The Moscow Government continues to look for any procedural route to a mechanism for enforcing judgments that is as convenient for it as possible. This time the court said "stop".
In case No. А40-289135/2023 the Moscow Government brought a claim against Biznes-Investitsii, a limited liability company. The city asked the court to declare unauthorised an extension of 428.5 sq m to a building on Sushchevsky Val, to order that it be demolished, to terminate the registered right of ownership, and to oblige the owner to bring the property and the documents into conformity after the demolition. The court of first instance granted the claim in part.
That was not enough for Moscow.
After the judgment, the Government asked the court to make an additional decision giving the city the right to carry out a technical inventory of the building itself, and to put the building on the cadastral register, if the owner did not comply voluntarily. In substance, the city wanted to be able to finish enforcing the judgment itself, without waiting for the defendant to act.
The logic is clear: it is faster and more effective. Procedural law, however, provides no such mechanism.
The Ninth Commercial Court of Appeal held that an additional decision cannot be used to alter a judgment that has already been given, or to add a new method of enforcing it. If the court refused that part of the claim, the judgment itself must be appealed. It is not open to a party to try to "write it on" after the judgment has been given.
This is a clear example of the fact that even the state's wish to simplify the enforcement of judgments as far as possible has limits. Those limits are set by procedural law, not by practical convenience.
Follow Consul Group on Telegram.
.jpg)
Analytics
Events