The Supreme Arbitration Court has settled a long-term dispute between the St.-Petersburg authorities and the owner of a part of property located at 9/11 Sytninsky Street: disputable immovable property illegally possessed by St. Petersburg shall be retrieved.
September 13, 2011 the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court (the RF VAS) granted a judgment to satisfy the claim filed by OOO Magazin Ellias and to retrieve non-residential premises and a part of land plot illegally possessed by St.-Petersburg located at 9/11 Sytninsky Street.
The above judgment is especially remarkable because VAS of the RF has also ordered to restore the initial entries on non-residential premises and land plot in the State Land Registry. The point is that during the conflict the St.-Petersburg authorities took actions aimed at changing registration data concerning disputed property, and respondents presented this fact in all judicial instances as the sole reason for refusal to restore the rights of OOO Magazin Ellias.
The property fund has acquired disputed premises from persons which were found guilty of committing crimes provided by articles 159 and 174 of the RF Penal Code, by St.-Petersburg Petrogradsky district court. The public employee failed to indemnify the lawful owner for stolen property, he also did not name his partners in crime, public employees, who laundered 30 million rubles from the budget of St.-Petersburg, paid for stolen real estate property.
Then the St.-Petersburg authorities included the disputed property into a large-scale investment project “Sytninsky 9-11”, exposed by the St.-Petersburg Property Fund at the international exhibitions, including MIPIM-2011 in Cannes, as the main investment achievement of the city.
Nevertheless, VAS of the RF supported OOO Magazin Ellias and delivered a fair judgment which protected the infringed rights of the owner.
Andrei Mikonin, the partner of the law firm S&K Vertikal, and senior associate Igor Zapolsky, representing interests of OOO Magazin Ellias during the long-term dispute, are pleased with the court’s decision.
Andrei Mikonin: “Resolution issued by the PF VAS concerning this case is important not only for the complainant party which faced refusal of defense from not less than twenty judges of diverse courts, but also for all law enforcement practice, because the above resolution contains and effectively applies a universal method of defending an owner's rights, irrespective of any subsequent manipulations with target of recovery (vindication).”