The company providing internet and cable television services has placed computational equipment and facilities of cable lines in the attic to provide services to their subscribers living in this house.
The Arbitration Court of St. Petersburg and the Leningrad Region received a claim from the building’s management company, requesting an order for the telecommunications company to remove its equipment. In justifying the requirements, the management company indicated that the equipment was posted by the company in the absence of the necessary consent of the general meeting of the owners of the premises in an apartment building.
Defending the interests of the company, we pointed out that the management company, while demanding the dismantling of the equipment, did not initiate a general meeting of owners to resolve the issue of the placement and use of the equipment, does not act in the interests of the residents of the apartment building and created obstacles to the provision of communication services to the population under the relevant public contracts. Being aware of the contracts concluded by the owners of residential premises for the provision of communication services with the company and the placement of equipment, the managing company itself was obliged to initiate a general meeting in order to exercise the rights of the owners to the proper use and disposal of common property, but did not do so.
In the decision in case A56-50551/2021, the court supported our arguments and rejected the claim against our client, noting that a management organization that does not have any property rights in relation to the property of an apartment building, is entitled to file such a negative claim only when such powers are delegated to it in accordance with the management contract or the decision of the general meeting of owners of premises in an apartment building, while the management company did not submit to the case materials decisions of the owners of the premises prohibiting the company from placing its equipment in the apartment building.
The court decision was not appealed and came into force.
