February 5 Main results of the day

1. Victory in court: Refusal in the lawsuit of 180 million rubles!

The former wife of our Client filed an administrative lawsuit against the bailiff, demanding to recognize his inaction illegal and recover losses in the amount of 180 million rubles.

The Plaintiff claimed that the Principal sold his share in the authorized capital of the legal entity, and the bailiff did not withhold alimony from this income. Our Client was involved in the case as a third party.

During the trial, it was possible to prove that the bailiff had not committed any violations in the framework of the enforcement proceedings. Alimony is not subject to withholding from income from the sale of a share in the authorized capital, and the bailiff has performed all necessary actions, established all sources of income from which alimony is paid.

As a result, the court completely refused to satisfy the administrative claim.

Interests were represented by Daria Nagornaya, a lawyer of the practice of family and inheritance law.

2. Victory in a difficult dispute about the return of the object of cultural heritage

The Moscow City Property Department has filed a lawsuit to return the non-residential premise, which is an object of cultural heritage, to the ownership of the city. The basis for the lawsuit was the assertion that our Principal repeatedly violated the conditions of the competition, which allegedly gave the Department the right to unilateral rejection of the contract of sale.

However, the lawyers managed to prove that:

— Unilateral withdrawal from the contract is unacceptable in accordance with the Federal Law “On Privatization of State and Municipal Property” and the Federal Law “On Cultural Heritage Sites”.

— Recovery work at the facility continues, and delays are associated with a long coordination of project documentation with authorized bodies.

— The City Property Department had no right to file such a claim — this is the competence of the Department of Cultural Heritage.

The Court completely dismissed the Department’s claim and granted the Principal’s counterclaim for invalidation of the unilateral cancellation of the contract.

This decision will make it possible to complete the restoration of the cultural heritage site, which has important social and cultural significance for the city.

Another example of how professionalism and deep knowledge of the law help protect the interests of Clients! Konstantin Tkachenko, lawyer and Head of the Legal support practice for entrepreneurship, and Nikita Kryazhkov, senior lawyer of the practice, worked on the project.

3. Victory in a difficult dispute or how in a “procedural hunt” appetites grow.

The Moscow City Property Department and the Moscow Government decided through the court to recognize our Client’s premises with an area of over 2 thousand square meters as unauthorized construction and oblige it to demolish.

At the same time, the Plaintiffs repeatedly changed and complemented the claims, trying to get a procedural advantage, referring to different legal and actual justifications.

But that’s not all! During the court session, the Plaintiffs decided to “throw in” new requirements: to recognize the absent ownership of the additional premises of the Client with an area of 74,122 square meters and to remove the entire building with an area of 77,419 square meters from cadastral registration.

It would seem that the situation is heating up, but Rashid Gitinov, Head of the dispute resolution practice with state bodies at the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure”, did not allow opponents to make a “judicial prey” from the Client and turn the process into a “theater of procedural absurdity.”

He insisted on considering the case on its merits, without postponing the meeting, and achieved a complete denial of the claims!

Truth and professionalism won out, as a result of which the building and the Client’s business were preserved.