“Golden parachute” as a method of unjustified enrichment
Between the Federal State Unitary Enterprise (FSUE) “Housing and Communal management of the Russian Academy of Sciences” (the Lessor) and LLC “A…” (the Lessee), a lease agreement was concluded for state property (non-residential premises) with a period of validity until October 2018, after which the Lessor filed a claim to the court to evict the Lessee from the leased non-residential premises.
LLC “A…” applied for legal assistance to MCBA “Bureau of Lawyers “De jure”, whose lawyers, based on the results of the analysis of the case materials, developed a strategy for a comprehensive and positive for the Tenant resolution of the dispute with the Lessor.
Thus, lawyers of MCBA “Bureau of Lawyers “De jure” prepared and submitted to the court not only a response to the Lessor’s claim, but also a letter was prepared and sent to the Lessor on the implementation of the Tenant’s pre-emptive right to enter into a lease agreement for a new period and in this regard, a requirement for the Lessor to submit a draft lease agreement (on the issue of mandatory compliance with the pre-trial claim procedure for dispute settlement, violation of which is the basis for returning or leaving the claim without consideration). Having received a refusal from the Lessor to the Tenant’s letter, the lawyers of MCBA “Bureau of Lawyers “De jure” prepared and submitted to the court a counterclaim on the obligation to submit a draft lease agreement.
Rejecting the claim of FSUE “Housing and Communal management of the Russian Academy of Sciences” for eviction of LLC “A…” and satisfying the counterclaims of LLC “A…” about the obligation of FSUE to send the draft lease agreement for a new term, the Moscow Arbitration Court agreed with the arguments and legal position of lawyers of MCBA “Bureau of Lawyers “De jure”, in particular, regarding the following:
– do not meet the criteria of relevance and admissibility of the notice of the Lessor to the Lessee about the termination of the lease due to the expiration of its validity, since in such notifications there were no references to the relevant provisions of the articles of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, and also because the results of an out-of-court handwriting study submitted by the Tenant with the application of the staff list of the Tenant’s employees and information
about the insured persons of the Tenant’s employees in the Pension Fund of Russia established that the signature on receipt of the Lessor’s notification of termination of the lease agreement was affixed by an unknown person, that is, not an employee of the Tenant, in this regard, the court concluded that the lease agreement was extended for an indefinite period according to the rules of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation;
– the Lessor’s refusal to conclude a lease agreement for a new term with reference to the fact that:
* the Tenant illegally (without agreement with the Lessor) carried out redevelopment in the rented premises – the court found it contrary to the provisions of the Federal Law “On Protection of Competition”;
* the Lessor does not plan to lease the premises anymore — the court found it unreasonable, because by refusing to submit the draft lease agreement to the Lessee, the Lessor in his letter to the pre-trial claim of the Lessee did not refer to such ground as unwillingness to lease the object in the future;
* the initial lease agreement was concluded in violation of the tendering procedure provided for by the Federal Law “On Protection of Competition”, which, in the opinion of the Lessor, excluded the grounds for its extension and the possibility of concluding a lease agreement for a new term without tendering – it was found by the court illegal and not detracting from the pre-emptive right of LLC “A …” to conclude a lease for a new term, and the relevant behavior of the Lessor – as unfair behavior, since the initial lease agreement was registered by the Rosreestr Office for Moscow, the leased object was transferred by the Lessor to the Lessee under a transfer-acceptance certificate, for more than 10 years the Lessor, without comment or claim, accepted the Tenant’s proper performance of obligations under the lease agreement in the form of rental payments.
Head of the MCBA “Bureau of Lawyers “De jure” N.V.Filippov, trainee lawyers R.K.Gitinov and E.G.Ivanova took part in forming of the legal position on the case, which was the base for the motivational part of the Court decision, preparing a response to the claim and a counterclaim.
The interests of LLC “A …” in the Moscow Arbitration Court were represented by trainee lawyer R.K. Gitinov.
Еще события