The problem of termination of continuing contracts under the Russian law on the example of a lease agreement

The paper studies the problems of the lack of legislative distinguishing between the mechanisms of termination of the continuing and one-time contracts using the example of a lease agreement. The problem has become especially relevant in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, when the law was faced with the fact that a party could not perform a contract, but could not withdraw from it either. This situation led to a considerable misbalance in the relations of the parties, especially entrepreneurs who have concluded a term contract for the period of more than five years. According to the authors, the continuing contract termination may be relevant both in the event of a pandemic and in many cases when judges refuse to apply Article 451 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, which is scarcely used in practice, however, it is the text of this norm that potentially involves the possibility to terminate continuing contracts. The authors substantiate the necessity to include in the current legislation the norms on the differentiation of the continuing and one-time contracts termination using the example of a lease agreement. The paper describes the experience of Germany, analyzes the judicial decisions, which in some cases led to an unfair distribution of risks. The authors propose a draft article on the termination of a continuing contract, as well as a solution to possible problems that may be caused by the adoption of this article. The authors conclude on the necessity to include in the current legislation the rules for the continuing contracts termination. At present, the only way to eliminate this problem is to specify relevant provision in a contract.