Surgut Contractor Plans to Seek Damages from Officials

LLC PKF Integration intends to file personal claims for damages against the management of Surgut’s road agency after courts ruled that the unilateral termination of a municipal contract worth 13.3 million rubles was unlawful. The contractor also plans to seek lost profits from the municipality for the forced idling of its equipment. The company says it plans to contact the prosecutor’s office over allegations made in court documents.

Courts ruled the termination unlawful

The dispute concerned a contract to maintain city roads, awarded following a tender. Integration began work in mid-October, but by November the Municipal Institution “Directorate of Road Transport and Housing and Utilities Complex” had announced that it was terminating the contract unilaterally.

In March 2026, the Arbitration Court of the Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug ruled that the directorate’s actions were unlawful. The Eighth Arbitration Court of Appeal in Omsk then reheard the case under the rules of a court of first instance and upheld that finding. The original ruling was overturned on procedural grounds related to the parties to the case, but the final decision remained in the contractor’s favor.

What the directorate’s claims were based on

The municipal customer cited a shortage of vehicles, the absence of GLONASS equipment, and the quality of the first-snow cleanup. According to the contractor, the complaints arose soon after work began. The directorate also sent materials to the Federal Antimonopoly Service, seeking to have the company added to the register of unscrupulous suppliers.

The FAS refused to add Integration to the register. According to the account of the proceedings, the courts took into consideration that the contract did not specify a mandatory number of specialized vehicles. The company provided vehicle registration documents, GLONASS data, and an environmental assessment of the de-icing salt—mineral halite. These documents were submitted to the customer within the statutory ten-day period.

Contractor prepares compensation claims

The company now intends to seek lost profits from the municipality, linking them to the forced idling of its equipment after the contract was terminated. Separately, Integration is preparing claims for damages directly against the directorate’s head, Roman Bogach, his deputy, Igor Gazizov, and the institution’s chief legal officer.

The amount of damages claimed and the sums sought in future claims have not been disclosed. For now, the company says it intends to go to court; no compensation has been awarded. The account of the case does not mention any rulings ordering the municipality or specific officials to pay damages.

Separate legal claims may follow

The company has also said it intends to seek criminal charges against the Municipal Institution’s management for obstructing lawful business activity. This is distinct from civil claims for damages: criminal liability would have to be considered separately and does not follow automatically from a ruling that the contract termination was unlawful.

Another dispute concerns reputation. The contractor alleges that the directorate submitted materials to the court describing Integration’s representatives as fraudsters. The company’s lawyers are preparing a complaint to the prosecutor’s office over possible defamation, as well as a separate lawsuit to protect its honor, dignity, and business reputation.

From a contract dispute to a dispute with officials

The case began with a municipal contract worth 13.3 million rubles, but it now involves several possible avenues: a claim for lost profits, personal lawsuits against the directorate’s management, and claims related to reputational allegations. Each would require separate consideration; the court’s finding that the termination was unlawful does not, by itself, determine either the amount of damages or the liability of specific officials.

For the parties, the key issue remains the legal effect of the appeal court’s decision: the early termination of the contract was ruled unlawful. The next stage may involve proceedings over the consequences of that decision and who, specifically, should be held responsible for the harm caused to the contractor.

Bottom line: Integration intends to seek compensation and bring claims against the directorate’s management personally, but the amounts and outcomes of those claims have yet to be determined.