Deadline for filing a vindication claim. Limitation period for vindication of real estate. In what cases is a vindication claim filed?

Reclaiming your own property from illegal possession the third is the legal right of the owner.

Dear readers! The article talks about typical ways to solve legal issues, but each case is individual. If you want to know how solve exactly your problem- contact a consultant:

APPLICATIONS AND CALLS ARE ACCEPTED 24/7 and 7 days a week.

It's fast and FOR FREE!

Recently, the case has become more frequent when third parties illegally take possession of other people's things, which, according to the present, is illegal.

In relation to them, an appropriate statement of claim may be filed with the court for proceedings.

The necessary information

Under this law, for every illegal civil action are subject to the statute of limitations.

The situation is also with the filing of a vindication claim, for which a certain time limit is allotted.

The statute of limitations is a time limit when a citizen Russian Federation the right to defend their rights and protect their interests through the courts.

But this statutory rule is not always applicable, especially when it comes to a vindication statement that is filed in relation to one's property.

For example, time limits do not apply to real estate, which cannot be said about other things of the owner, where a certain time limit is established on the recovery of a thing from someone else's possession within the allotted time.

What it is

A vindication claim with an expired limitation period is three years from the date of detection of illegal actions on the part of the defendant.

During this period, the legal owner of the property has the right to apply to the court. If he does not do this, then it will no longer be possible by law to recover his things from the hands of third parties.

Photo: receipt for payment of state duty

The situation is different if there are extenuating circumstances. If no indictment has been filed against the defendant within three years, then the injured party has the right to defend its interests by filing an application for missing the statute of limitations for a good reason.

This is done within the framework of this legislation according to the rules provided for this. Appeal to the court is accompanied by payment and presentation of evidence, the presence of extenuating circumstances of missing time limits.

Ways to correct the time limit in an administrative case

By administrative offenses The limitation period may be amended under the following circumstances:

There are extenuating circumstances to restore the statute of limitations in the case.
There is an application of the injured party to the court for suspension or renewal of the statute of limitations.
New circumstances in the case were revealed, which affected the recalculation of the limited time period for filing an application.
The defendant in the case is hiding from the victim and the justice authorities, which is why the temporary borders are suspended.
It is impossible to identify the exact date of the offense, and the defendant does not get in touch with the victim.

These methods can have a direct impact on changing the time limits on the limitation period in administrative cases.

Legal regulation (GK RF)

The settlement of a disputable situation related to the filing of a vindication statement after the expiration of the limitation period is based on the following regulatory legal acts of Russia:

Decree of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 11.12.2012 No. 29 “On the application of civil procedural legislation by the courts”;
normative acts regulating the activities of judicial instances on the territory of Russia;
Civil Code of the Russian Federation, article No. 301 "Reclaiming property from someone else's illegal possession";
Civil Code of the Russian Federation, article No. 302 “Reclaiming property from a bona fide purchaser”;
Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, article No. 196 "General statute of limitations";
Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, article No. 205 "Restoration of the limitation period."

Rules for the renewal of the limitation period when filing a vindication claim (sample)

If there are certain grounds, the consumer or the legal owner of property, things or other property has the right to restore the temporary restrictions applied by law through the court.

Photo: vindication statement of claim for the recognition of the exchange of living quarters as invalid due to its fictitiousness

Let's take a closer look at how this looks in practice:

Calculation and payment of the state fee for the work of the court.
An appropriate application is submitted for the renewal of the limitation period in the case of unlawful appropriation of property.
The application shall be accompanied by a receipt of payment of the state fee and other necessary documents.
The application must be accompanied by documents or other securities confirming satisfactory reasons for missing the date of going to court.
Further, the whole case is transferred to the responsible officer of the judicial office against signature in the relevant register.
After that, the judge acquaints himself with the application and the materials of the case, after which an appropriate decision is made on the disputable situation.
At the end, the applicant is given an official document stating that the statute of limitations in the case has been fully restored or extended for a limited period of time.

After that, the injured party may file a vindication suit to seize his property from the hands of third parties who have taken possession of it illegally. The claim form is available.

How long does it take to consider an issue?

Making a decision on the renewal of the statute of limitations for vindication is not the easiest task for the court, which can delay the adoption of a decision.

The following points affect the period of familiarization with the application:

provided by the applicant Additional materials to an application for an extension of the limitation period;
the workload of the judicial instance, where the corresponding appeal is made;
the stipulated minimum period of time for familiarization with the case and the subsequent adoption of a decision;
availability of information on the expediency and need to renew the statute of limitations in the case.

All these points can have a direct impact on the duration of the consideration of the application. The court can make a decision, both in two weeks, and extend the familiarization up to six months. In some remote areas, this situation may last up to one year.

Features when collecting a traffic police fine

Almost every compatriot is faced with the need to pay a traffic police fine, otherwise, if a large amount of non-payment is accumulated, his property may be arrested.

At the same time, no one forbids him to file a vindication statement with the court for the recovery of property, but at the same time, you may encounter a number of features, namely:

all fines must be paid in full at the time the claim is filed, and receipts must be kept for them;
the plaintiff must first apply to the authority that seized his property in an attempt to personally resolve the situation;
a vindication claim may be filed only in the event of an unlawful refusal to return the property to the owner;
in disputable situations law enforcement, in the claim in the column "Defendant", information about a specific unit is indicated.

Such features can be encountered in the presence of a large number previously unpaid traffic police fines, followed by a direct seizure of property, which is not as easy to return as it might seem at first glance, even after full payment of all debts.

Advantages and disadvantages

Filing a vindication claim with the court has both a number of positive and negative points:

The owner has the right to freely dispose, own and use the property belonging to him. Third parties who do not have rights to the object cannot in any way prevent the owner from exercising his powers.

Elimination of violations is carried out with the help of registration of a vindication claim and a negatory claim protecting the right of ownership.

Protection of property rights - vindication and negator claims

According to articles 301 and 302 of the Civil Code, the actual owner has the right to demand the return of his property, which is in the illegal possession of another person. To this end, the owner of the object draws up a vindication claim.

An example of such a situation is the construction by a neighbor of a fence on his own land with the unauthorized seizure of part of someone else's territory.

There are two types of illegal possession of property:

dishonest (if a person intentionally seized someone else's object);
conscientious (if the person who owns the thing does not know that he illegally received it at his disposal, for example, when buying through a thrift store or from citizens who are not owners).

The owner of the property has the right to demand the removal of obstacles in the exercise of his powers, if another person prevents him from freely using and disposing of the object. For this purpose, a negatory claim is drawn up. At the same time, it is permissible to go to court not only in the actual presence of such an obstacle, but also in the risk of its occurrence.

An example of a situation requiring filing a negatory claim is the planting of tall trees on the territory of a neighbor, the branches from which cover someone else's land and in some way interfere with its owner (for example, they make it difficult to pass through the site or grow vegetables).

In order for a neighbor to forcibly remove extra branches or plant trees in another place on his territory, you need to file a corresponding lawsuit with the court.

Features of vindication and negatory claims

A vindication claim is a claim by the non-owning owner of the object to the owning non-owner for the return of certain property, directed to the court.

In this case, the plaintiff can only be the owner, who can documentally prove that he has rights to the thing. The defendant is a person who intentionally or unintentionally seized someone else's property.

A vindication claim is made subject to the following conditions:

the applicant can confirm the fact that he has rights to the disputed object;
the defendant does not have legal ownership of the property;
the purpose of the claim is the return of the thing to the plaintiff and compensation for damage caused by illegal possession;
the disputed object is individually defined;
the parties to the conflict did not conclude an agreement (for example, a lease), in connection with which the defendant received the right to temporary use of property.

The statute of limitations for a vindication claim is only three years. The calculation begins from the moment when the citizen became aware of the violation.

If a person is aware of the existence of an offense, but does not take any action to return the rights to property belonging to him, he will not be able to file this claim with the court after the expiration of the limitation period.

A negatory claim differs significantly from a vindication claim.

Firstly, it is presented by the actual owner of the property, who has not lost the right to use it, or by its title owner, in accordance with Article 305 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation.
Secondly, there are no statute of limitations in this case, because the offense is of a continuing nature.

The purpose of this lawsuit is to get rid of obstacles that prevent the owner from fully exercising his powers, as well as to demand compensation by the defendant for the damage caused to him. You can file a lawsuit at any time while there is an offense. If the defendant is acting legally, the claim will be dismissed by the court.

Differences between negatory and vindication claims

Although both types of claims have some similarities, they have significant differences, which can be found using the table below.

Comparative characteristics	Claim type
Comparative characteristics	negator	Vindication
Parties to the dispute	The plaintiff may be the title owner of the property or its actual owner, and the defendant may be a person preventing the owner of the object from exercising his powers.	The plaintiff is the actual owner of the object according to the documents or the title owner; the defendant is the person who unlawfully took possession of the property.
The right that has been violated	The right to use property.	Ownership of a person.
Purpose of submission	Removal of obstacles that prevent the owner from freely using the object.	Returning the property back to its rightful owner.
Limitation periods	None.	Three years from the date the person became aware of the existence of the offence.

Making claims

Although the names of none of these claims are contained in the provisions of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, in their preparation one should be guided by the generally accepted requirements for filing applications to the court.

The claim in without fail drawn up in writing in a number of copies equal to the number of parties to the case (as a rule, there are three of them - the judge, the plaintiff and the defendant).

When filing a claim, it is important to indicate in its text:

details of the judicial body considering the case;
personal data of the applicant and the respondent (name, address of residence, methods of feedback if one of the parties is individual; name and legal address - for organizations);
a description of the essence of the dispute and the circumstances accompanying its occurrence;
claims made by the plaintiff;
evidence base;
the cost of the claim;
a list of documents attached to the appeal to the court;
the date the claim was filed;
personal signature of the person whose interests have been violated.

The descriptive part of the vindication claim indicates the requirement to seize property from the defendant's illegal possession with compensation for losses caused by the unauthorized seizure of the object.

At the same time, the owner in bad faith is obliged to pay the plaintiff all the income received by him in connection with the use of the thing, and the owner in good faith - only those that became available to him from the moment he learned about the existence of an offense.

Statements of claim are necessarily supplemented with documents that can confirm the validity of the stated requirements (for example, title papers for property, calculation of losses caused by the defendant, extracts from the USRN, etc.).

Jurisdiction of claims

Vindication claims are sent to the district (city) courts at the location of the disputed object. If the property is movable, the documentation is submitted at the place of residence or location of the defendant.

Negatory claims are considered by justices of the peace:

at the location of the object (if we are talking about real estate);
at the place of residence of the person who violated the interests of the applicant (if the object is movable).

If one of the parties to the dispute is entity the dispute shall be considered by arbitration. This rule applies to both types of claims.

LLC "Romashka" arbitrarily occupied 5 hectares of rural land belonging to LLC "Oduvanchik". Oduvanchik LLC filed a lawsuit against Romashka LLC in the arbitration court, in which it asked to oblige the defendant to return 5 hectares of land arbitrarily occupied by the defendant 3 (three) years ago and to compensate for losses - the cost of the crop harvested by the defendant from the unauthorized occupied area for all two years of use. The defendant made counterclaims for reimbursement of the cost of unused costs associated with the reclamation of this territory, which made it possible to increase the yield and productivity of land. Question: What are the plaintiff's prospects? Has the statute of limitations passed? What are the prospects for a counterclaim? What liability is provided by law for unauthorized occupation of a land plot?

Answer

In this case, if the defendant declares that the limitation period has been missed, the claim may be dismissed. Subject to the provisions of Art. The Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the limitation period for a vindication claim begins to run from the moment when the plaintiff became aware of the actual location of the claimed property in the illegal possession of the defendant.

Since the general limitation period applies to claims for the recovery of property from someone else's illegal possession, if Oduvanchik LLC was aware of the defendant's occupation of the land plot more than 3 years ago, the limitation period is omitted.

The claim for the recovery of damages in connection with the refusal of a vindication claim is also not subject to satisfaction, since the recovery of losses in favor of the owner, who was denied a claim for the recovery of property from someone else's illegal possession, does not correspond to the meaning of the articles, the Civil Code of the Russian Federation.

A counterclaim may also be denied. According to the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the owner, both in good faith and in bad faith, in turn has the right to demand from the owner compensation for the necessary expenses incurred by him on the property from the time from which the income from the property is due to the owner.

Based on this rule, the owner has the right to make a claim in the event of reclaiming his property. But since the property cannot be reclaimed, the claim for reimbursement of the cost of unused costs associated with the reclamation of this territory is not subject to satisfaction.

Responsibility for unauthorized occupation of a land plot is provided for by the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation.

For this issue, you can refer to judicial practice: ;

Resolution of the Federal Arbitration Court of the Urals District of May 19, 2014 N F09-6661/12 in case N A60-33433/2010

Federal Arbitration Court of the Urals District, consisting of:

presiding Odentsova Yu.A.,

judges Matantseva I.V., Krasheninnikova D.S.

considered at the hearing the cassation appeal of the bankruptcy trustee of the Mayak Urala closed joint-stock company (hereinafter referred to as the Mayak Ural company) Evgeny Pavlovich Zavodnikov against the decision of the Arbitration Court of the Sverdlovsk Region dated 09.12.2013 in case N A60-33433 / 2010 and the decision of the Seventeenth Arbitration Appeal Court dated February 20, 2014 in the same case.

Representatives of the following took part in the hearing:

the bankruptcy trustee of the company "Mayak Ural" Zavodnikov E.P., his representative - Nazarenko E.A. (power of attorney dated 05/12/2014);

Teacher S.A. - Podolsky Yu.D. (power of attorney dated 13.01.2014 N 1-803).

Representatives of other persons participating in the case, notified of the time and place of the trial by mail, as well as posting information on the official website of the Federal Arbitration Court of the Urals District, did not appear at the hearing.

The bankruptcy trustee of the closed joint-stock company Mayak Urala (hereinafter referred to as the Mayak Urala company, the debtor) Evgeny Pavlovich Zavodnikov applied to the Arbitration Court of the Sverdlovsk Region with a statement (taking into account the clarification of the stated claim accepted by the court) on the application of the consequences of the invalidity of the debtor's transaction - the purchase agreement - sale of apartment N 225 with a total area of 30 sq.m., located at the address: Moscow, st. Frunzenskaya embankment, 50, concluded on March 20, 2009 between the company "Mayak Urala" and Uchitel Svetlana Alekseevna, by reimbursement of the actual value of the said property.

By the ruling of the Arbitration Court of the Sverdlovsk Region dated 09.12.2013 (Judge Pletneva V.V.), the claim was denied.

By the decision of the Seventeenth Arbitration Court of Appeal dated February 20, 2014 (judges Kazakovtseva T.V., Bulkina A.N., Chepurchenko O.N.), the ruling of the court of first instance was left unchanged.

Zavodnikov E.P. I do not agree with the adopted judicial acts, in the cassation appeal asks them to be canceled, to adopt a new judicial act to satisfy the stated requirements in full. According to the applicant, it is erroneous to conclude the courts that the bankruptcy trustee missed the limitation period on the demand to apply the consequences of the invalidity of the disputed transaction by compensating the value of the property alienated under this transaction, since the applicant had the right to apply to the arbitration court with this demand only after entering into legal the force of the court decision to refuse to vindicate the property alienated under the disputed transaction, in connection with which, according to E.P. Zavodnikov, the limitation period began to run no earlier than February 20, 2013 and is not missed. Zavodnikov E.P. also believes that the trial court should have refused to apply the omission of the limitation period on the basis of Art. 10 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, due to the presence in the actions former leader debtor Chemodanov A.M. and his daughter Uchitel S.A. signs of abuse.

The legality of the contested judicial act was verified by the arbitration court of the cassation instance in the manner prescribed by Art. 284, 286 Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, within the arguments of the cassation appeal.

As follows from the materials of the case, by the decision of the Arbitration Court of the Sverdlovsk Region dated 02.06.2011 the debtor was declared insolvent (bankrupt), bankruptcy proceedings were opened against him for a period of six months. By a court ruling dated 03.08.2011, A.D. Mudarisov was approved as the bankruptcy trustee of the debtor.

Bankruptcy manager Mudarisov A.D. applied to the arbitration court in the framework of the case on declaring the debtor bankrupt with a statement on the recognition of the debtor's transaction as invalid - the contract of sale real estate- apartments N 225 with a total area of 39 sq.m., located at the address: Moscow, st. Frunzenskaya embankment, 50, apt. 225, concluded on March 20, 2009 between the Mayak Ural society and Uchitel S.A.

The decision of the Arbitration Court of the Sverdlovsk Region dated June 20, 2012 in case N A60-33433 / 2010, which entered into force, invalidated the debtor's transaction - the contract for the sale of real estate - apartment N 225 with a total area of 39 sq.m., located at the address: Moscow, st. Frunzenskaya embankment, 50, apt. 225, concluded on March 20, 2009 between the Mayak Ural society and Uchitel S.A.

The named judicial act established that on 20.03.2009 between the company "Mayak Urala" represented by CEO Chemodanova A.M. (seller) and Uchitel S.A. 02/11/1978 (the buyer) signed a contract of sale, under the terms of which the seller undertook to transfer to the ownership of the buyer an apartment with a total area of 39 sq.m., located at the address: Moscow, Frunzenskaya embankment, 50, apt. 225. By virtue of paragraph 4, the price of the apartment was agreed upon by the parties in the amount of 1,000,000 rubles.

The ownership of the disputed property is registered for an individual - Nina Stanislavovna Mushnina.

Referring to par. 3 paragraph 16 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation of December 23, 2010 N 63 "On some issues related to the application of chapter III.1 of the Federal Law" On insolvency (bankruptcy) "(hereinafter referred to as the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation of December 23, 2010 N 63), the court explained that the issue of applying the consequences of the invalidity of the disputed transaction in the form of the return of Uchitel S.A. to the debtor of the property alienated under this transaction is not considered by the court within the framework of this application. bankruptcy cases in compliance with the rules of jurisdiction and cognizance.

The bankruptcy trustee of the debtor appealed to the Khamovnichesky District Court of the city of Moscow with a vindication claim against Mushnina H.C.

By the decision of the Khamovnichesky District Court of Moscow dated 11/21/2012, which has entered into force, the claim is denied, Mushnina N.S. recognized as a bona fide purchaser.

By the definition of the Arbitration Court of the Sverdlovsk Region dated April 25, 2013 Mudarisov A.D. released from the duties of the bankruptcy trustee of the debtor.

By a court ruling dated 15.05.2013, Zavodnikov E.P. was approved as the bankruptcy trustee of the debtor.

Referring to the impossibility of returning the alienated property to the bankruptcy estate in kind, indicating that according to the report of an independent appraiser of 04/26/2012 N 0007/66/12/04/17-2K, the market value of the disputed apartment as of 03/20/2009 (date the transaction) amounted to 10,895,000 rubles., the bankruptcy trustee Zavodnikov E.P. 09/19/2013 applied to the arbitration court with a statement on the application of the consequences of the invalidity of the sales contract dated 03/20/2009 in the form of recovery from Uchitel S.A. the value of the said property.

The courts of first and appellate instances took into account the statement Uchitel S.A. about the admission by the bankruptcy trustee of the debtor of the limitation period and refused to satisfy the stated requirement.

The conclusions of the courts are correct and correspond to the materials of the case.

By virtue of paragraph 2 of Art. 199 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the limitation period is applied by the court only at the request of a party to the dispute, made before the court makes a decision.

As follows from the case file and established by the courts, the application for the lapse of the limitation period for this application of the bankruptcy trustee of the Mayak Urala company was made during the consideration of this separate dispute on the merits by the representative Uchitel SA.

In accordance with Art. 195 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the limitation period is the period for protecting the right on the claim of a person whose right has been violated.

In accordance with Art. 181 of the said Code, the limitation period for a claim for the application of the consequences of invalidity void transaction is three years. The running of the limitation period for the specified claim begins from the day when the execution of this transaction began. The limitation period for a claim to recognize a voidable transaction as invalid and to apply the consequences of its invalidity is one year. The running of the limitation period for the specified claim begins from the day the violence or threat ceases, under the influence of which the transaction was made (clause 1, article 179 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation), or from the day when the plaintiff found out or should have found out about other circumstances that are grounds for declaring the transaction invalid.

The expiration of the limitation period, the application of which is declared by the party to the dispute, is the basis for the court to decide to dismiss the claim (clause 2, article 199 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation).

As follows from the explanations set out in paragraph 26 of the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of November 12, 2001 N 15 and the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation of November 15, 2001 N 18 "On some issues related to the application of the norms of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation on the claim limitation period", if during the trial it is established that the party to the case missed the limitation period and there are no good reasons (if the plaintiff is an individual) to restore this period, then if there is a statement from the proper person about the expiration of the limitation period, the court has the right to refuse in meeting the requirements, it is for these reasons, since in accordance with par. 2 p. 2 art. 199 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the expiration of the limitation period is an independent basis for dismissing a claim.

In accordance with Art. 61.9 of the Federal Law of October 26, 2002 N 127-FZ "On Insolvency (Bankruptcy)" (hereinafter referred to as the Bankruptcy Law), clarifications set out in the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation of December 23, 2010 N 63 "On Certain Issues Related to application of Chapter III.1 of the Federal Law "On Insolvency (Bankruptcy)" (hereinafter referred to as Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated December 23, 2010 N 63), the limitation period for an application for challenging a debtor's transaction is calculated from the moment when the initially approved external or bankruptcy trustee found out or should have found out about the existence of grounds for challenging the transaction, provided for in Articles 61.2 or 61.3 of the Bankruptcy Law.

According to paragraph 42 of the Decree of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation of December 15, 2004 N 29 "On Certain Issues in the Practice of Application of the Federal Law "On Insolvency (Bankruptcy)", a claim for recognition of transactions as invalid on the grounds provided for by the Bankruptcy Law may be brought by an external manager or by the debtor's creditor within a one-year limitation period (Clause 2, Article 181 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation).If a claim for the recognition of a voidable transaction as invalid is presented by an external manager, the limitation period is calculated from the day when the transaction was known or should have been known initially the approved external manager, not the debtor The limitation period missed by the external manager is not restored (Article 205 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation).

When issuing a ruling of the Arbitration Court of the Sverdlovsk Region dated 06/20/2012 in case N A60-33433 / 2010 to invalidate the contract for the sale of apartment N 225 with a total area of 39 sq.m., located at the address: Moscow, st. Frunzenskaya embankment, 50, apt. 225, concluded on March 20, 2009 between the Mayak Urala company and Uchitel SA, the issue of applying the consequences of the invalidity of the said contract was not resolved.

In view of the foregoing, based on the above provisions of the law and taking into account the specific circumstances of the case, in this case, the limitation period for a claim to apply the consequences of the debtor's transaction invalidity is one year and begins to run from the date of entry into force of a judicial act on the recognition of the contract of sale from 03/20/2009, concluded by the debtor, an invalid court.

Since the ruling of the Arbitration Court of the Sverdlovsk Region dated 06/20/2012 in case N A60-33433 / 2010 on invalidating the sale and purchase agreement dated 03/20/2009 entered into force on 08/21/2012 (the date of production in full of the decision of the Seventeenth Arbitration Court of Appeal, which named the definition was left unchanged), the one-year limitation period for this claim to apply the consequences of the invalidity of the transaction is to be calculated from 22.08.2012 and expired on 21.08.2013.

As follows from the case file and established by the courts, with this requirement for the application of the consequences of the invalidity of the sales contract dated 20.03.2009 in the form of recovery from Uchitel C.A. the value of the property alienated under this agreement Zavodnikov E.P. appealed to the arbitration court 19.09.2013.

From the foregoing, it follows that the applicant missed the limitation period, which, by virtue of Art. 199 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation is an independent basis for refusing to satisfy the stated requirement.

Thus it is in satisfying the requirements of the bankruptcy trustee of the debtor Zavodnikova E.P. rightfully denied.

The court of cassation rejects the argument of the bankruptcy trustee of the debtor that the beginning of the limitation period should be calculated from the moment the decision of the Khamovnichesky District Court on the refusal to recover the disputed property comes into force, that is, from February 20, 2013, since the requirement to return the executed due to invalid the transaction, regardless of whether it consists in the recovery of property in kind or the recovery of the value of property, is a requirement to apply the consequences of the invalidity of the transaction, and the grounds for calculating the limitation period on the claim for recovery from Uchitel S.A. the value of the alienated property of the debtor from the date of entry into force of the court decision to refuse to vindicate the property is absent.

It should also be noted that, in accordance with the clarifications of clause 16 of Resolution No. 63 of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated December 23, 2010, the adoption by the court in a bankruptcy case of a judicial act on the application of the consequences of the invalidity of the first transaction by collecting the value of the thing from the other side of the transaction does not prevent the satisfaction of the claim for its vindication, however, if by the time the vindication claim is considered, the value of the thing has already been actually fully paid to the debtor by the party to the first transaction, then the court dismisses the vindication claim, and in the presence of two judicial acts (on the application of the consequences of the invalidity of the transaction by collecting the value of the thing and on vindication of the thing from other person), if one judicial act is executed, then the enforcement proceedings on the second judicial act ends with a bailiff, if both judicial acts are executed, then the execution is reversed according to the later executed one.

Thus, the mere filing of a vindication claim for the recovery of property alienated under a disputed transaction does not prevent the filing of a claim for the application of the consequences of the invalidity of the specified transaction in the form of recovery of the value of such property.

The applicant's reference to the fact that the possibility of applying to the court with this requirement only after consideration of the merits of the application for vindication is established by the ruling of the Arbitration Court of the Sverdlovsk Region dated 06/20/2012 in case N A60-33433 / 2010, is rejected by the court of cassation, as not corresponding to the materials of the case , since when issuing the ruling dated 06/20/2012, the arbitration court did not consider any questions about the application of the consequences of the invalidity of the disputed transaction in the form of the recovery of the value of the property alienated under it, but spoke only about the consequences of the invalidity of the transaction in the form of the return of the property alienated under the disputed transaction to the debtor.

E.P. Zavodnikov’s argument that the courts should refuse to apply the omission of the limitation period under Art. 10 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the court of cassation rejected.

As correctly established by the courts based on the results of the study and evaluation of all the evidence available in the case, in the period from 08/21/2012 to 08/21/2013, the bankruptcy trustee did not have any insurmountable obstacles to filing this claim with the arbitration court, and within the specified period he had an unhindered opportunity to apply to the arbitration court with a statement on the application of the consequences of the invalidity of the debtor's transaction in the form of recovery from Uchitel SA. the value of the lost property, and evidence that Uchitel S.A. during the specified period, obstructed the bankruptcy trustee from exercising the said powers, are not presented in the case file.

Under such circumstances, the grounds for refusing to apply the omission of the limitation period on the basis of Art. 10 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation are absent.

The Court of Cassation also takes into account the fact that Zavodnikov E.P. in the court of first instance, it was not stated that Uchitel SA had abused the right, and this argument was not the subject of a study of the evaluation of the court of first instance.

Thus, refusing to satisfy these claims, the courts proceeded from the totality of the circumstances established in the case and the lack of evidence by the bankruptcy trustee of the debtor of the stated claims.

The courts correctly established the factual circumstances relevant to the case, gave them a proper legal assessment, correctly applied the substantive law governing disputed relations.

The applicant's arguments, set out in the cassation appeal, are rejected by the cassation court, since they do not indicate a violation of the norms of law by the courts and are reduced only to a reassessment of the circumstances established in the case. At the same time, the applicant does not actually refer to the illegality of the contested judicial acts, but expresses disagreement with the assessment of evidence made by the courts, and asks to reconsider the case on the merits and reassess the evidence available in the case. The Court of Cassation considers that all the circumstances that are essential to the case, the courts have established, all the evidence has been examined and evaluated in accordance with the requirements of Art. 71 Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. The court of cassation has no grounds for reassessing the evidence and the conclusions drawn on its basis (Article 286 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation).

Violations of the norms of material or procedural law, which are the basis for the cancellation of judicial acts (Article 288 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation), the court of cassation has not established.

In view of the foregoing, the decision of the Arbitration Court of the Sverdlovsk Region dated December 9, 2013 and the decision of the Seventeenth Arbitration Court of Appeal dated February 20, 2014 are legal and cannot be canceled. There are no grounds for satisfying the appeal.

Guided by articles 286, 287, 289, 290 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, the court

RESOLVED:

the decision of the Arbitration Court of the Sverdlovsk Region dated 09.12.2013 in case No. А60-33433/2010 and the decision of the Seventeenth Arbitration Court of Appeal dated 20.02.2014 in the same case to be left unchanged, the cassation appeal of the bankruptcy trustee of the closed joint-stock company "Mayak Ural" Evgeny Pavlovich Zavodnikov - without satisfaction.

To collect from the open joint-stock company "Mayak Urala" to the federal budget 2,000 (two thousand) rubles of state duty for filing a cassation appeal.

I.V. Matantsev
D.V. Krasheninnikov

In accordance with Article 195 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the limitation period is the period for defending the right on the claim of the person whose right has been violated. In accordance with Article 196 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation (as applicable to disputed relations), the general limitation period is three years.

In accordance with paragraph 1 of Article 200 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation (in the wording applicable to disputed relations), the limitation period begins from the day when the person knew or should have known about the violation of his right. Exceptions to this rule are established by the named Code and other laws.

Unless otherwise provided by law, claims aimed at contesting a registered right are subject to the general limitation period provided for in Article 196 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. A person who considers himself the owner of immovable property in his possession, the right to which is registered for another entity, has the right to apply to the court with a claim for recognition of the right of ownership.

According to the explanations given in paragraph 4 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated April 29, 2010 N 10/22 "On some issues arising in judicial practice when resolving disputes related to the protection of property rights and other property rights", within the meaning of parts 2, 3 of article 61 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation or parts 2, 3 of article 69 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, the circumstances established during the consideration of a case on a claim for right on property, are not binding on persons who did not participate in the case. Such persons may apply to the court with an independent claim for the right to this property. At the same time, when considering the said claim, the court takes into account the circumstances of the previously considered case on the right to disputed property, regardless of whether they are established by a judicial act of a court of general jurisdiction or an arbitration court. If the court comes to other conclusions than those contained in the judicial act on the previously considered case, it must indicate the appropriate motives.

In accordance with the explanations given in paragraph 12 of the Information Letter of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation of November 13, 2008 N 126 "Review of judicial practice on certain issues related to the recovery of property from someone else's illegal possession", by virtue of Article 195 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the statute of limitations is the term for the protection of the right on the claim of the person whose right has been violated. At the same time, the protection of the right in the framework of action proceedings is impossible until the person whose right is violated does not know the violator of the right - the potential defendant.

The person who has the right to bring a vindication claim is, according to general rule, the owner of the thing. This right also belongs, by virtue of Article 305 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, to a person who is not the owner, but who owns the property on a property right or on another basis established by law or an agreement.

In accordance with paragraph 36 of the Decree of the Plenums of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated April 29, 2010 N 10/22 "On some issues arising in judicial practice in resolving disputes related to the protection of property rights and other rights in rem" the right is proved with the help of any evidence provided for by the procedural legislation confirming the emergence of this right for the plaintiff.

A claim for the recovery of property brought against a person in whose illegal possession this property was, but who does not have it by the time the case is heard in court, cannot be satisfied. Thus, a person who has applied to the court with a claim for the recovery of his property from someone else's illegal possession must prove his ownership of the property in the possession of the defendant.

According to paragraph 38 of the said Decree, the acquirer is recognized in good faith if he proves that during the transaction he did not know and should not have known about the illegality of the alienation of property by the seller, in particular, he took all reasonable measures to clarify the seller's authority to alienate property.