20 August 2019 the parties executed Supplementary Agreement No 1. The cost of labor expenses was set at 45,053.79 UZS per hour per worker.

The claimant argues that the respondent unjustifiably inflated the labor expenses. It asks the court to declare invalid the pricing protocol of 20 August 2019 which served as the basis for the said Supplementary Agreement.

[The Court has cited Arts 25 I Nr 1, 26 I Nr 4 EPC on a general jurisdiction of the economic courts, specifically over the disputes regading the invalidity of the legal transactions. The Court has also cited Art 10 I CC.]

Since the parties to this dispute are legal entities, and since the dispute is not subject to the jurisdiction of any other court or authority, the given claim is considered to fall within the jurisdiction of the economic court.

[Court has also cited Art 101 CC on the definition of the legal transactions.]

Based on the foregoing, the protocol cannot be regarded as a [legal] transaction but rather as a document drawn up in relation to the [legal] transaction concluded between the parties.

[Court has also cited 11 and 13 CC on general principles of judicial and extrajudicial (self-help) civil law remedies and Art 68 EPC on the general burden of proof.]

In this case, having examined the above circumstances, the court found that the claimant had incorrectly chosen the method of protection of rights, and since the pricing protocol cannot be considered a [legal] transaction, the claim was deemed unfounded and dismissed.