Bratsk airport will be released from arrest – Newspaper Kommersant No. 226 (7427) dated 06.12.

The Basmanny District Court of Moscow declared illegal the inaction of the investigator, who refused to remove the arrest from the shares of PJSC “Airport Bratsk”, previously owned by the bankrupt airline “VIM-Avia”. The decision of the court entered into force, but the terms for eliminating the violation are not indicated in it. The plaintiffs, former employees of VIM-Avia, hope to have the arrest lifted by the end of the year. This will allow them to receive the rest of the debt on payments, and the buyer of the airport – the structure of Rusal – will become the owner in a year and a half after paying for the airport’s shares.

As Kommersant found out, the Basmanny District Court of Moscow declared illegal the inaction of the investigator who refused to remove the arrest from the shares of Bratsk Airport PJSC. On November 16, the court ordered to eliminate this violation, on November 29 the decision came into force.

The airport shares have been under arrest since 2018 in a criminal case on non-payment of salaries to ex-employees of VIM-Avia in the amount of 315 million rubles. At the end of April 2021, the structure of Rusal – MK Gershwin – bought them at an auction during the bankruptcy of the airline for 495 million rubles. In the autumn of the same year, Rusal allowed the bankruptcy trustee to pay off debts to the airline’s staff, but even after that, the restrictive measures were not lifted, and the deal has not yet been closed. MK “Gershwin” is trying to get the arrest canceled in the Irkutsk arbitration, which in July asked the TFR to justify the reasons for maintaining the arrest of the asset (see “Kommersant” dated July 28). The review has been deferred until January 2023.

The process in the Basmanny District Court was initiated by a group of ex-employees of VIM-Avia, who were recognized as victims during its bankruptcy. The representative of the plaintiffs, Olga Sherstneva, told Kommersant that on December 5, the group sent a petition to the investigator for the speedy execution of the court decision. The victims are seeking the removal of the arrest, because, despite the full repayment of wage arrears, the former employer has accumulated a multimillion-dollar debt on social benefits and insurance transfers to the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation. Earlier, Mrs. Sherstneva and sources in Rusal told Kommersant that the investigation had appointed an examination to determine the “fair value” of the asset and had not yet carried it out. According to them, the investigation suspects that an asset with an encumbrance of 3 billion rubles. could be purchased in the absence of other applicants at a reduced price.

Investigator Ivan Sibul, whose inaction the Basmanny Court declared illegal, declined to comment on the phone, Rusal did not answer Kommersant’s questions. “Kommersant” sent a request to the TFR.

As a general rule, appeals filed with a missed ten-day period are left without consideration, says Pavel Ickert, managing partner of Ickert & Partners. However, if there are good reasons, you can apply for the restoration of the missed deadline, he says. It is also possible to apply for the examination of evidence “which for some objective reason was not presented to the court earlier, but which may have a significant impact on its decision.” In addition, it is possible to appeal a decision that has already entered into legal force in the cassation procedure or in the procedure of supervision by the Supreme Court. “That is, it is still premature to dismiss the possibility of canceling even the ruling of the district court that has entered into force,” he concludes.

At the same time, court decisions that have entered into legal force are binding, although the court may not indicate the time period in which this should happen.

A person who has missed the deadline for an appeal has the right to apply to the court to restore the missed procedural deadline if there is a good reason, adviser to BGP Litigation Vladislav Rikov agrees: “For example, this could be illness, a business trip or force majeure circumstances.” At the same time, Mr. Rikov noted that, since the court did not indicate the time frame within which the investigator is obliged to remove the arrest, “the parties have the right to apply to the court for an explanation of the procedure for the execution of the judgment.”

Aigul Abdullina