The\nformer Landlord of the disputed property (hereinafter referred to as the\nPlaintiff) filed a statement of claim against our Principal (hereinafter\nreferred to as the Defendant) to invalidate the contract of sale concluded\nbetween the Defendant and the State Unitary Enterprise of Moscow \u201cREM\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
According\nto the Plaintiff, there was no condition in the contract of sale – an\nobligation of a person who, on the basis of such contract, has the right to own\nand (or) use such property to fulfill the requirements established by items 1-3\nof Article 47.3 of the Federal Law of June 25, 2002 N 73-FL (as amended on\nAugust 3, 2018) \u201cOn Objects of Cultural Heritage (Monuments of History and\nCulture) of the Peoples of the Russian Federation\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Also,\none of the Plaintiff’s arguments was that the owner\u2019s protection obligation,\napproved by the Order of the Department of Cultural Heritage of Moscow, was\nissued for the entire complex, which is an \u201censemble\u201d. A separate security obligation for the\ndisputed building was not issued, which implies the impossibility of its\nalienation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Lawyers\nof MCBA “Bureau of Lawyers” De jure “got acquainted in detail\nwith the materials of this case, developed the legal position on the case and\nprepared a reasoned Response to the statement of claim.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
At\nthe court session, we proved that the contract of sale of the cultural heritage\nobject included the obligation of our Principal to protect the architectural\nmonument.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The\nPlaintiff\u2019s argument that the disputed building could not be alienated without\nseparating it into a separate object from the \u201censemble\u201d is based on an\nincorrect interpretation of the rule of law, because in accordance with part 15\nof the Federal Law of 25.06.2002 N 73-FL (as amended by 03\/08\/2018) \u201cOn objects of cultural heritage\n(historical and cultural monuments) of the peoples of the Russian Federation\u201d,\nconditions of protective obligations in relation to architectural ensembles,\nestate and palace and park complexes, which are complex things referred to as\ncultural heritage objects, apply to all of them \ncomponents.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In\naddition, lawyers of MCBA “Bureau of Lawyers” De jure “proved\nthat the Plaintiff was inappropriate in this case due to the contractual\nrelationship with the Defendant terminated to rent the disputed object.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Therefore,\nthe Plaintiff cannot be the interested party by virtue of Article 4 of the\nArbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation his rights are not\naffected by this contract of sale. \nAccording to Article 65 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian\nFederation, the Plaintiff must prove how the contested agreement violates his\nrights and legitimate interests, as well as in defense and restoration of which\nrights the above claims are presented.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The\ncourt also took into account our argument that the Plaintiff had the\nopportunity to challenge the auction, as a result of which the cultural\nheritage object was acquired by the Defendant, since the current Civil Law\nprovides for a different way of challenging the contract concluded according to\nthe results of the auction (Article 449 of the Civil Code of the Russian\nFederation), which the Plaintiff did not.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
On\nNovember 30, 2018, Moscow Arbitration Court refused to fully satisfy the\nPlaintiff’s claims against our Principal regarding the invalidation of the\ncontract of sale of the object of cultural heritage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
J.M.Martynenko,\nlawyer of MCBA “Bureau of Lawyers “De jure”, prepared the legal\nposition on this case and took part in the first instance court sessions.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The former Landlord of the disputed property (hereinafter referred to as the Plaintiff) filed a statement of claim against our Principal (hereinafter referred to as the Defendant) to invalidate the contract of sale concluded between the Defendant and the State Unitary Enterprise of Moscow \u201cREM\u201d. According to the Plaintiff, there was no condition in the…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[111,109],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/de-ure.ru\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/33152"}],"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=33152"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/de-ure.ru\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/33152\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":33153,"href":"https:\/\/de-ure.ru\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/33152\/revisions\/33153"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/de-ure.ru\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=33152"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/de-ure.ru\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=33152"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/de-ure.ru\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=33152"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}