April 8 Main results of the day

The Ninth Arbitration Court of Appeal upheld the decision, which preserved the extension to the Principal’s building.

Refusing to satisfy the claim of the Moscow Government and the DGI against the Principal for the demolition of the extension, the court agreed with the arguments of lawyers about the presence of contradictions and lack of objectivity in the expert conclusions made based on the results of the forensic construction and technical expertise. In particular, the lawyers drew the court’s attention to the fact that the expert independently went beyond the scope of the forensic examination (instead of assessing the extension for compliance with the requirements, he assessed the entire building), did not take measurements and a sufficient number of photographs to substantiate his conclusions, applied building codes and regulations that were not applicable,  unreasonably came to the conclusion that the identified violations were irreparable in a situation that clearly indicated the possibility of eliminating such violations (for example, if it was possible to purchase a sufficient amount of fire extinguishing equipment, personal protective equipment, increasing the width of the doorway, etc.).

It is noteworthy that in the decision the court pointed out insignificant violations of mandatory requirements, which were actively referred to by opponents, but a well-built line of defense and convincing arguments by lawyers led to a positive result for the Principal.

The interests of the Principal in the courts of the first and appellate instances were represented by Rashid Gitinov, Head of the practice of dispute resolution with state bodies of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure”.