FBK Legal at ‘Real Estate and Construction Market in 2024: Legal Risks’ Conference
Ekaterina Kotova, Director of the Legal Consulting Department at FBK Legal, has spoken at the ‘Real Estate and Construction Market in 2024: Legal Risks’ conference hosted by Pravo ru.
In her speach, Ekaterina Kotova focused on the following topic: ‘Rosreestr: a New Litigation? Going Beyond the Competence as Illustrated by the Supreme Court's Ruling of 26 July 2023 in Case No. 18-CAD23-43-K4’.
In this case, Rosreestr refused to register the applicant's title to a land plot following a court decision, because the permitted type of use of the land plot according to this decision differed from that specified in the Unified State Property Register. Rosreestr justified its position by arguing that a contradiction between the information about the real estate asset in the documents submitted for registration and that specified in the Unified State Property Register constituted grounds for suspending state registration. However, the Supreme Court upheld the first-instance court’s decision, which had supported the land plot owner. It pointed out that checking the legality of court decisions was beyond the competence of Rosreestr, and highlighted that court decisions were binding on all state authorities.
“In this case, it’s quite clear that Rosreestr exceed its authority. Nevertheless, laws are binding on everyone without exception,” Ekaterina stressed.
In her speach, Ekaterina Kotova focused on the following topic: ‘Rosreestr: a New Litigation? Going Beyond the Competence as Illustrated by the Supreme Court's Ruling of 26 July 2023 in Case No. 18-CAD23-43-K4’.
In this case, Rosreestr refused to register the applicant's title to a land plot following a court decision, because the permitted type of use of the land plot according to this decision differed from that specified in the Unified State Property Register. Rosreestr justified its position by arguing that a contradiction between the information about the real estate asset in the documents submitted for registration and that specified in the Unified State Property Register constituted grounds for suspending state registration. However, the Supreme Court upheld the first-instance court’s decision, which had supported the land plot owner. It pointed out that checking the legality of court decisions was beyond the competence of Rosreestr, and highlighted that court decisions were binding on all state authorities.
“In this case, it’s quite clear that Rosreestr exceed its authority. Nevertheless, laws are binding on everyone without exception,” Ekaterina stressed.
