Source The heirs of the ex-myer of Saratov, Oleg Grishchenko, can keep the skyscraper for themselves. The case of the seizure of a skyscraper in the city center from the heirs of the ex-mayor of Saratov, Oleg Grishchenko, has taken an unexpected turn. For the first time since the restitution campaign started in the region, the owners of the building were literally prompted to find a way out. circumstances.
There are only five circumstances. The TU of the Federal Property Management Agency and the owners of the building at Moskovskaya, 55 should explain the following: could the subject of the dispute participate in privatization, if so, whether the procedure itself went correctly, whether the plaintiff and defendants have enough documents to substantiate their arguments, and whether the reorganization of the leased enterprise into a partnership was in accordance with the law .
And, most importantly, for the first time in court, the following question was asked: “Do transactions for the alienation of property into the ownership of legal entities comply with the regulatory legal acts in force during the period of the transaction?” Until now, it has not even been raised at the processes of seizing the former state property privatized in the 90s from the business.
No one was interested in what rules were in effect at the time when the Covered Market, the Pobeda cinema or the restaurant at the Volga Hotel became private. The statute of limitations, on which the defendants based their position, crumbled like houses of cards, the courts recognized the indisputable rightness of the Federal Property Management Agency, which, according to the conclusions, for many years did not know that the objects were no longer state-owned.
And in a dispute with the heirs of the late mayor, they suddenly remembered what legal norms were in force at the time of privatization. Such a definition looks almost like a hint to the defendants. In any case, it can give them a chance to keep the building for themselves – both its old part, the former Institute of Land Reclamation, and the new one, where the First Court of Cassation of General Jurisdiction has registered and pays the owners multimillion-dollar rent.
After such a promising determination, two consecutive breaks were announced in the case – first until November 3, and then until the 30th. The process of confiscating the complex of the building of the regional cardiodispensary, the former hospital of the SDR, from the buildings associated with the owners of the Moscow firms, was also overgrown with breaks in meetings. The court will meet again on November 14.
High-rise building on Moscow, 55 double. Initially, there was a building of the land reclamation department built back in the Soviet years, which was privatized in the 90s and in the process came under the control of a company affiliated with Oleg Grishchenko, then the mayor of Saratov. In 2017, a different composition of the city's mayor's office allowed a 14-story skyscraper to be added to the old administration, despite all the protests of experts against the construction of another candle in the historical center. The construction was carried out by Etalon LLC, owned by Anastasia Milyutina, daughter of Oleg Grishchenko. The finished skyscraper, which has become one with the old building, has a whole structure of legal entities, the defendants in the case are 8 companies, including Krona-S, Stella, Moskovskaya-55.
The courts treat the owners of other privatized buildings more severely. With regard to the Pobeda cinema, even the judicial panel in Kazan stated that it was impossible to leave the building to the current owners, since this would allow legalization of property acquired illegally. Now the materials of this case have been requested by the Supreme Court, but the hearing has not yet been scheduled.
In October, PKF Volga-Astoria LLC, the owner of the restaurant in the Volga Hotel, also lost the court in cassation. The case is considered closed. By the decision of November 1, interim measures were removed from the premises of the restaurant. And only in the case of the former administration of land reclamation, the question was asked: under what law was the privatization carried out.