Landshaft-II OOO

Core of the Case

Avrora OOO, in its claim, asked the court to oblige Landshaft-II OOO to fulfill the investment agreement (which was qualified as a simple partnership), in particular, to transfer real estate units. It was also announced that the state registration of the right to units was carried out. Lawyers of Avelan OOO, acting on behalf of Landshaft-II OOO, had to prevent the satisfaction of the claim and the loss of valuable assets – real estate units created within the framework of joint activities.
The main problems and features of the case were as follows:
1) the agreement was indeed not executed by Landshaft-II OOO;
2) the obligation to register the right to a land plot to the plaintiff was also not fulfilled.

The lawyers of Avelan OOO performed the following actions:
1) Since the limitation period was already coming to an end at the time of filing the claim, but the statement of claim was filed with violations of the requirements of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation (the full name and position of the signatory were not indicated), a petition was filed to skip the limitation period. The court satisfied the petition and dismissed the claim without prejudice.
2) In the future, the plaintiff made some delay: instead of filing a new claim, he wanted to appeal the dismissal of the claim without prejudice, but failed to do so and filed a new claim.
3) As a result, the plaintiff had already missed the limitation period when filing a new claim.
4) In the dispute, the position was taken that the plaintiff’s demand for registration of the right is not subject to satisfaction, since he failed to register rights to the land plot. Thus, the practice of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation was confirmed. The rest of the claim is said to have expired.
5) The court dismissed the claim, recognizing all the arguments of the lawyers of Avelan OOO as justified.

Scope of Services

Full legal support of the case in court.

Достижения, результаты, важность, значимость проекта

For the client, the significance of the project was that he could lose valuable assets – real estate units, since there was indeed a default on the part of the client.
For the legal system as a whole, the significance of the project lies in the fact that the interpretation of paragraph 3 of Article 204 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation in a new edition was confirmed, according to which leaving a claim without consideration as a result of violation of the requirements of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation when filing a claim does not lead to a break in the limitation period and lengthening the term. The plaintiff’s arguments were also refuted that the limitation period should not be extended for another 1 month after the claim was dismissed without prejudice, since during this period an appeal could be filed, and the ruling itself did not enter into force.

Case File

А41-59784/2015

А41-76226/15