Challenging the compulsion to conclude security obligations

In the 20-ies of the last century on the territory of one of Moscow's forest parks was created summer camp. Over the next 70 years the camp along with the land on which it was located, was transferred to various government agencies that formed the complex chain of relationships.

In the early 90-ies between investment and construction company and the Federal State Unitary Enterprise, was in charge of a summer camp, a contract was concluded under the terms of which the company carries out reconstruction of houses as part of a summer camp and get them in the property. At the same time the company has passed the land use right of the summer camp, between the company and the Department of property of Moscow signed a lease.

In 1998, the Decree of the Government of Moscow was established natural-historical park "Moskvoretsky", whose members included the territory of the summer camp, which meant that her assignment to the Protected Areas.

In July 2012 Interdistrict Environmental Prosecutor's Office of Moscow filed a lawsuit to compel the conclusion security obligations in respect of land between the company and the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection. Meanwhile, the content of the security commitments were not disclosed, except for the need to suspend all economic activity. The court of first instance, allowing procedural violations took a default judgment. The fact that the decision was made, the company has learned already at the stage of enforcement proceedings one year after the conclusion of the trial, when to execute the decision was beginning to bailiffs.

For help in this situation, construction and investment company turned to Yurbureau LLC. The staff of Yurbureau LLC have worked to default judgment set aside and have the merits with the participation of our client.

We have studied in detail the history of relationships associated with the land, and completely restored the chain of transfer of ownership. As it turned out, this area was under federal ownership, and in accordance with the law, its fate could not be determined by the decision of the Federation. Thus, the status of specially protected natural territory could not be assigned to our client leased parcel of land, and compulsion to conclude security commitments was illegal.

In the appellate court, we managed to defend our position and protect the interests of our client, the claims were denied.