August 2 Main results of the day

The Lodeynopolsky City Court of the Leningrad Region satisfied the Principal’s claim for the recovery of funds against a receipt in full. As part of the case, it was possible to prove the validity of not only the period for calculating interest on the loan, but also the interest established by Article 395 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation as liability for violation of the loan repayment period before the date of actual payment of the debt. The interests of the Principal were represented by Irina Novikova, senior lawyer of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure”.

The First Court of Cassation of General Jurisdiction annulled the judicial acts of lower instances, which reduced the consumer penalty and fine for violation of the deadline for the transfer of a pre-paid apartment. The essence of the matter was that the Principals entered into an agreement for the sale of an apartment, under the terms of which the transfer of the apartment was to take place no later than 45 days after the conclusion of the agreement, subject to the Buyers fulfilling the obligation to pay its price. The Buyers paid the price of the apartment within the period agreed upon by the contract, but the Seller evaded transferring the apartment for a year under various pretexts. Initially, in order to protect the interests of the Principals, the lawyers of the Bureau filed a lawsuit to compel the transfer of the apartment and collect a penalty from the Seller for violating the deadline for fulfilling the obligation to transfer the apartment. Immediately after the claim was filed, the apartment was handed over to the Principals on a voluntary basis, so the court essentially considered only the claim for the recovery of penalties. Russian legislation in the field of consumer protection is quite severe and establishes a penalty equal to 0.5% of the price of the goods for each day of delay in the transfer of the prepaid goods. Thus, 200 calendar days after the deadline for the transfer of the apartment established by the contract, a penalty was formed, equal in amount to the cost of the apartment. However, the courts of the first instance and the court of appeal reduced the amount of the penalty and fine to be recovered, which, in the framework of this dispute, is allowed only in special cases. The Principals and lawyers of the Bureau did not agree with the court’s conclusions on the reduction of the penalty and appealed to the First Cassation Court of General Jurisdiction with a cassation appeal, which considered the reduction of the penalty to be recovered from the unscrupulous Seller unreasonable and sent the case for a new hearing to the court of appeal to re-check the legality of the penalty reduction. The interests of the Principals were represented by Konstantin Tkachenko, head of the practice of legal support of entrepreneurship of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure”.

The Konakovo City Court of the Tver Region refused to satisfy the claims of the procedural opponent against the Principal in the framework of a land dispute. The essence was that the owner of the neighboring land plot decided to challenge the lease agreement concluded between the Principal and the local administration, believing that the landlord had violated the procedure established by law and that he owns the right to lease the specified property. Despite the fact that the stated requirements were formulated incorrectly, the court considered it necessary to consider the disputed situation in all aspects, including checking the transaction for signs of its nullity due to violations of the procedure for granting land plots. But thanks to the right strategy, the lawyers of the Bureau were able to refute all the arguments of the procedural opponent, both regarding the existence of any rights in relation to the land plot, and regarding the violation of public order. As a result, the court refused to satisfy the claim in full. The Principal has the right to continue using the land plot without any obstacles. The interests of the Principal were represented by Alexander Uchaykin, Senior lawyer of the practice of resolving economic disputes of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure”.

The Arbitration Court of the Moscow District upheld the court decisions of lower instances on the refusal to satisfy the requirements of the bankruptcy creditor to bring the Principal – the beneficiary of the Debtor to subsidiary liability in the amount of more than 4.5 billion rubles. As part of the dispute, the bankruptcy creditor based its claims on publications in the media, but the Bureau’s lawyers refuted these arguments as not supported by evidence. Such publications are not generally known facts that are not subject to proof. There was no direct evidence that the Debtor’s beneficiary had any influence on the Company’s activities. The Court of cassation also took into account the fact that a certain malicious transaction, to which the creditor referred, was not invalidated by the court. The interests of the Principal were represented by Viktor Pokormyak, lawyer of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure”, and Alexandra Reznichenko, the trainee lawyer.