The founder of the Kiwi Gardens developer is recovering 4.9 billion rubles from the Federal Property Management Agency, Rosreestr and the Sochi authorities. for the disruption of the project for the construction of a hotel in Adler. Earlier, the courts, at the suit of the prosecutor’s office, achieved the cancellation of the lease agreement for the land plot on which the facility was being built, and the cancellation of the building permit. In addition, 4.6 billion rubles were recovered from the developer. damage to land. Experts believe that it is still impossible to predict the prospects of the case.
The Arbitration Court of the Krasnodar Territory is considering the claim of Kiwi Gardens LLC, filed against the Russian Federation represented by the Federal Property Management Agency and Rosreestr, as well as against the city of Sochi and the Federal Research Center of the All-Russian Institute of Plant Genetic Resources named after Vavilov. The plaintiff demands damages in the amount of 4.9 billion rubles, according to the arbitration file.
As Yevgeny Kabashny, a lawyer representing the interests of Qiwi Gardens, explained to Kommersant-Kuban, we are talking about the losses incurred by the developer during the implementation of the apart-hotel construction project. The object was not built due to the cancellation of the building permit and the loss of the right to lease the land. The court scheduled a hearing for April 27, 2023.
According to the SPARK-Interfax system, Kiwi Gardens LLC was registered in Sochi in 2018. The company is engaged in the construction of residential and non-residential buildings. The company is 68% owned by SMU-38 (Dagomys), 32% owned by individuals.
Kiwi Gardens LLC was engaged in the implementation of a project for the construction of nine buildings of apartment-type hotels (from two to three floors) in the Adler district of Sochi. The land plot with an area of 2.8 hectares is located on the first line near the railway station and the airport, next to the branch of the Vavilov Institute.
The resort administration explained that the permit for the construction of the Kiwi Gardens hotel complex was issued based on the decision of the Central District Court of Sochi, but it was subsequently canceled by a higher authority. In parallel, the building permit was challenged by the prosecutor’s office in the Arbitration Court of the region. The courts established that the apart-hotel was built within the boundaries of the airport noise impact zones and the protective zone of industrial enterprises, utilities and engineering facilities, in the public green space, as well as within the boundaries of the historical settlement. These and some other circumstances became grounds for canceling the building permit. The Supreme Court of Russia put an end to the case in October last year.
Also, in April last year, the Kuban Arbitration Court, at the suit of the Sochi prosecutor, invalidated the lease agreements for a land plot allocated for construction by a hotel complex.
Later, the Prosecutor General’s Office of Russia demanded to recover 4.6 billion rubles from the developer in the interests of Russia and the city of Sochi, substantiating this requirement by the impossibility of using the land due to buildings, as well as damage to the soil layer during construction. The Adler District Court granted the claim of the supervisory authority. The decision is now being appealed. In addition, the Adler District Court of Sochi, at the request of the Prosecutor General’s Office, decided to foreclose on the buildings of the unfinished apart-hotel, estimated at 202 million rubles, in favor of the Russian Federation.
Sergey Gebel, General Director of the law firm Gebel and Partners, notes that at this stage it is still impossible to predict the outcome of the case. In his opinion, if during the consideration of the dispute the illegality of the actions of the defendants is established, and a causal relationship is proved between them and the losses of the plaintiff, the likelihood of recovering such losses may take place. “However, given the lack of information on the judicial recognition of such decisions, there are no actions of the respective defendants. It is still difficult to judge the validity of these requirements,” the lawyer believes.