A Russian court addresses a debt collection case involving persistent calls and SMS messages
A resident of Komi received financial reparation after a creditor repeatedly reminded her of an outstanding debt. The information came from the press service of the republic’s courts.
In her lawsuit, the local plaintiff explained that she was formally declared bankrupt in February of the previous year. Despite that status, NSV LLC, a collection agency acting under an agreement with Russian Post JSC, continued to place calls throughout 2023 and sent SMS messages demanding payment of the loan. The constant reminders intensified the plaintiff’s distress and prompted her to pursue redress for what she perceived as harassment linked to the debt collection process.
The woman evaluated the moral harm caused by the intrusive reminders at 250,000 rubles and sought compensation from the bank for moral damages. The Priluzsky District Court ruled that the false calls to the plaintiff’s number violated her privacy, acknowledging that this behavior overstepped reasonable boundaries and infringed on personal rights during a vulnerable period for the debtor.
As a result of the court decision, the defendant was ordered to pay an administrative fine of 250,000 rubles. However, the court ultimately collected only 3,000 rubles in favor of the injured party, leaving the remainder unresolved as part of the court’s final disposition of the case.
In a separate note, a past sentence mentioned in the report referred to a case involving a life sentence and a compensation claim by a colony, indicating the broader landscape of how punitive and reparative measures are handled in Russia. The specifics of that case were not detailed in the available materials, but the mention highlights the varying scales of legal outcomes in disputes connected to debt collection and imprisonment.
Overall, the case underscores the legal boundaries around debt collection practices in Russia, particularly regarding privacy rights and the permissible scope of communications used to recover debts. It also illustrates how courts weigh distress and privacy when assessing damages, even in situations involving bankrupt individuals and formal debt obligations. The decision serves as a reference point for future disputes where collectors are accused of overstepping professional boundaries or engaging in intrusive contact methods that affect a debtor’s well-being and sense of security.