The municipality included in the Moscow Oblast held an auction for the right to conclude a contract for development of built-up area. However, the municipality signed the contract after it was included into the jurisdiction of Moscow. Later on a public authority withheld the contract performance for several years.
Legal certainty violated due to changes in composition of constituent entities of the Russian Federation could be restored only in the process aimed not at a particular court resolution, but a well-defined statement of reasons finding the facts related to contract execution and performance.
This required bringing opposite legal views in the process. The winning bidder raised an action to compel the Moscow Government to enter into a contract based on the auction results, claiming that although the bidding was lawful, the municipality had no authority to conclude such contracts since it became a part of Moscow City. The third party, the company client, in its turn, asserted that the contract is valid, moreover, that rights and obligations thereunder were transferred to the third party. The claim was not satisfied. However, not only the third party and a defendant won the case, but the plaintiff as well. Insofar as the stated reasoning is concerned, the court specified the facts associated with execution and performance of the contract, and came to conclusions on the right, which resolved the legal uncertainty in a matter in controversy.