Apteka Vesta OAO

Core of the Case

Privatization of city property within the framework of Federal Law No. 159-FZ. The client submitted an application to the City Property Department of Moscow for the purchase of premises. After obtaining the response from the Department, the client ordered an appraisal of the market value of the purchased premises, prepared a protocol of disagreements and submitted this appraisal to the Department. The latter refused to sign the protocol of disagreements, after which the client filed a claim for settlement of disagreements when concluding a contract for the sale of a real estate unit. Initially, the client attached to the protocol of disagreements a report on the assessment of the market value of the purchased unit with the wrong assessment date, that is, the date did not correspond to the date on which, in accordance with Federal Law No. 159-FZ, the assessment should have been carried out.
The court of first instance refused to appoint a forensic appraisal, and settled the differences on the price of the Department.
When challenged in the court of appeal, the petition for the appointment of a forensic appraisal was satisfied and, as a result, the redemption value was almost halved.

Scope of Services

Full support of the case in court, preparation of procedural documents and position.

Achievements, Results, Importance, Significance of the Project

In the court of appeal, it was proved that the price of the purchased unit was indeed too high, and the wrong assessment date is not a basis for refusing to appoint a forensic appraisal. Since there was a month and a half between the correct appraisal date and the actual appraisal date, it was substantiated to the court that during these month and a half the price of the premises could not have almost halved. As a result, the decision of the court of first instance was changed, the differences were settled at the price indicated in the forensic appraisal.
The importance of this project lies in the fact that the court still considered the dispute on the merits if the client violated the buyout procedure. Taking into account the number of premises to be purchased and the violations that are allowed in this procedure, the said decision, left unchanged by the court of cassation, will be the beginning of positive judicial practice and invaluable help for small and medium-sized businesses.

Case File

А40-163349/2015