October 4 Main results of the day

The Tverskoy District Court of Moscow refused to satisfy the Plaintiff’s claim filed against our Principal about the obligation to provide a number of documents related to the use of the results of intellectual activity by the Principal. During the consideration of the dispute, the lawyers of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure” managed to prove that the exclusive rights to use the results of intellectual activity belong to the Defendant, since the results of intellectual activity themselves are an official work. The interests of the Principal were represented by Nikita Filippov, Head of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure”, and Tatiana Bogomolova, lawyer of the Bureau.

Lawyers of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure” have achieved the cancellation of the court’s decision on the eviction of a large family from municipal housing. More than 10 years ago, the Principals of the Bureau were provided with a room under a social employment contract, and they regularly paid for their accommodation. At some point, the municipal authorities considered that the Principals illegally occupy the housing provided to them, because, in their opinion, the grounds on which they were settled ceased to be relevant. In this regard, an eviction lawsuit was filed against the Principals, which the court of first instance unlawfully satisfied, despite the residence of three minor children and two pensioners in the disputed housing. Lawyers of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure” carefully analyzed the case materials, prepared and filed an appeal, and also appeared in the court of appeal, stating that the Principals live in the provided housing on the basis of a valid contract, the Plaintiff missed the limitation period, and the housing rights of minor children are not derived from the rights of their parents and cannot be violated on formal grounds. As a result, the Court of Appeal fully satisfied the Appeal of the Principals, retaining for them and their children the right to unlimited use of municipal housing. The interests of the Principals were represented by Yakov Bulut, lawyer of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure”.

The Ninth Arbitration Court of Appeal refused to satisfy the Defendant’s appeal against the ruling on the refusal to reduce the amount of the court penalty and the recognition of the court decision rendered in this case as executed. Earlier, within the framework of a corporate dispute, the Moscow Arbitration Court satisfied the requirements of the Principal of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure” and ordered the Defendant to provide the Principal with documents relating to the activities of the company in which the Principal is one of the participants. The court also collected from the Defendant a court penalty in the amount of 10 thousand rubles for each day of non-execution of the court decision. Having partially executed the decision, the Defendant applied to the court for a reduction of the penalty to 2 thousand rubles and recognition of the decision as executed. The court of first instance justifiably refused to satisfy the stated requirement, since the court’s decision to demand the documents at the time of consideration of the application had not been executed. The Bureau of Lawyers “De jure” managed to convince the court of appeal that the Defendant executed the court decision improperly and not in full, and his actions are aimed solely at exonerating him from responsibility for improper execution of the court order. As a result, the Ninth Arbitration Court of Appeal agreed with the position of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure” and the ruling of the Moscow Arbitration Court, as a result of which it refused to satisfy the Defendant’s application in full. The interests of the Principal were represented by Marina Nikolaenko, Head of practice of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure”.