Officials were not able at this stage to defend in court the position on self-construction on Luzhnetskaya embankment, possession 2/4, building 4. Owners, bankers and real estate managers of VTB Arena LLC found arguments. How did you manage to resolve the issue with the controversial object?

Real estate growth

LLC “VTB Arena” was founded in 2014, the main activity is the lease and management of real estate. The authorized capital is 24 billion rubles, the profit in 2022 is 139 million rubles, the founder is BM-Bank JSC.

The Bank of Moscow has existed since 1995, and was one of the five largest Russian credit institutions. In February 2011, 46.48% of the Bank of Moscow was acquired by VTB without a tender, although other banks were interested in the asset. The remainder of the former bank, which retained its former license, was renamed BM-Bank. Thus, the LLC is formally related to the state and is forced to work by publishing information through the public procurement website – at least in a minimal amount. Therefore, the TG channel “Arbitr” discovered and evaluated one of the purchases of the company aimed at obtaining legal services related to the court in the building.

In March 2022, the State Inspectorate for Control over the Use of Real Estate Objects noticed a discrepancy between documents and reality. More precisely, three real estate objects located on a land plot with cadastral number 77:01:0005019:2058 with an area of ​​3,237 sq m and an address landmark: Moscow, Luzhnetskaya embankment, property 2/4, building object (unauthorized construction). It looks like the roof has gone up somehow.

The analysis of the technical documentation of the State Budgetary Institution “MosgorBTI” showed that as a result of the reconstruction, a superstructure was erected and a mezzanine of the fourth floor was built up. Rooms 1-5 with an area of ​​138.7 sq.m., rooms 6-9 with an area of ​​189.8 sq.m., technical floor, mezzanine – 4.253.8 sq.m. were added, in connection with which the building area increased from 11.107 sq.m. up to 15.984.3 sq.m.

The superstructure was considered an administrative violation, and the bank was allegedly fined. According to various estimates, the amount may be 6.419 million rubles for violation of the requirements and restrictions on the use of a land plot related to construction, with the reconstruction of a building on it.

JSC BM-Bank is a subsidiary of VTB and has all kinds of resources, including its quick lawyers and money, to attract additional outsiders. They did not rush to pay the fine and went to court to cancel the decision of the State Inspectorate for Real Estate. To begin with, as can be understood from the decision, the plaintiff stated that there is no evidence in the materials of the administrative case that the construction or reconstruction of the facility was carried out by BM-Bank. They remembered the history of the issue – the predecessors could equip the attic: Vozrozhdenie Bank, Mint LLC, Credo Estate LLC.

Allegedly, the building, which is now owned by BM-Bank JSC, became one floor higher between July 1999 and December 2006. And during this period, the norms of the law “On land use in the city of Moscow” and the City Planning Code of Moscow were not yet in force, they appeared a year later. That is, “BM-Bank” did not carry out the reconstruction of any real estate objects located on the site, and is not responsible for the reconstruction of the attic.

The technical conclusion of Moszhilproekt is filed with the materials that the supporting structures of this building are in working condition, and it is technically possible to re-equip the production building for its further use for office and administrative purposes.

Thus, it turns out that the bankers were able to prove that the fact of using a land plot with unauthorized buildings already erected on it does not form part of a sane violation. The court found it illegal and canceled the decision of the State Inspectorate for Real Estate dated March 17, 2022 on the fine.

Second act

This was not the end of the mezzanine case on the Luzhnetskaya embankment. Litigation continued, albeit with other performers. The claimant in the new case was the Moscow City Property Department, the defendant was VTB Arena LLC.

In April 2023, the Arbitr channel became aware that VTB Arena LLC entered into a contract for the provision of legal services worth 12.5 million rubles to represent its interests in a dispute with the Department of City Property regarding the demolition of unauthorized buildings. According to them, the purchase was carried out without a tender, from a single supplier, there is no information on who exactly this service provider was on the public procurement website.

The secret contractor (perhaps not alien to VTB) had to convince the court that the three already mentioned non-residential premises in the building on Luzhnetskaya Embankment were not unauthorized buildings, and they did not need to be demolished. The case was considered in the Ninth Arbitration Court of Appeal. That is, 12.5 million was already offered for the second instance. Moreover, a similar case was judged and fixed earlier.

As we can understand, the court found that the land-legal relations for the land plot on which the mentioned house stands, it turns out, are not properly formalized, the ownership right is not registered. Judging by the technical documentation of the State Budgetary Institution “MosgorBTI”, the disputed premises were created in the period up to the end of 2006, when all the work was fully completed and the inventory and technical accounting documents had already been prepared: explication, floor plans and technical passport No. 481. Then it was necessary to challenge the right for reconstruction – within three years.

The plaintiffs, as can be understood, insist that the defendant erected structures that have signs of unauthorized construction without permits, the object was not accepted into operation as a capital construction object in accordance with the established procedure, approval of the construction of capital construction objects or a decision on construction, as well as decisions on the provision of land the site for the creation and operation of the real estate object was not accepted by the authorized state authorities. Seems like a serious violation.

But there were other arguments. According to the conclusions of the expert, the disputed object does not pose a threat to the life and health of citizens, the land plot has retired from the possession of the city of Moscow, since it is occupied by a real estate object owned by the defendant on the right of ownership. Therefore, the plaintiffs’ stated claim for demolition is subject to the general statute of limitations. The train is long gone.

What’s in the dry matter? It turns out that a secret lawyer for 12.5 million rubles found iron arguments for the court. Dear customer’s order completed. The court ruled that the appeal should be dismissed.