January 26 Main results of the day

The Savelovsky District Court of Moscow issued a ruling, which restored the deadline for filing a writ of execution to collect debt from the debtor in favor of the Principal. The court agreed with the position of the lawyers of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure” that the omission of the limitation period was due to the improper organization of the work of the bailiff service. The amount of uncollected debt under the writ of execution amounted to 1 million rubles. The interests of the principal were represented by Sergey Bibikov, senior lawyer of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure”.

The Principal defended his rights to real estate acquired at a bankruptcy auction. After the bidding, the debtor applied to the Moscow Arbitration Court with a statement to declare them invalid, referring to the incorrect determination of the size of the real estate that was the subject of the auction. The court of first instance refused to satisfy the application, since the debtor did not prove the fact of violation of his rights and legitimate interests, and also did not provide evidence of actions aimed at changing the size of real estate in the documentation. The debtor appealed this decision to the court of appeal, referring to the fact that the court of first instance did not appraise the arguments about the discrepancy between the real areas of ​​the property indicated in the registration documents. The Ninth Arbitration Court of Appeal agreed with the legal position of the Principal, financial manager and secured creditor on the legality of the auction and refused to cancel the earlier decision. The interests of the Principal were represented by Darya Ivanova, senior lawyer of the Bankruptcy Dispute Resolution Practice of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure”.

The Principal managed to win a dispute with the Moscow Government and significantly reduce tax costs. The Moscow City Court invalidated the provisions of the Decree of the Government of Moscow, by which the building with the apartments located in it and owned by the Principal, was included in the list of objects in respect of which the tax base is determined as cadastral value. Moreover, the building was excluded from the controversial list on the basis of a court decision for 2021-2022. Satisfying the administrative claim, the Moscow City Court agreed with the argument of the lawyers of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure” that the building with apartments was illegally included in the disputed list only on the basis of the permitted use of the land plot without taking into account its dual purpose – the multiplicity of types of such permitted use. Lawyers of the Bureau proved that the Moscow Government did not take into account the legal position of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, according to which, if there are two or more types of permitted use of the site (one of which is a criterion for including the building in the list, and the other is not), the state body is obliged to conduct an actual study of the object to establish the presence or absence of exceeding the 20% threshold for using the building for offices, trade, catering and consumer services. It is noteworthy that the prosecutor, whose participation is mandatory in this category of administrative disputes, also agreed with the arguments of the Bureau’s lawyers and recognized the claims to be satisfied in full. The interests of the Principal were represented by Nikita Filippov, Head of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure”, Rashid Gitinov, Head of the Practice for Considering Disputes with Government Agencies, and Semyon Garayan, lawyer of the Bureau.

During the litigation, the Principal reduced the amount of the debt by more than two times. As part of this dispute, the borrower demanded that the Principal pay him an unreasonably high amount. The Principal, without denying the very fact of receiving the money, did not agree with the calculation presented to him. As a result, the dispute was resolved by the court. The Odintsovo City Court of the Moscow Region, having considered the Plaintiff’s claims against the Principal, agreed with the arguments of the lawyers of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure” about the incorrectness of the opponents’ calculations and the unfoundedness of most of the stated claims and refused to satisfy the disputed part of the claims. The interests of the Principal were represented by Irina Novikova, senior lawyer of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure”.