SIMONOVSKY DISTRICT COURT OF MOSCOW REFUSED TO RECOVER FROM OUR PRINCIPAL FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF MORE THAN 13 MILLION RUBLES.

The plaintiff (citizen M*) appealed to  Simonovsky district court of Moscow and filed a statement of claim against the defendant (our Principal)  for the recovery of unjust enrichment such as repair work, made by the plaintiff  in the apartment, the owner of which is our Principal.

“Bureau of advocates “De jure” lawyers got acquainted in detail with the materials of this civil case as well as all the essential circumstances prepared and filed reasoned Objections to the statement of claim with evidentiary material confirming our arguments.

Upon review of the petition filed by M*, the court appointed and carried out judicial appraisal expertise of the cost of the inseparable improvements made by the claimant (M*) in premises.

At the same time, despite existence of judicial appraisal expertise, in the first instance court sessions we successfully proved that the plaintiff illegally carried out the repair work in the disputed apartment:

— due to the presence at the repair work time of litigation in Presnensky district court of Moscow on the invalidation of certain transactions for the sale of our client’s apartment, including a transaction to dispose of the disputed apartment in favor of the plaintiff (citizen M*).

Thus, Presnensky district court of Moscow found that the original transaction for the sale of the apartment by the defendant to the citizen “P1” was invalid due to the lack of real payment of the cost of the apartment by the buyer according to the sale contract. The following deal of resale of the apartment by citizen “P1” in favor of the plaintiff was deemed fictitious by the court, executed formally, in order to impede it’s return to the property of the defendant, and the contract was deemed not concluded with the application of the provisions of article 432 of the Civil Code of Russian Federation and section 1 of article 558 of the Civil Code of Russian Federation. Moreover, this apartment was resold for the third time (by the plaintiff in favor of citizen “B”), but due to the timely adoption of interim measures by the Moscow city bar association of lawyers “Bureau of advocates “De jure” lawyers, this contract was not registered by the state.

— at the repair work time Definition of Presnensky district court of Moscow acted about imposing of interim measures in the form of seizure of the apartment which forbade the plaintiff to do any actions concerning the disputable property.

– the repair work on the reconstruction and redevelopment in the disputed apartment were carried out by the plaintiff without proper coordination with the competent authorities in violation of Art. № 26 of the LCD of the Russian Federation.

Simonovsky district court of Moscow within the framework of the present case took into consideration our arguments that the repair work carried out by plaintiff were inconsistent with SR 30.13330.2012 – Set of Rules of indoor water supply and sewerage system of buildings SNiP 2.04.01-85. The plaintiff  made a few sanitary rooms (toilets combination) with entrances from the living rooms; pipes in the sanitations (in parts of them) were absent, and the pipework has actually been masked in the protecting design with the packing above the living premises, located downstairs in the residential building.

In addition, the court of the first instance took into account our reasoned statement about the purpose and nature of the plaintiff’s repair work. So, we proved that the repair work carried out by the plaintiff was made only with the intention of following renting of this apartment as a “Hostel”, since the repair work corresponded to the hotel type. Sanitary equipment (showers, toilets, sinks, radiators, etc.) was installed by the plaintiff in each room of the disputed apartment.

The court took into consideration that the plaintiff, starting repair work in the disputed premises, acted unfair and imprudently at the same time, as he was aware of the presence of a document on the dispute in respect of the said property in Presnensky district court of Moscow, however, he ignored this fact.

Upon review of the present case Simonovsky district court of Moscow denied the claim against the defendant (our Principal) for the recovery of unjust enrichment in full.

The court’s decision in the present case entered into force.

The legal position on this case was prepared by the lower of the Moscow city bar association of lawyers “Bureau of advocates “De jure” U.M. Martynenko.

Head of the Moscow city bar association “Bureau of lawyers  ”De-jure” N.V.Filippov and the lowyer of this bar association J.M.Martynenko  represented the defendant’s (our Principal) interests  in the court of the first instance.