November 2 Main results of the day

The Arbitration Court of the Stavropol Territory fully supported the position of the lawyers of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure” and denied the claim for termination of contracts against our Principal. Earlier, the lawyers of the Bureau achieved positive decisions on the recovery of multimillion-dollar debts in favor of the Principal in several cases at once. In response to this, the debtor applied to one of the district courts of the city of Stavropol with a claim to terminate the agreements concluded between the Principal and the debtor, which, according to the debtor’s intention, could help him with the revision of the lost cases under new circumstances. It should be noted that even the consideration of such a case by the district court was illegal, which is why we managed to transfer the case to the Arbitration Court of the Stavropol Territory, and then refuted each of the debtor’s arguments. As a result, the court completely dismissed the stated claim. The interests of the Principal were represented by Yakov Bulut, lawyer of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure”.

The Ninth Arbitration Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the Arbitration Court of Moscow, which satisfied the claims of the Principal of the Bureau for the recognition as absent of the right of ownership of the Russian Federation registered in circumvention of the law and the right of operational management of the Federal State Unitary Enterprise to a non-residential premise located in a real estate object classified as a cultural heritage site federal significance. Simultaneously, the court refused to satisfy the counterclaim for the reclamation of this non-residential premise from the possession of our Principal and the termination of his ownership rights. In addition, the Court of Appeal terminated the proceedings on the appeal of the Federal Agency, which was filed in accordance with Article 42 of the Arbitration Procedural Code of the Russian Federation, i.e. as a person who did not participate in the case, about whose rights and obligations the court of first instance adopted a judicial act. The Judicial Collegium agreed with the arguments of the Bureau’s staff that the application of such an appeal is nothing more than an example of procedural balancing act aimed at canceling the judicial act on unconditional grounds and proceeding to a retrial of the dispute according to the rules of the first instance in the court of appeal. The interests of the Principal were represented by Konstantin Tkachenko, Head of the practice of legal support of entrepreneurship.

The Chertanovsky District Court of Moscow, having considered the petition of the nvestigator of the investigative department of the Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia for the Chertanovo Severnoye district to extend the term of detention of the Principal, agreed with the arguments of Yuliy Darinsky, lawyer of the Bureau of Lawyers “De Jure”.  The Court refused to satisfy the petition and changed the preventive measure against the Principal to a prohibition of certain actions. The criminal case was initiated on the grounds of the composition of the crimes provided for by paragraph “c” of Part 3 of Article 158, Part 3 of Article 30, Part 2 of  Article 159 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.