A lawyer from Sterlitamak, Flus Mubinov, once again failed to recover 2.2 billion rubles from the Avangard defense enterprise. arbitration fee. The plaintiff has been making such attempts since 2011. The debt, according to Mr. Mubinov, was formed as a result of consideration of the case by an arbitration court under his chairmanship on the recovery of 22.4 billion rubles from Avangard. compensation for late and incomplete payment of salaries. The claim was not satisfied, but the arbitration court decided to collect from the defendant a fee in the amount of 10% of the amount of the claim. Instances of arbitration courts did not recognize this debt. According to lawyers, there are signs of abuse of the right in the actions of the arbitration court.
The Eighteenth Arbitration Court of Appeal dismissed the complaint of Scientific Research Institute of Entrepreneurship LLC (NIIP, owned by Flus Mubinov) for the recovery of 2.2 billion rubles from FKP Avangard.
It was established that in 2008, by order of the then head of the NOU “Legal Consultation” (liquidated in 2018) Flus Mubinov, the Sterlitamak City Arbitration Court was formed. Mr. Mubinov became its chairman. In 2009, Andrey Seredkin, representing the interests of Avangard employees, applied to an arbitration court to recover 22.4 billion rubles from the enterprise. compensation for late and incomplete payment of wages, indexation, interest and moral damages for violation of the legal rights of employees. In 2010, Mr. Seredkin was denied. At the same time, the arbitration court, arguing that the plaintiff was exempt from paying the arbitration fee, decided to recover 10% of the amount of the claim – 2.2 billion rubles. – from the Vanguard. The company did not accept any obligations to the arbitration court to pay the arbitration fee, on the contrary, it refused to submit the application for consideration by this court, the case file says. Since 2011, Legal Consultation has unsuccessfully tried several times to collect the debt in arbitration courts of three instances, arguing that this decision was not appealed within three months.
FKP Avangard was founded in 1991 in Sterlitamak. Belongs to the Russian Federation represented by the Federal Property Management Agency and the Ministry of Industry and Trade of Russia. The main industry is the production of weapons and ammunition. Financial statements are not published.
The representative of Avangard explained that the decision of the arbitration court was made in violation of the law: Andrei Seredkin was not an employee of the enterprise and later abandoned the claim altogether. However, the arbitral tribunal did not stop the proceedings, pointing out that no relevant application for termination of the proceedings was received from the employees, “although the plaintiff did not submit to the court the data whose interests he represents”. The courts, refusing to satisfy the claim, came to the conclusion that Legal Consultation is not a party to the arbitration proceedings and is not entitled to receive an arbitration fee.
As part of a new consideration last year, Flus Mubinov submitted to the case file an assignment agreement concluded with NIIP on the assignment of the right to receive 2.2 billion rubles. However, the arbitration court of Bashkiria came to the conclusion that the subject of the assignment agreement is a non-existent claim, and therefore the claim is not subject to satisfaction.
In the appellate instance, NIIP stated that it disagreed with the decision, since “not a single document substantiating the debt was appealed.” According to Flus Mubinov, the defendant recognizes the debt, but does not fulfill the obligation to pay it.
The Eighteenth Arbitration Court of Appeal did not find grounds for canceling or changing the contested judicial act. On this occasion, the Arbitration Court of the Urals District pointed out that the decision of the arbitration court is endowed with the property of enforcement only after passing through the procedures for obtaining a writ of execution for its enforcement. “Legal Consultation” did not receive such a writ of execution, the resolution notes.
Flux Mubinov didn’t answer calls yesterday.
“This is an echo of those times when an orgy with arbitration courts was going on in the country. The bright idea of private arbitration was discredited by numerous “pocket” courts, which were used to obtain the “necessary” decisions, sometimes odious. In such a situation, state courts were forced to intrude into the competence of arbitration, in fact, to check their judicial acts. As a result, the activities of all arbitration courts were terminated, the Ministry of Justice of Russia allowed the work of only four courts. In this case, I think it was a pocket arbitration. On the fact of such decisions, criminal cases should be initiated, and no penalties should be carried out,” said Aidar Mullanurov, managing partner of the Barrister agency.