was not proven.

Author's Comment: Excellent case as an example of burden of proof. If the consumer does not have access to the metering device, the device itself is located in the TP of the network company, then the burden of proving the fact of unmetered consumption on the part of the consumer falls on the latter.

Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated August 10, 2021 in case No. 305-ES21-13231

The consumer bears the risk that the metering unit is unsuitable for use in calculations, even if the malfunction of the metering device can only be determined through instrumental testing.

The supplier of last resort filed a claim with the Moscow Region AS against the Consumer to collect the debt for unmetered electricity consumption.

The claim was satisfied.

In satisfying the claim, the courts were guided by Articles 309, 310, 330, 539, 544 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, Federal Law dated March 26, 2003 N 35-FZ “On Electric Power Industry”, Basic provisions for the functioning of retail electricity markets, approved by the Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated May 4 .2012 N 422, and, having examined and assessed the evidence presented in the case according to the rules of Article 71 of the Arbitration Procedural Code of the Russian Federation, came to the conclusion that there are no grounds for releasing the defendant from the obligation to pay for unmetered electricity consumption due to the established unsuitability of the metering unit for use in calculations in due to non-compliance with the permissible error of the measuring system.

Author's comment : in many district courts a different legal position has developed than in the Moscow District Court. Its essence is that the consumer cannot be held responsible for “non-metering” if all the seals on the device are intact, and its malfunction can only be determined through instrumental testing. This is an absolutely correct position, because... it allows the consumer to prove their innocence and avoid additional charges using settlement methods.

Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated August 23, 2021 in case No. 306-ES21-13391

The supplier of last resort filed a claim with the Moscow Region AS against the Consumer to collect the debt for unmetered electricity consumption.

The claim was satisfied.

Having assessed the evidence presented in the case file in accordance with Article 71 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, including the inspection report, the report on unaccounted consumption, the expert opinion dated February 12, 2020, the courts came to the conclusion that the fact of unaccounted consumption of electrical energy by the defendant, expressed in the violation of the seal of the energy supply organization, was proven on the terminal block cover of the metering device (traces of mechanical impact), malfunction of the metering device and satisfied the requirements stated by the company.

Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated August 24, 2021 in case No. 305-ES21-13753

If access to energy receiving devices (metering devices (metering system)) was provided by the consumer (his employees or representatives) or by persons actually consuming electricity (tenants or other persons legally using the energy receiving devices (premises) of the consumer), then such an inspection is considered to be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the law.

The supplier of last resort filed a claim with the Moscow Region AS against the Consumer to collect the debt for unmetered electricity consumption. The consumer filed a counterclaim to invalidate the act on unaccounted electricity consumption.

The initial claim was satisfied, the counterclaim was denied.

The courts proceeded from the proof of the fact of unaccounted consumption of electrical energy by society, which was expressed in a malfunction of the measuring complex (systematic disconnection of the voltage circuits of the calculated metering device, the voltage circuits of the calculated metering device are not fixed to the buses of the measuring current transformers, it is possible to freely disconnect the voltage circuits), indicated the execution the network organization has the obligation provided for by the Basic Provisions to timely notify the consumer about the time and place of drawing up an act on unmetered consumption.

Author's comment: This case is interesting in several aspects. It touches on long-standing problems that constantly come up in "non-accounting" cases. Firstly, this is the lack of notification of the upcoming inspection and the signing of the act by the consumer’s employee. Secondly, this is the admissibility of a claim to invalidate an act on unaccounted electricity consumption. Thirdly, there is the issue of consumer guilt and the distribution of the burden of proof.

During the process (judging by the text of the appeal ruling), the consumer voiced arguments about the lack of notification of the upcoming inspection. The courts rejected these objections, because access to the network company's employees was ensured by the consumer's employee. Here is what the appellate court wrote: “In the event that access to energy receiving devices (metering devices (metering system)) was provided by the consumer (his employees or representatives) or by persons actually consuming electricity (tenants or other persons legally using energy receiving devices (premises) of the consumer), then such a check is considered to be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the law.”

Regarding the claim to invalidate the act, the appeal indicated that the act is not a non-normative legal act, and therefore cannot be declared invalid. The Moscow District Court stands its ground, although most district courts have already recognized this method of protection. This is not surprising, because... this method is the most adequate when considering disputes about “non-accounting”.

Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated August 24, 2021 in case No. 310-ES21-13714

The decision on a dispute between the network company and the guaranteeing supplier is prejudicial in nature for the dispute between the supplier and the consumer.

The supplier of last resort filed a claim with the AS of the Tambov region against the Consumer to collect the debt for unmetered electricity consumption.

The courts granted the claim.

In the complaint, the consumer indicated that he was not properly notified of the upcoming check of the meter; the consumer did not take part in drawing up the report on unaccounted electricity consumption, and the store seller – O.A. Ulyanova. was not authorized to participate in the verification of the metering device.

The consumer believes that the courts did not evaluate the arguments about the lack of power consumption agreed upon between the parties, and also that when determining the volume of unmetered electricity consumption, the plaintiff did not take into account the operating mode of the energy consumption facility (store). The applicant believes that the conclusion of the courts that the circumstances established during the consideration of case No. A64-8989/2018 are prejudicial in nature for the present dispute is unfounded.

In case A64-8989/18, the Consumer was involved as a third party who did not make independent claims.

The courts assessed the evidence presented in the case file in accordance with Article 71 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, took into account the circumstances established during the consideration of case No. A64-8989/2018, and came to the conclusion that the fact of unmetered consumption of electricity by the entrepreneur was proven.

Author's comment: another global problem in disputes about non-metering is the procedural cunning of network companies and guaranteeing suppliers. It consists of initiating a lawsuit between two subjects of the electricity market. The network company files a claim against the supplier of last resort to recover payment for electricity transmission services in the amount unaccounted for transferred to consumers. The latter are involved in this case as third parties. Sometimes the number of consumers can exceed several dozen in such processes.

It is impossible to reach the court and justify your position when so many parties are involved in the case. Therefore, the court satisfies the claim of the network company against the guaranteeing supplier, simultaneously establishing the fact of unmetered electricity consumption. Then this decision becomes a prejudice for the consumer, and in a dispute between the supplier and the consumer it forms the basis of a judicial act.

The situation requires close attention. The injustice of decisions made under this scheme is sometimes amazing.

Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated August 25, 2021 in case No. 307-ES21-13947

If a report on unaccounted electricity consumption was not drawn up on site, the claim for recovery of unaccounted electricity consumption should be denied.

The supplier of last resort filed a claim with the Volgograd region AS against the Consumer for collection of debt for unmetered electricity consumption.

The claim was denied.

The courts found that the readings of the disputed meter were recorded automatically; the company, before receiving notice of the upcoming inspection and within the period stipulated by the contract, informed the company about the malfunction of the metering device and its emergency replacement; on the day the metering device failed and was replaced, the company had readings from the controversial metering device, the removal of which when dismantling the metering device is provided for in paragraph 149 of the Basic Provisions.

The courts noted that the fact of the violation imputed to society was not recorded on the spot, and an act of unaccounted consumption was not drawn up.

Under such circumstances, the courts came to the conclusion that the company’s violation of the requirements of paragraph 149 of the Basic Provisions had not been proven; the evidence available in the case materials did not support the defendant’s unmetered consumption of electricity.

Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated August 25, 2021 in case No. 309-ES21-13944

The decision on a dispute between the network company and the guaranteeing supplier is prejudicial in nature for the dispute between the supplier and the consumer.

The supplier of last resort filed a claim with the Perm Territory AS against the Consumer to collect the debt for unmetered electricity consumption.

The claim was satisfied.

The courts took into account the circumstances established during the consideration of case No. A50-23539/2018 and came to the conclusion that the fact of unmetered consumption of electrical energy by the consumer was proven and the obligation arose on his side to pay the resulting debt.

Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated August 25, 2021 in case No. 306-ES21-13952

Visible and obvious interference with the means of protection against unauthorized access to the accounting system compromises him by its very fact, that is, it creates a presumption of unreliability of his testimony, since there was a clear possibility of interference in the process of fixing the amount of the supplied resource.

The supplier of last resort filed a claim with the AS of the Samara Region against the Consumer to collect the debt for unmetered electricity consumption.

The claim was satisfied.

The courts took into account the results of the forensic examination ordered in the case and came to the conclusion that the company had proven the fact of unaccounted consumption of electrical energy by the consumer and the occurrence of an obligation on his side to pay the resulting debt.

Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 09/07/2021 in case No. 308-ES21-14788

Establishing the fact of violation of the integrity of seals and (or) visual control signs of the metering device, regardless of the presence or absence of consumer intervention (his fault), indicates unaccounted consumption of energy resources and entails the obligation to pay for it.

The supplier of last resort filed a claim with the AS of the Krasnodar Territory against the Consumer to collect the debt for unmetered electricity consumption.

The claim was satisfied.

The courts found that in relation to the metering device owned by the cooperative, a violation of the requirements for ensuring the integrity of the seals installed by the network organization on the protective screen covering the input machine and live parts was revealed.

The courts have noted that the establishment of a violation of the integrity of the seals and (or) visual control signs of the metering device, regardless of the presence or absence of consumer intervention (his fault), indicates unaccounted consumption of energy resources and entails the obligation to pay for it.

Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated September 14, 2021 in case No. 301-ES21-14857

The expiration of the seal's service life refutes the presumption of consumer guilt in the event of its peeling off.

The consumer filed a claim with the Yaroslavl region AS against the Guarantee Supplier and the Network Company to invalidate the act on unaccounted consumption of electrical energy.

The courts granted the claim.

The courts proceeded from the lack of evidence that the controversial seal-sticker was completely peeled off from the surface on which it was applied; its damage in the form of partial manifestation of the protective inscription does not indicate a complete opening (break) of the seal. The courts also took into account that the network organization checked the metering device after the seal expired.

The courts have not established any other signs of interference with the operation of the electrical energy metering device or its malfunction, as well as damage to other seals applied to the metering device (metering system) and have not been proven by the defendants. The company did not exercise the right to conduct an expert study of the controversial metering device.

Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated September 15, 2021 in case No. 308-ES21-16160

The supplier of last resort filed a claim with the AS of the Stavropol Territory against the Consumer to collect the debt for unmetered electricity consumption.

The claim was satisfied.

In satisfying the claim, the courts were guided by Articles 539, 543, 544 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, Federal Law dated 03/26/2003 N 35-FZ “On Electric Power Industry”, Basic provisions for the functioning of retail electricity markets, approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated 05/04/2012 N 422 , and, having examined and assessed the evidence presented in the case according to the rules of Article 71 of the Arbitration Procedural Code of the Russian Federation, came to the conclusion that there are no grounds for releasing the defendant from the obligation to pay for unmetered electricity consumption due to the influence of a magnet on the operation of the meter to stop it.

The applicant’s reference to reasons other than those established by the courts for the formation of residual magnetization of the metering device must be rejected as aimed at reassessing the factual circumstances of the dispute. Other arguments of the complaint, incl. about access to the metering device of third parties through the fault of the plaintiff, were the subject of research and inspection by lower courts within their competence, and were rejected with reason, while the establishment of other circumstances of the dispute does not fall within the competence of the cassation court and does not form the necessary grounds for canceling the appealed court acts in cassation procedure.

Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated September 15, 2021 in case No. 310-ES21-15344

The supplier of last resort filed a claim with the AS of the Oryol region against the Consumer to collect the debt for unmetered electricity consumption.

The claim was denied.

Having assessed the evidence presented in the case materials in accordance with Article 71 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, including the act on the provision of services for the transmission of electrical energy dated 01/31/2020 N 1, the protocol of disagreements dated 01/31/2020, reports on checking the status of the electricity measurement circuit and the work (replacement) of the permit into operation of a commercial metering device dated 02/24/2019 N 57-IYU 0043403, dated 11/14/2019 N 57-IYU 0043406, acts on unaccounted consumption of electrical energy (power) dated 10/24/2019 N 57-YU 017131, dated 11/14/2019 N 57 -YU 017132, acts of technical examination of the metering device dated 01/20/2020 N 0050/230, dated 01/23/2020 N 0049/230, the courts recognized as proven the fact of unmetered consumption of electrical energy, identified as a result of unauthorized interference by consumers in the operation of the metering system (measuring complex), however, having established the fact of payment by the defendant of the disputed debt, they came to the conclusion that there were no grounds for satisfying the stated requirements.

Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated September 16, 2021 in case No. 310-ES21-16203

The network company filed a claim with the Automatic Power System of the Republic of Crimea against the Guarantee Supplier to collect the debt for unmetered electricity consumption.

The courts rejected the claim.

In rejecting the claim, the courts were guided by Articles 309, 310, 779 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, Federal Law dated 03/26/2003 N 35-FZ “On Electric Power Industry”, Basic provisions for the functioning of retail electricity markets, approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated 05/04/2012 N 442, Rules of non-discriminatory access to services for the transmission of electrical energy and the provision of these services, approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of December 27, 2004 N 861, and, having examined and assessed the evidence presented in the case according to the rules of Article 71 of the Arbitration Procedural Code of the Russian Federation, we came to the conclusion about the failure of the plaintiff (performer) to prove the unmetered consumption of electricity by consumers of the defendant (customer).

Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated September 21, 2021 in case No. 301-ES21-16381

The consumer appealed to the AS of the Kostroma Region with a claim against the Sales Company for the obligation to recalculate electricity.

The courts rejected the claim.

In refusing to satisfy the claim, the courts were guided by Articles 539, 541, 544 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, Federal Law dated March 26, 2003 N 35-FZ “On Electric Power Industry,” and the Basic Provisions for the Functioning of Retail Electricity Markets, approved by the Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated May 4. 2012 N 442, and, having examined and assessed the evidence presented in the case materials in accordance with Article 71 of the Arbitration Procedural Code of the Russian Federation, they established the fact of interference with the operation of the meter.

Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated September 22, 2021 in case No. 306-ES21-16408

Violation of the integrity of the metering device seals, in itself, is a sufficient basis for the presumption that the consumer has violated metering rules.

The supplier of last resort filed a claim with the AS of the Astrakhan region against the Consumer for the collection of debt for unmetered electricity consumption.

The claim was satisfied.

In satisfying the claim, the courts were guided by Articles 539, 541, 544 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the Basic Provisions for the Functioning of Retail Electricity Markets, approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated May 4, 2012 N 442, and, having examined and assessed the evidence presented by the parties in the manner prescribed by Article 71 Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, came to the conclusion that there are no grounds for releasing the defendant (consumer) from the obligation to pay the cost of unmetered electricity consumption resulting from a violation of the integrity of the meter seals.

The applicant, discrediting the technical act of checking the metering device, does not take into account that violation of the integrity of the seals of the metering device, in itself, is a sufficient basis for the presumption that the consumer has violated the metering rules, which, as follows from the appealed judicial acts, was not refuted by the defendant. The arguments of the complaint, therefore, do not confirm significant violations of substantive law that influenced the outcome of the case, and are not a sufficient basis for reviewing judicial acts in cassation.