Law Firm Rezolut represents a major creditor in the framework of enforcement proceedings. As part of the work on this enforcement proceedings, the company’s specialists were able to identify the presence of the debtor’s real estate by right of ownership – 1/3 of the share in the office space in the center of Yekaterinburg. Having established these circumstances, the lawyers of Rezolut applied to the Kirovskiy District Court of Yekaterinburg with a statement of claim for foreclosure on the specified share in the non-residential premises. However, the court issued a ruling on the return of the statement of claim based on the non-observed pre-trial procedure, which is allegedly provided for by Art. 255 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation.
Disagreeing with this definition, the firm’s lawyers turned to the Sverdlovsk Regional Court with a private complaint against the said definition. As the main argument, the lawyer pointed out that by law, namely Art. 255 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, compliance with the mandatory pre-trial procedure for resolving the dispute is not provided, and therefore the court’s decision to return the claim is illegal and must be canceled.
In the Sverdlovsk Regional Court, the arguments of the private complaint were supported by the managing partner of Rezolut Vasily Dryga. The lawyer managed to convince the court of second instance that the constructed in Art. 255 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the norm cannot be the basis for the return of the statement of claim, and the decision of the issue of compliance with this legal provision is not characteristic of the stage of acceptance of the claim for proceedings.
Based on the results of consideration of a private complaint, the Sverdlovsk Regional Court overturned the ruling of the court of first instance and sent the materials to the Kirovsky District Court of Yekaterinburg for consideration on the merits.