The Moscow Arbitration Court has been handling a dispute in which the Russian Ministry of Defense seeks to recover more than 636 million rubles from the Khrunichev Center. According to the court’s published decision, about 32 million rubles were recovered from the center in the case to date.
The Ministry of Defense pursued the reversal of a contractual penalty tied to a government contract dated September 1, 1993, related to Angara project work, which encompasses research and development activities. The government body argued that the Khrunichev Center caused delays in delivering eight phases of the R&D program, with total costs amounting to 6.7 billion rubles. Delays were reported for periods spanning eight to 768 days, enabling the Ministry to apply penalties as specified by the contract.
Representatives of the Khrunichev Center maintained a not guilty position during the court proceedings. Nevertheless, the court considered the evidence and the findings presented by the Department of Defense in related cases connected to the same contract, in which the center’s liability had already been established by the judicial process.
At the same time, the trial court exercised its discretion when assessing the penalty amount, taking into account factors such as the nature of the violation, the perceived severity of the wrongdoing, and the overall balance of interests between the parties, along with the proportionality of the penalty in light of the circumstances.
This case adds another chapter to Khrunichev’s long history of involvement in Russia’s ambitious aerospace endeavors. The Khrunichev Center has been closely associated with the development of several domestic space programs and launch vehicle families. In public disclosures linked to this matter, references have been made to Khrunichev’s ongoing work on Rokot-M family programs as well as other launch vehicle components that rely on a domestically controlled system architecture. The court’s decision aligns with prior judicial outcomes in related disputes and continues to underscore the legal framework governing state contracts and performance penalties in Russia’s defense and space sectors. [Source attribution withheld in this document for privacy and compliance purposes.]
Observers note that resolving such contract disputes remains a critical element in maintaining clarity over government obligations and contractor responsibilities within Russia’s strategic aerospace program portfolio. The outcome of the dispute may influence future arrangements for similar defense-industry contracts, including the assessment of delays, penalties, and remedies appropriate to complex R&D undertakings. Khrunichev’s involvement in activities linked to first-stage Rokot-M flight launch vehicles and domestic control systems is cited as an example of the broader push to advance domestic aerospace capabilities while managing contractual risk and performance accountability. [Source attribution withheld in this document for privacy and compliance purposes.]