The case was won in Moscow Arbitration Court on a claim against our Principal regarding the invalidation of the contract of sale of an object of cultural heritage

The former Landlord of the disputed property (hereinafter referred to as the Plaintiff) filed a statement of claim against our Principal (hereinafter referred to as the Defendant) to invalidate the contract of sale concluded between the Defendant and the State Unitary Enterprise of Moscow “REM”.

According to the Plaintiff, there was no condition in the contract of sale – an obligation of a person who, on the basis of such contract, has the right to own and (or) use such property to fulfill the requirements established by items 1-3 of Article 47.3 of the Federal Law of June 25, 2002 N 73-FL (as amended on August 3, 2018) “On Objects of Cultural Heritage (Monuments of History and Culture) of the Peoples of the Russian Federation”.

Also, one of the Plaintiff’s arguments was that the owner’s protection obligation, approved by the Order of the Department of Cultural Heritage of Moscow, was issued for the entire complex, which is an “ensemble”.  A separate security obligation for the disputed building was not issued, which implies the impossibility of its alienation.

Lawyers of MCBA “Bureau of Lawyers” De jure “got acquainted in detail with the materials of this case, developed the legal position on the case and prepared a reasoned Response to the statement of claim.

At the court session, we proved that the contract of sale of the cultural heritage object included the obligation of our Principal to protect the architectural monument.

The Plaintiff’s argument that the disputed building could not be alienated without separating it into a separate object from the “ensemble” is based on an incorrect interpretation of the rule of law, because in accordance with part 15 of the Federal Law of 25.06.2002 N 73-FL (as amended by  03/08/2018) “On objects of cultural heritage (historical and cultural monuments) of the peoples of the Russian Federation”, conditions of protective obligations in relation to architectural ensembles, estate and palace and park complexes, which are complex things referred to as cultural heritage objects, apply to all of them  components.

In addition, lawyers of MCBA “Bureau of Lawyers” De jure “proved that the Plaintiff was inappropriate in this case due to the contractual relationship with the Defendant terminated to rent the disputed object.

Therefore, the Plaintiff cannot be the interested party by virtue of Article 4 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation his rights are not affected by this contract of sale.  According to Article 65 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, the Plaintiff must prove how the contested agreement violates his rights and legitimate interests, as well as in defense and restoration of which rights the above claims are presented.

The court also took into account our argument that the Plaintiff had the opportunity to challenge the auction, as a result of which the cultural heritage object was acquired by the Defendant, since the current Civil Law provides for a different way of challenging the contract concluded according to the results of the auction (Article 449 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation), which the Plaintiff did not.

On November 30, 2018, Moscow Arbitration Court refused to fully satisfy the Plaintiff’s claims against our Principal regarding the invalidation of the contract of sale of the object of cultural heritage.

J.M.Martynenko, lawyer of MCBA “Bureau of Lawyers “De jure”, prepared the legal position on this case and took part in the first instance court sessions.