Had a concession agreement in healthcare classified as lawful

The practice's team represented a private clinic in courts of all levels in a lawsuit filed by the prosecutor’s office seeking to have a concession agreement declared void for the construction of a medical institution. In the opinion of the Prosecutor’s Office, the concession agreement violated a number of statutory requirements (including, among others, requirements of civil and budgetary laws, and laws regarding concession agreements and compulsory medical insurance), infringed the public interests of the region, and had been concluded in manifest violation of public order and with the abuse of a right.

The project was made considerably more complicated because concession agreements are a relatively recent instrument. For many issues neither statutory regulation, nor relevant case law is available. In view of the above, it was crucial to safeguard the agreement that had been concluded and to confirm that its terms and conditions, which are standard and commonly used for such agreements, comply with the law. In particular, it remained unclear what part of the expenses could be assigned to the concession grantor. It was also important to protect concession grantors’ right to select the method of financing for the projects being implemented: public private partnership instruments that include concessions or a public contract under Law No. 44-FZ.

Ultimately, our lawyers proved that the selection of a concession agreement was economically justified for the project to be implemented in the healthcare sector, taking into account the specific details of each instrument. The successful outcome of this dispute will make it possible for the instrument of concession agreements to develop further, particularly in the healthcare sector.