April 19 Main results of the day

The Moscow City Court, at the second round of consideration of administrative requirements, ordered the Management of the Rosreestr of the city of Moscow to make state registration of ownership of the reconstructed apartment for its buyer. For three years, the Rosreestr Administration refused to carry out state registration of rights for the buyer of the apartment due to the failure to provide permits for an additional built-on attic. The principal feature of this case was that a negative decision of the registration authority could result in losses for the Principal, who was the seller of the apartment, in the form of compensation for the purchase price of real estate (15 million rubles) and interest for the use of funds. The lawyers of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure” managed to prove to the court that there were no violations during the redevelopment of the apartment, all permits for the attic were agreed upon by the previous owners of the apartment, despite the lack of this information and the presence of registry contradictions at the registrar. The court also agreed with the lawyers in the part that the registrar is not entitled to impose on the owner the provision of permits for the apartment, since these actions are the direct duties of the registrar in the form of requesting documents from the competent authorities in the manner of interdepartmental interaction. In this case, the registry contradictions and legal doubts were interpreted by the court in favor of the buyer of the apartment. The interests of the Principal were represented by Sergei Bibikov, Senior Lawyer of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure”.

The Moscow City Arbitration Court completely dismissed the contractor’s claim against the Principal for the recovery of debt for work and penalties for late payment. Lawyers of the Bureau in a contract dispute represented the interests of the customer, against whom the contractor filed a claim for the recovery of a debt for work and a penalty of 0.5% per day. Having studied the circumstances of the dispute in detail, we found weaknesses in the position of the procedural opponent, which we made a priority emphasis when defending our Principal in court, carefully bypassing the risks of satisfying the Plaintiff’s claims. Based on the results of the consideration of the dispute, the court agreed with the position of the Bureau. Thus, the Principal not only does not have to pay the debt, but also has the right to count on the amount of the overpayment. The interests of the Principal were represented by Maria Ovchinnikova, Head of the Department for Legal Support of Contractual and Judicial Work at the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure”.