Photo: Alex ‘Florstein’ Fedorov / CC BY-SA 4.0
On July 30, the Arbitration Court of St. Petersburg and the Leningrad Region held a preliminary hearing on the case of the seizure of the complex of buildings of the Palace of Labor (also known as the Nikolaevsky Palace) from trade unions the property of the state. On it, documents collected by the Prosecutor General’s Office were attached to the case materials, including the expertise of St. Petersburg State University, which allegedly confirms the illegitimate possession of the federal monument. The Property Relations Committee was also involved in the case as a third party. With his help, the court will have to assess the legality of the agreement between the city and the LPR, signed when Valentina Matvienko was governor of St. Petersburg.
Lenin’s decrees, which the trade unions refer to in support of their position, have not yet reached their hands, but Soviet citizens have not been spared, whose appeal forced opponents to laugh and say: “This is the very moment when we agree with the prosecutor’s office.”
Destabilization of the situation
While waiting for the meeting in the corridor, the audience divided into two groups. Three uniformed prosecutors were talking to a young man in plain clothes. As it turned out later, it was a representative of the Federal Property Management Agency. The second group was slightly more numerous: it included both lawyers of the Leningrad Federation of Trade Unions, acting as a defendant, and representatives of third parties — the Federation of Independent Trade Unions of Russia and the General Confederation of Trade Unions. In addition, representatives of other third parties — the Office of the Federal Register for St. Petersburg and the KGIOP – attended the meeting. The position of the latter was mostly neutral, and the participants themselves were laconic.
The preliminary hearing began with the recusal of the judge, announced by the LFP. Her representatives were outraged by the following: on July 1, the prosecutor’s office filed a petition to determine an earlier date for the preliminary meeting than the one already scheduled on August 8. Because, according to the department, the defendant spends the submitted time “to the detriment of the plaintiff and the court,” in particular, he distributes provocative and unreliable information in the media in order to manipulate public opinion, increase social tension and destabilize the situation. On July 2, the court granted the petition, and on July 3, the documents were reflected in the electronic file of arbitration cases.
The unions called the allegations false and unfounded, as well as accusations of influencing the court. They also pointed out that the prosecutor, according to the law, should have sent copies of the petition to other participants in the case, but “he neglected this procedural duty, and the court did not leave the petition without movement.” This is also why the LFP side believes that in the actions of the judge, the greatest preference is given to the plaintiff “to the detriment of the rights and interests of other participants in the case.”
After interviewing all the participants, the judge rejected the challenge. It seems that few people were surprised by this.
“A new word in jurisprudence”
The next move was for the prosecutor’s office. She filed a petition to involve the Federal Property Management Agency for St. Petersburg and the Leningrad Region as a “co-defendant” in the case, which caused murmurs in the opposing camp.
— We support this petition. We believe that we can act as a material partner,” said Dmitry Romashov, a representative of the agency.
— So you think that the court can involve you as a co-defendant? — the judge clarified.
— Dear court, I misspoke. The material plaintiff,” the prosecutor corrected herself.
The collective bewilderment of the trade unions has not abated from this. “A new word in jurisprudence,” came a comment from somewhere on the other side.
“Our position is that <...> this petition should be rejected and the Deputy Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation should be given time and an opportunity to clarify his requirements stated by the petition. Because, firstly, we do not have the concept of a co-plaintiff in the arbitration procedural code. We have a procedure for filing a statement of claim or joining a statement of claim,” said Andrey Varlamov, one of the lawyers of the LFP.
His words were supported by the representative of the General Conference of Trade Unions Andrey Ostroumov. He tried to convey the idea that it is impossible to become a plaintiff without filing a lawsuit, and the petition is contrary to the law.
“In this case, the prosecutor asks to involve a person in the case as a co-plaintiff, despite the fact that this plaintiff did not commit the only action that, by virtue of the arbitration procedural code, may entail involvement in the case as a plaintiff. Namely, the Federal Property Management Agency did not file a claim with the court,” he stated.
The representative of the Federal Register supported the petition, the KGIOP stated that there were no objections, they were stated only by trade unions. As a result, the prosecutor’s office’s request was rejected, but a new one was received — to make the Federal Property Management Agency a third party making independent claims. To which the opponents objected: the representative of the agency did not make any demands in court.
“The MTU of the Federal Property Management Agency has not stated now that it is entering into the case as a third party, making claims, not making claims. They ask to be involved as a third party, but, as we believe …” — the prosecutor’s explanations caused laughter in the hall.
“You shouldn’t laugh when a representative of the prosecutor’s office speaks,” he reacted and caused even more laughter from the opposing side.
At the same time, the LFP also announced the involvement of the Federal Property Management Agency, but federal and without independent requirements. The court postponed the resolution of these issues.
Expertise of St. Petersburg State University
The court granted the prosecutor’s office’s request to attach a large number of documents to the case, including, for example, evidence that the KGIOP twice appealed to the court to oblige the owner of the Palace of Labor to comply with his duties to protect the monument. According to the supervisory authority, both decisions have not been implemented. A letter from Rosfinmonitoring was also attached to the case, which talks about cash receipts and financial transactions, in particular, how the chairman of the LFP, Maria Artyukhina, disposed of money, what payments were made and to whom.
In addition, the expert opinion of St. Petersburg State University was attached to the case. According to the prosecutor, it follows from it that the disputed objects were alienated by insignificant transactions and trade union organizations did not have the authority to dispose of them.
Since third parties from the trade unions said that they had not yet had the opportunity to familiarize themselves with the case materials — their organizations are located in Moscow, and they did not receive anything from the prosecutor’s office — the court additionally ordered the department to send the submitted documents to all participants and provide evidence that this was done.
“Questioning the governor’s signature”
The petition of the LFP to involve KIO in the case as a third party has caused discussions. In 2007, an agreement was signed between the trade unions and the city on the delimitation of property rights to real estate. Smolny represented COOGEE in it. The defendant asked to involve KIO as the legal successor and insisted that the position of the committee is important to determine the status of this document.
“If we question the signature of the governor of St. Petersburg, at that time Valentina Ivanovna Matvienko, then we must hear from KIO that this document is illegitimate or legitimate. We believe that as a third party, the CIO is necessary in this trial,” said Natalia Chernikova, a lawyer for the LFP.
The prosecutor’s office objected. “Firstly, we have attached the committee’s response, in which they say that the agreement is not a document on the alienation of real estate from federal ownership. Secondly, KUGI does not dispose of federal property,” the prosecutor said. In this regard, the agency considered that there were no grounds for involving the committee, but the court decided otherwise. Now KIO will also have to participate in the proceedings.
“Harbinger of democracy” — to refuse
In the final, the judge remembered another petition that needed to be discussed. It came from the “United Trade Union — the Harbinger of Democracy” with a request to involve “our organizations.” “I read it verbatim,” the judge clarified in response to giggles from the audience.
“This petition was signed by Soviet citizens,” he said, which caused more laughter, and then listed the names of three people.
“The very moment when we agree with the prosecutor’s office of the Russian Federation,— Varlamov said. — We propose to reject this application, since this organization is not registered in the register of legal entities.”
The judge noted that the “Harbinger of Democracy” asks not for himself, but for certain organizations. The lawyer added that he had not found anything by name: “And Soviet citizens, unfortunately, have not lived on the territory of the Russian Federation since ’91.”
Finally, the LFP petitioned for the postponement of the preliminary meeting in order to have time to familiarize themselves with the case materials before the start of the main one. According to Chernikova, there is not a single document online, and the claim is accompanied by more than 4 volumes of applications. The opponents were against it, since “the party expressed in Fontanka that it knows about the existence of a legal dispute (and, probably, it is about its stated disagreement with the requirements). Therefore, the agency considered that it was enough to declare a break. The court listened to this, announced a break until August 6, inviting the defendant to the court to get acquainted with the materials offline.
On June 10, the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Russian Federation filed a lawsuit against the LFP for the seizure of a complex of buildings recognized as a monument of the Nikolaevsky Palace (Palace of Labor) in St. Petersburg. The agency believes that the association illegally acquired ownership of buildings under the letters A, B and D on Labor Square, 4. According to the supervisory authority, the transfer of the palace to the jurisdiction of trade union organizations in 1917 does not indicate that the latter have ownership rights, which means that its subsequent transfer along the chain to new and new owners is illegal. The Leningrad Federation of Trade Unions has published an open letter in which it stated its disagreement with the requirements.
The main building under the letter B (the palace itself) was also built in 1856. It has been owned by the LFP since 2009. Rosreestr keeps records of dozens of concluded lease and sublease agreements with companies and citizens. The total area of the facility is 19.5 thousand square meters. The cadastral value is 360.9 million rubles. On the Web, you can find ads that have already been removed from publication about renting commercial premises in the building. It follows from them that the rate was about 10-12 thousand rubles per “square” per year. In addition, the palace is available for events. At one of the catering companies, a banquet for 100 guests in the palace interiors costs from 200 thousand rubles, a buffet for 300 people — from 3.5 million rubles.
Photo: Alex ‘Florstein’ Fedorov / CC BY-SA 4.0
Источник: www.fontanka.ru
English 
Russian 
German 
Polish