March 24 Main results of the day

The Moscow City Court refused to satisfy the appeal of the procedural opponents of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure” and left unchanged the decision of the Simonovsky District Court of Moscow. Within the framework of this dispute, the applicant in the case of contesting the auction organized by the Department for Competition Policy of Moscow City was denied satisfaction of the claim for the recognition of the auction as invalid. The Court of Appeal agreed with the arguments of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure” that a potential bidder should be authorized on site and makes a deposit before the deadline for accepting applications, act in strict accordance with the established rules of the electronic site. Depositing funds to the account at the last moment before the end of the acceptance of applications does not replace the receipt of funds to the account of the organizer of the auction. In addition, the Court of Appeal took into account the position of the Bureau that the person contesting the auction must prove not only the violations committed during the auction, but also his interest in the consequences of declaring the auction invalid. Besides, the court of appeal took into account that the disputed auction property was not acquired by the winner and was sold at an independent auction, in which the applicant did not participate, did not submit applications for participation. The interests of the Principal were represented by Ilsur Zakirov, Senior Lawyer of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure”.

The Ninth Arbitration Court of Appeal refused to satisfy the complaint of the procedural opponents of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure” against the decision of the Moscow Arbitration Court of on the refusal to recover from the Principal of the Bureau debt in the amount of more than 470 million rubles under loan agreements. During the consideration of the dispute in the court of first instance and appeal, the procedural position was successfully substantiated, which refuted the arguments of the opponents about the receipt of funds by the Principal under the loan agreement. Moreover, the lawyers of the Bureau of Lawyers “De Jure” managed to convince the court that there were signs of abuse of law in the actions of opponents, which, together with other evidence in the case, served as the basis for refusing to satisfy the stated requirements. The interests of the Principal were represented by Semyon Garayan, lawyer of MCBA “Bureau of Lawyers “De jure”.