{"id":33437,"date":"2020-12-22T12:38:00","date_gmt":"2020-12-22T09:38:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/de-ure.ru\/en\/?p=33437"},"modified":"2020-12-30T12:38:22","modified_gmt":"2020-12-30T09:38:22","slug":"december-22-main-results-of-the-day","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/de-ure.ru\/en\/2020\/12\/22\/december-22-main-results-of-the-day\/","title":{"rendered":"December 22      Main results of the day"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p>The Ninth\nArbitration Court of Appeal overturned the earlier decision of the court of\nfirst instance and satisfied the claims of the Developer, whose interests were\nrepresented by MCBA \u201cBureau of Lawyers \u201cDe jure\u201d, to the Public Law Company\n\u201cFund for the Protection of the Rights of Citizens Participating in Shared\nConstruction\u201d. The appellate instance declared illegal the actions of the Fund\nto place information about the apartment building, which is being built by the\nDeveloper, in the Unified Register of Problematic Objects and obliged the Fund\nto delete this information.&nbsp; The\ninterests of the Developer were represented by Rashid Gitinov, senior lawyer of MCBA \u201cBureau\nof Lawyers \u201cDe jure\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Ninth\nArbitration Court of Appeal upheld the earlier decision of the Moscow\nArbitration Court, which denied the Plaintiff in full the claims against the Defendant,\nwhose interests were represented by MCBA \u201cBureau of Lawyers \u201cDe jure\u201d. The\nclaims were filed for invalidation of the delivery contract and the application\nof the consequences of the invalidity of the transaction. The courts, taking\ninto account the legal position prepared by MCBA \u201cBureau of Lawyers \u201cDe jure\u201d did\nnot reveal the facts that the Plaintiff acted under the influence of deception,\nviolence, threat or unfavorable circumstances.&nbsp;\nThe Defendant was represented by Rashid Gitinov, senior lawyer of MCBA\n\u201cBureau of Lawyers \u201cDe jure.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The Ninth Arbitration Court of Appeal overturned the earlier decision of the court of first instance and satisfied the claims of the Developer, whose interests were represented by MCBA \u201cBureau of Lawyers \u201cDe jure\u201d, to the Public Law Company \u201cFund for the Protection of the Rights of Citizens Participating in Shared Construction\u201d. The appellate instance&hellip;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[111],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/de-ure.ru\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/33437"}],"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=33437"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/de-ure.ru\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/33437\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":33438,"href":"https:\/\/de-ure.ru\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/33437\/revisions\/33438"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/de-ure.ru\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=33437"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/de-ure.ru\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=33437"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/de-ure.ru\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=33437"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}