You can demand technical documentation for the house from the developer indefinitely
[ad_1]
The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation (SC) did not limit the period for filing claims against developers who did not transfer technical documentation to the house.
The history of the dispute began in October 2017, when Specialized Developer Soyuz Invest LLC transferred an apartment building (MKD) in Novosibirsk, which was put into operation a month earlier, to Veles Management Company LLC.
The parties signed the registers for the transfer of technical documentation, but despite this, the developer did not transfer part of the documents to the Criminal Code, including project documentation and as-built drawings for the house. After Soyuz Invest did not respond to the claims of Veles, the case went to the Arbitration Court of the Novosibirsk Region, which rejected the requirements of the Criminal Code. The court pointed out that some of the documents had already been handed over to her, and for the rest, a three-year limitation period had been missed. The appeal and cassation recognized these conclusions as correct.
The CC filed a complaint with the Supreme Court. According to the company, the requirements for the transfer of documents to the MKD cannot be limited in time, since they protect the interests of the owners of the premises of the house, whose rights have been violated. Based on these arguments, the case was referred to the Economic Collegium of the Armed Forces (see para. “Kommersant” from March 7).
The Supreme Court acknowledged that the developer “illegally evaded” the transfer of technical documentation to the MKD, allowing “illegal inaction.” Meanwhile, the court emphasized, this affects “the management of the house by the Criminal Code, the maintenance of common property in proper condition in order to ensure its uninterrupted and trouble-free operation and the possibility of compensation for harm as a result of such maintenance.” In addition, the non-transfer of documents prevents “the plaintiff from fulfilling its obligations to manage the MKD in the interests of the owners,” and also threatens to violate “their rights to safe living.”
Therefore, such a claim “may be brought during the entire period of operation of the house,” and the developer “is not entitled to refer to the expiration of the statute of limitations,” the board concluded. The dispute was sent for a new consideration with instructions to the courts to determine the specific documents to be transferred to the Criminal Code.
[ad_2]
Source link
