The Ministry of Industry and Trade failed to sue Biocad for 21 million rubles

Referring to the clause of the agreement on the provision of a subsidy, in March 2025 the Ministry of Industry and Trade sent Biocad a demand for the collection of fines for failure to achieve the quantitative values ​​of the indicators of the effectiveness of the project implementation. The claim became the basis for going to court.

The plaintiff pointed out that, according to the agreement, the planned deadline for the introduction of the drug is the first quarter of 2019, but the antianemic drug Darbestim (darbepoetin alpha) was introduced into circulation only in the fourth quarter of 2020. In addition, as stated by the Ministry of Industry and Trade, Biocad failed to meet a number of target indicators, including an increase in the share of domestic drugs and revenue receipt that is several times greater than the amount of the subsidy.

The pharmaceutical company objected, stating that the start date of the drug's release is confirmed by the date of receipt of the registration certificate (March 19, 2019), according to the final reporting documentation dated March 22, 2022. In addition, the defendant stated that the limitation period had expired.

The arbitration court, having examined the case materials, established that the ministry was notified of the project results back in March 2022, and filed the claim only in April 2025, which exceeds the three-year limitation period, according to Article 199 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation.

As a result, the court found the plaintiff's claims to be unfounded and subject to rejection in full. The decision may be appealed within one month from the date of its adoption to the Ninth Arbitration Court of Appeal.

In January 2025, the Moscow Arbitration Court rejected the Ministry of Industry and Trade's claim against the manufacturer of irradiation and electrotherapeutic medical equipment, Eiliton LLC. The ministry tried to recover 30.3 million rubles in subsidies, 4.6 million rubles in fines, and 525.3 thousand rubles in interest, citing the company's failure to fulfill its obligations under the project. However, the court ruled that the department's demand was unfounded and not subject to satisfaction.