The court dismissed the civil suit against Silaeva in the high-profile case of changing the stadium at the depot in Tula
[ad_1]
The injured party agreed with the defense that the prosecution’s claim was inappropriate
On February 13, the Sovetsky Court of the city of Tula held another hearing in a civil case on compensation for damages in the amount of 204 million rubles, which the MCP “Tulgorelektrotrans” allegedly incurred from the transaction for the exchange of the Arsenal stadium for a depot on Oboronnaya Street.
Recall that Tatyana Silaeva, deputy chairman of the Committee for Property and Land Relations of the city administration, is in the dock.
The statement of claim was filed by the first deputy prosecutor of the Tula region. The representative of the public prosecution during the trial, respectively, supported the statement in full. But the representative of the injured party – MCP “Tulgorelektrotrans” – stated that the enterprise with the indicated damage did not agree: the property that had left the balance of the enterprise – the depot on Oboronnaya Street – did not belong to the MCP at all, therefore, to say that the object was lost, it is forbidden.
At the same time, the lease payments for the depot, according to the injured party, were included in the plan of financial and economic activity: they replaced tax payments, the cost of maintaining the facility. In this connection, the representative of the MCP does not consider these amounts to be a loss for the enterprise.
The side of Silaeva’s defense also did not support the civil suit of the prosecutor’s office and focused on the position of the injured party that the rights of the MCP were not violated during the exchange: the company did not dispute either the transaction or the subsequent lease agreements for the depot.
In a set of arguments, Silaeva’s lawyer pointed out the groundlessness of the statement of claim and asked to refuse to satisfy it. The representative of Tulgorelektrotrans, as the injured party, agreed with this statement, believing that there were no grounds for satisfying the claim.
The court, after hearing the opinions of the parties, decided to dismiss the public prosecutor’s claim. The parties have a month to file objections and appeal the decision.
[ad_2]
Source link
