What is equally important for the owner is that the court found that the property rights to the building were transferred to the company during the privatization. It is a well-known fact that complexity of registration of title in real property in the process of corporate assets privatization in the 90s, is associated with a need to associate specific real property with the property rather poorly described in previously issued documents.
In 1988, a contract was concluded for lease of production facilities with a purchase option. In 1992, the enterprise assets were purchased in the privatization process. Then in 2010, the City Property Management Committee stated that the disputed building was not purchased in the privatization process and was subject to privatization according to a special procedure. Since the special procedure was not complied with, the building remained the city property. The City Property Management Committee demanded to vacate the building, despite the fact that 18 years had passed and the building is located on the land leased by a commercial entity. Rightmark Group lawyers protected interests of the commercial entity, and the City Property Management Committee claim was dismissed.
Despite the court ruling, the City Property Management Committee attempted illegal seizure of the disputed building, which was successfully prevented by Rightmark Group lawyers. Immediately after the end of the first trial, the Committee illegally registered a title to the disputed building on its favour. To protect the violated rights of the company lawyers filed a statement of claim for declaration of title to the disputed building. A detailed analysis of the legislation in the area of protection of monuments and the relevant judicial practice made it possible for Rightmark Group to defend the client interests in courts of three instances: the company title to the disputed building was recognized.