The dispute over the famous restaurant “Prichal” on Rublyovka reached the Supreme Court

Having failed to prove its rights to several real estate objects in lower instances, including the well-known Prichal restaurant on Rublevo-Uspenskoye Highway in the Moscow region, the manager of the Presidential Affairs of the Russian Federation filed a complaint with the economic board of the Supreme Court (SC), which agreed to consider the dispute. The site itself, where the disputed buildings are located, belongs to the structure of Arkady Novikov and billionaire Gavril Yushvaev, which, in turn, is trying to secure ownership of the objects. There are “many white spots” in this case, lawyers admit. Therefore, they do not exclude, the Supreme Court may send the case for a new trial.

On September 7, the Economic Board of the Armed Forces will consider a dispute over several real estate objects in Zhukovka on the Rublevo-Uspenskoye Highway of the Moscow Region, based on a complaint by the Presidential Administration, found “Kommersant” in the filing cabinet of arbitration cases. We are talking about four buildings on 1.3 hectares. This land was bought by Brigantina LLC in 2004 from JSC Agrocomplex Gorki-2, and among the contested real estate is the Prichal restaurant, well-known on Rublyovka, managed by Arkady Novikov’s Novikov Group.

Restaurateur, according to Kartoteka.ru, also owns 50% in Brigantine, another 25% belongs to the ex-head of Wimm-Bill-Dann Gavriil Yushvaev, 7% belongs to his son Ilya. The remaining 18% belongs to Timofey Klinovsky, who has consolidated plots on Rublyovka.

Back in February 2021, Brigantina filed a lawsuit against the building manager to recognize four buildings in Zhukovka as unauthorized buildings and secure the company’s ownership rights to them. The owner of the disputed real estate is the Russian Federation, represented by the Presidential Administration, which, in turn, transferred the property to the operational management of the Rublyovo-Uspensky recreation complex.

The plaintiff, motivating the arbitrariness of the buildings, noted that at the time of registration of property rights for the manager in 2008, the area of ​​\u200b\u200bthe buildings was 635.7 square meters. m, but as a result of the reconstruction increased to 856 sq. m.

All three courts satisfied Brigantina’s claim, acknowledging that the reconstruction was carried out without the consent of the site owner and without a building permit. Disagreeing with this position, the manager filed a complaint with the Supreme Court, including noting that the plaintiff had missed the statute of limitations for presenting his claims.

The press service of the presidential administration did not begin to detail their arguments, which will be presented to the Economic Board of the Armed Forces. From the materials of the courts, it also became known that back in 2019, the department tried to recognize the ownership of the Russian Federation on the site itself in Zhukovka. “Our specialists are constantly working to return illegally privatized property to state ownership,” the manager of the department explained to Kommersant. But the courts rejected the claim of the department, recognizing the land for “Brigantine”.

Arkady Novikov did not respond to Kommersant’s request. It was not possible to contact Brigantina LLC.

The recognition of buildings as unauthorized structures is necessary in order to confirm their safety for citizens and register ownership of them, says the managing partner of the law firm Nova Inc. Pavel Zhelnovod. It also allows Brigantine to bypass the statute of limitations, the expert adds.

This practice is common in Moscow with religious buildings, notes the head of the law firm “Kuchembaev and Partners” Almaz Kuchembaev. Often, he explains, the Moscow mayor’s office, as the owner of the land, recognizes churches as unauthorized buildings, obtains ownership of them through the courts and transfers them to the use of the Russian Orthodox Church.

Mr. Zhelnovod believes that the courts satisfied Brigantina’s claim, since its rights to the land were registered earlier, that is, in 2004, than the state’s rights to buildings received in 2008. But there is a chance that the Supreme Court will return the case to a new circle, the lawyer adds.

The Supreme Court rarely refers a case to the economic board and does not cancel the decision on it, Almaz Kuchembaev admits.

At the same time, the lawyer of KA Delcredere Yegor Kovalev points out that there are “many white spots” in the case: the dates of construction of the disputed buildings are unknown, it is not clear whether Brigantina knew about the presence of buildings when purchasing the land, how significant the reconstruction was and when exactly it was carried out. The outcome of the case depends on these circumstances, so it would be most logical to send the dispute for a new trial to clarify them, Mr. Kovalev believes.

Vladimir Khantimirov, managing partner of the Asterisk law firm, believes that Brigantina needs to prove that it participated in the reconstruction of buildings and that its plan was agreed with the Rublyovo-Uspensky recreation complex.

However, in his opinion, the presidential administration has every chance to win the dispute. Egor Kovalev admits that the Supreme Court can reject the Brigantina’s claim only because the statute of limitations has been missed. In this case, the ownership of the buildings, he explains, will remain with the state.

Daria Andrianova, Anna Zanina