The Supreme court upheld the Ordinance on the demolition of the pavilions in Moscow


The Supreme court of Russia rejected the complaint of OOO “TORGOVYY Tsentr Taganka, OOO “Korona auto” LLC “Asterisk” on the decision of the Moscow government on the demolition of unauthorized construction recognized by the shopping centers on the decision of the city authorities. This was reported by the correspondent of “Interfax”.

To challenge the decision of the municipality was also planning the representatives of the shopping center “Pyramid”, but last week they refused this solution. The trial chamber accepted the waiver and terminated the proceedings, said the Agency.

Speaking in court, representatives of the trade centre “Zvezdochka” (was on “Prospekt Mira”) said that the decision of the Moscow government was arbitrary, and the trial court recognized it lawful unreasonable, the Agency reports. The representative of the Moscow authorities was asked to dismiss the complaint because the decision of the Moscow city court recognized the demolished shopping malls a squatter, was made after considering all the evidence. According to him, the ownership was retained only in the period of the lease.

Yesterday, 28 April, 92 deputies of the state Duma on 28 April 2016 have filed a complaint with the constitutional court (CC) in connection with the demolition of the buildings at the beginning of February. As written , they are asked to check for compliance with the Constitution clause 4 of article 222 of the Civil code, which local governments are granted the right to demolish unauthorized construction in court.

If the constitutional court confirms unconstitutionality of the norms, the Civil code will be adjusted and affected businesses will have to pay compensation, says Valery Rashkin (CPRF), one of the authors of the complaint to the constitutional court. “The Russian Constitution guarantees the right to property, but controversial provision of the Civil code denies this right to any protection,” — said the head of the legal company URVISTA Alex Mitropolskiy. In his opinion, the likelihood that the constitutional court to declare this provision unconstitutional, is quite high. “The presumption of good faith of the owner should prevail over the rating or any other municipal officials regarding the correctness or not of the correct construction of the structure,” agrees a senior lawyer at BMS Law Firm Denis Frolov.

Mass demolition of outlets recognized in the squatter began in Moscow in the night from 8 to 9 February 2016. All such objects were more than a hundred. In addition to the “Pyramid” were demolished pavilions at the entrance to metro “Sokol”, “Sukharevskaya”, “Taganskaya”, “Kropotkin”, “Dynamo”, “Chistye Prudy”, “Novoslobodskaya” and others.