“Kashirsky Dvor” came to the Supreme Court
[ad_1]
The Moscow City Hall, having failed in lower authorities to achieve the demolition of part of the illegal, in its opinion, buildings in the Kashirsky Dvor shopping complex for the sale of building materials in the south of the capital, received another chance. Based on a complaint from the city authorities, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation (SC) will consider the case. Lawyers assess the officials’ chances of winning as high, noting, however, that the key issues are the statute of limitations and the creation of a threat to citizens by the disputed buildings.
As Kommersant found out, the economic board of the Supreme Court plans on February 27 to consider a complaint from the Moscow mayor’s office and the capital’s department of city property (DGI) in the case of the demolition of part of the facilities as part of the Kashirsky Dvor shopping complex in Kolomensky Proezd in the south of Moscow. The dispute began in the summer of 2022, when the mayor’s office and the DGI jointly filed a lawsuit against Kashirsky Dvor CJSC to declare three buildings with a total area of almost 4 thousand square meters illegal. m within the boundaries of the complex, requiring the owner of the property to demolish these premises at his own expense. The site under the disputed objects belongs to the Moscow City Hall and is leased from the company.
The first instance, based on the results of the examination (it showed that there was a threat to the life and health of citizens while preserving the buildings), supported the city authorities, obliging the defendant to demolish the buildings within a month. But the appeal and cassation overturned this decision. According to the courts, the statute of limitations for the mayor’s office’s claim has expired, since the disputed objects were built back in 2007, and in 2013 they were included in the state real estate cadastre as capital construction projects. In addition, the additional examination of the buildings ordered by the appeal did not provide an obvious answer as to how much they pose a threat to citizens.
On January 18, the DGI told Kommersant that the site was provided to Kashirsky Dvor CJSC for the operation of the construction market and the placement of temporary non-capital pavilions. But during the inspection, the State Real Estate Inspectorate found out that unauthorized buildings had been erected on the site. The department also emphasizes that, according to an additional examination, the disputed buildings “were erected in violation of urban planning, construction and fire safety standards.” It was not possible to contact JSC Kashirsky Dvor. The company phone numbers listed in SPARK did not answer.
The Kashirsky Dvor complex with a total area of almost 60 thousand square meters. m has been operating in the south of Moscow since the mid-2000s. According to the Unified State Register of Legal Entities for 2002, among the co-owners of the objects were Valery Stolyarov (10.3%), Vladimir Memelov and David Arutyunov (9% each). The current composition of the company’s owners is not disclosed.
According to SPARK, in 2022, the revenue of Kashirsky Dvor CJSC amounted to 785 million rubles, the loss was 93.43 million rubles. This company also developed the second phase of the shopping complex, but on the neighboring Varshavskoe Highway. Since the beginning of 2023, the Granel Group of Companies has been developing this site with housing.
The fact that the dispute was referred to the Economic Collegium of the Supreme Court gives the mayor’s office a great chance of winning: according to statistics, the Collegium overturns decisions of lower courts in more than 90% of cases. At the same time, lawyers point out that cases of demolition of unauthorized buildings are among the most controversial, since it is difficult for the court to find a fair balance. “On the one hand, preserving such objects means legalizing illegal construction, on the other hand, demolition solely on formal grounds can be harmful to society,” explains Verba Legal partner Dmitry Malbin.
Senior lawyer, Real Estate practice. Earth. Construction” Vegas Lex Marina Preobrazhenskaya notes that in this dispute it is important to find out whether the disputed buildings are auxiliary, for which it is not necessary to obtain a building permit. Co-founder of the law firm atLegal Nikolai Titov believes that the Supreme Court will check the application of the statute of limitations and assess the good faith of the defendant, who, after filing a demolition claim against him, carried out reconstruction of the buildings. Moreover, if the construction threatens the life or health of citizens, the statute of limitations does not apply, notes Dmitry Malbin. In his opinion, “most likely, the Supreme Court will uphold the decision of the first instance, in which case the company will be obliged to demolish the unauthorized buildings.” Meanwhile, “since the case contains opposing expert conclusions about the safety of the disputed buildings,” the Supreme Court, ProLegals partner Marina Morozova does not rule out, may refer the dispute for a new consideration for a re-examination.
[ad_2]
Source link
