The Federal Arbitration Court of the Moscow Circuit revoked the court acts obliging the Administration of the Orekhovo-Zuyevo district of the Moscow Region to issue a resolution concerning the determination of the boundaries of the land plot of OJSC “Kamp

The Arbitration Court of the Moscow Region considered the claim filed by OJSC “Kampo” against the Administration of the Orekhovo-Zuyevo district of the Moscow Region (hereinafter – Administration) concerning the determination of the boundaries of a land plot.

The Territorial administration of Rosimuschestvo for the Moscow Region, the Administration of Rosnedvizhimost for the Moscow Region and OJSC “Proizvodstvenno-konstruktorskoye predpriyatie “Respirator” (hereinafter – OJSC “PKP “Respirator”) were involved in the matter as third parties without any individual claims concerning the subject-matter of the dispute.

In its ruling of 20.07.2006, the Arbitration Court of the Moscow Region satisfied the claims of OJSC “Kampo.” The Court bound the Administration to determine the boundaries of the land plot of OJSC “Kampo” in accordance with the expert opinion issued by LLC NPI “Giprozem.”

In its resolution of 10.10.2006, the Tenth Arbitration Appeals Court upheld the decision of the court of the first instance without alteration.

OJSC “PKP “Respirator”, whose interests in this matter were represented by advocates of the Law firm “YUST”, filed a cassational complaint against the decision of the court of the first instance and the resolution of the court of the appeals instance with the Federal Arbitration Court of the Moscow Circuit. Reason for the application of OJSC “PKP “Respirator” to the cassational instance court was the circumstance that the court acts issued violated its rights and legitimate interests as owner of the land plot adjacent to OJSC “Kampo.”

Pursuant to the consideration of the cassational complaint filed by OJSC “PNP “Respirator” on 4 December 2006, the Federal Arbitration Court of the Moscow Circuit accepted the arguments of the advocates of the Law firm “YUST” that, in the course of the consideration of the matter by the courts, there were violations of the norms of procedural and substantive law, that resulted in the renderance of substantially incorrect court acts, revoked the indicated acts and directed the matter for a new consideration by the court of the first instance.