The Perm District Arbitration Court ruled that the police did not owe compensation to the organizers for an interrupted Anacondaz concert, according to Kommersant. — Kommersant
The dispute originated with the tour organizer, the company Invisible Promo, which sought payment from the band after a show in Perm was halted midway. Invisible Promo argued that the event was unlawfully interrupted and that the organizers were entitled to the agreed fee. The amount in question was 255 thousand rubles. The case centered on contractual obligations, timing, and the responsibilities of security services to ensure the continuity of a live performance. The court, however, found no basis to deem the police actions illegal and dismissed the plaintiff’s claim. It also rejected the notion that any breach of contract by Invisible Promo could be excused by circumstances beyond the organizer’s control. This decision underscores how the interplay between security enforcement and event contracts can shape liability outcomes in contemporary Russian live events. — Kommersant
In the summer of 2022, the Perm venue Bereg Event Space was slated to host the concert, with additional plans for a broader regional tour. The organizers later shifted the performance to another venue at the last moment, a move that coincided with a police intervention shortly after the fourth song. Before Perm, a separate show in Yekaterinburg had already been cancelled, adding to the sense of uncertainty surrounding the tour schedule. The sequence of venue changes and the eventual policing action formed the core factual matrix for the court’s assessment of compliance with contractual terms and force majeure considerations. — Kommersant
By the end of 2022, Anacondaz pursued a separate lawsuit against the police over the Perm cancellation, but that action was also denied. The band had to reconfigure the remaining calendar of performances for the year, with implications for its touring plan, revenue expectations, and relationships with promoters. The Perm decision thus contributed to a broader narrative about how authorities may intervene in live events and how such interventions are adjudicated in relation to obligations under performance contracts. — Kommersant