{"id":32934,"date":"2020-01-15T23:33:00","date_gmt":"2020-01-15T20:33:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/de-ure.ru\/en\/?p=32934"},"modified":"2020-02-10T23:37:41","modified_gmt":"2020-02-10T20:37:41","slug":"the-moscow-arbitration-court-rejected-the-claim-of-the-federal-state-unitary-enterprise-to-evict-the-tenant-and-satisfied-the-tenants-counterclaim-regarding-the-enterprises-obligatio","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/de-ure.ru\/en\/2020\/01\/15\/the-moscow-arbitration-court-rejected-the-claim-of-the-federal-state-unitary-enterprise-to-evict-the-tenant-and-satisfied-the-tenants-counterclaim-regarding-the-enterprises-obligatio\/","title":{"rendered":"The Moscow Arbitration Court rejected the claim of the Federal State Unitary Enterprise to evict the Tenant and satisfied the Tenant\u2019s counterclaim regarding the Enterprise\u2019s obligation to forward the draft lease for a new term"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p>Between the\nFederal State Unitary Enterprise (FSUE) &#8220;Housing and Communal management\nof the Russian Academy of Sciences&#8221; (the Lessor) and LLC &#8220;A&#8230;&#8221;\n(the Lessee), a lease agreement was concluded for state property\n(non-residential premises) with a period of validity until October 2018, after\nwhich the Lessor filed a claim to the court to evict the Lessee from the leased\nnon-residential premises.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>LLC\n&#8220;A&#8230;&#8221; applied for legal assistance to MCBA &#8220;Bureau of Lawyers\n&#8220;De jure&#8221;, whose lawyers, based on the results of the analysis of the\ncase materials, developed a strategy for a comprehensive and positive for the\nTenant resolution of the dispute with the Lessor.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Thus, lawyers\nof MCBA &#8220;Bureau of Lawyers &#8220;De jure&#8221; prepared and submitted to\nthe court not only a response to the Lessor&#8217;s claim, but also a letter was\nprepared and sent to the Lessor on the implementation of the Tenant&#8217;s\npre-emptive right to enter into a lease agreement for a new period and in this\nregard, a requirement for the Lessor to submit a draft lease agreement (on the\nissue of mandatory compliance with the pre-trial claim procedure for dispute\nsettlement, violation of which is the basis for returning or leaving the claim\nwithout consideration). Having received a refusal from the Lessor to the\nTenant&#8217;s letter, the lawyers of MCBA &#8220;Bureau of Lawyers &#8220;De jure&#8221;\nprepared and submitted to the court a counterclaim on the obligation to submit\na draft lease agreement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Rejecting the\nclaim of FSUE &#8220;Housing and Communal management of the Russian Academy of\nSciences&#8221; for eviction of LLC &#8220;A&#8230;&#8221; and satisfying the\ncounterclaims of LLC &#8220;A&#8230;&#8221; about the obligation of FSUE to send the\ndraft lease agreement for a new term, the Moscow Arbitration Court agreed with\nthe arguments and legal position of lawyers of MCBA &#8220;Bureau of Lawyers\n&#8220;De jure&#8221;, in particular, regarding the following:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>&#8211; do not meet the criteria of relevance and admissibility of the notice of the Lessor to the Lessee about the termination of the lease due to the expiration of its validity, since in such notifications there were no references to the relevant provisions of the articles of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, and also because the results of an out-of-court handwriting study submitted by the Tenant with the application of the staff list of the Tenant&#8217;s employees and information <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>about the\ninsured persons of the Tenant&#8217;s employees in the Pension Fund of Russia\nestablished that the signature on receipt of the Lessor&#8217;s notification of\ntermination of the lease agreement was affixed by an unknown person, that is,\nnot an employee of the Tenant, in this regard, the court concluded that the\nlease agreement was extended for an indefinite period according to the rules of\nthe Civil Code of the Russian Federation;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>&#8211; the Lessor\u2019s\nrefusal to conclude a lease agreement for a new term with reference to the fact\nthat:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>* the Tenant\nillegally (without agreement with the Lessor) carried out redevelopment in the\nrented premises &#8211; the court found it contrary to the provisions of the Federal\nLaw &#8220;On Protection of Competition&#8221;;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>* the Lessor\ndoes not plan to lease the premises anymore \u2014 the court found it unreasonable,\nbecause by refusing to submit the draft lease agreement to the Lessee, the\nLessor in his letter to the pre-trial claim of the Lessee did not refer to\nsuch&nbsp; ground as unwillingness to lease\nthe object in the future;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>* the initial\nlease agreement was concluded in violation of the tendering procedure provided\nfor by the Federal Law \u201cOn Protection of Competition\u201d, which, in the opinion of\nthe Lessor, excluded the grounds for its extension and the possibility of\nconcluding a lease agreement for a new term without tendering &#8211; it was found by\nthe court illegal and not detracting from the pre-emptive right of LLC \u201cA &#8230;\u201d\nto conclude a lease for a new term, and the relevant behavior of the Lessor \u2013 as\nunfair behavior, since the initial lease agreement was registered by the\nRosreestr Office for Moscow, the leased object was transferred by the Lessor to\nthe Lessee under a transfer-acceptance certificate, for more than 10 years the\nLessor, without comment or claim, accepted the Tenant&#8217;s proper performance of\nobligations under the lease agreement in the form of rental payments.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Head of the\nMCBA &#8220;Bureau of Lawyers &#8220;De jure&#8221; N.V.Filippov, trainee lawyers\nR.K.Gitinov and E.G.Ivanova took part in forming of the legal position on the\ncase, which was the base for the motivational part of the Court decision,\npreparing a response to the claim and a counterclaim.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The interests\nof LLC \u201cA &#8230;\u201d in the Moscow Arbitration Court were represented by trainee\nlawyer R.K. Gitinov.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Between the Federal State Unitary Enterprise (FSUE) &#8220;Housing and Communal management of the Russian Academy of Sciences&#8221; (the Lessor) and LLC &#8220;A&#8230;&#8221; (the Lessee), a lease agreement was concluded for state property (non-residential premises) with a period of validity until October 2018, after which the Lessor filed a claim to the court to evict the&hellip;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[147],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/de-ure.ru\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/32934"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/de-ure.ru\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/de-ure.ru\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/de-ure.ru\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/de-ure.ru\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=32934"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/de-ure.ru\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/32934\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":32935,"href":"https:\/\/de-ure.ru\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/32934\/revisions\/32935"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/de-ure.ru\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=32934"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/de-ure.ru\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=32934"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/de-ure.ru\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=32934"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}