March 30 Main results of the day

The Arbitration Court of the Moscow District upheld the judicial acts of the Arbitration Court of the Moscow Region and the Tenth Arbitration Court of Appeal on the refusal to issue a writ of execution to recover more than 64 million rubles from the Principal. Earlier, the Principal’s creditor applied for the issuance of a writ of execution for the enforcement of the settlement agreement beyond the three-year limitation period and petitioned for its restoration under the pretext of partial repayment of the debt. The courts of three instances agreed with the legal position of the Bureau’s lawyers that the deadlines for the enforcement of the terms of the settlement agreement providing for a specific payment date do not depend on the circumstances related to the actions of the debtor, and the risks of untimely application for the issuance of a writ of execution in this case are assigned to the creditor. The interests of the Principal were represented by Yakov Prisyazhnyuk, Head of the practice of resolving economic disputes of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure”.

The Moscow Court upheld the decision of the Presnensky District Court of Moscow, which denied the Plaintiff the recovery of losses and lost profits in the amount of about 6 million rubles from the Principal. According to the Plaintiff, the specified debt arose as a result of flooding of his apartment in the center of Moscow while extinguishing a fire. On this fact, the Investigative Committee of Russia also initiated a criminal case, the Defendant in which the former owner of the apartment, a US citizen, was involved. Antique furniture was damaged during the flood of the Plaintiff’s apartment, and the tenant, a Japanese citizen, was forced to move out, which, according to the Plaintiff, caused him property damage. Lawyers of the Bureau managed to convince the court of first instance that there was no fault on the part of the Principal, which served as the basis for refusing to satisfy the claims against the Principal in full. And then the court of appeal also agreed with the arguments of the Bureau. The interests of the Principal were represented by Alexander Uchaykin and Dan Khorolets, lawyers of the practice of resolving economic disputes of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure”.