The developer of the cottage village founded a non-profit gardening partnership (NGP) in the built-up village and leased public land to it for a nominal fee. Then, on these lands, a highway was built, reflected in the land planning documents and the urban development plan.
After a while, the developer went bankrupt. As a result of the auctions, the land plot under part of the new highway was bought by a legal entity that has nothing to do with gardening. The new owner demanded payment from the gardening partnership for the use of this plot, and after the expiration of the lease term, he made a claim to the NGP for the actual return of this plot to him.
When considering these requirements in the Arbitration Court of St. Petersburg and the Leningrad Region in cases No. А56-5459/2023 and No. А56-78828/2023, our bureau defended the interests of the NGP. The claims were rejected by decisions, respectively, of July 23, 2023 and June 18, 2024. The courts found that, by virtue of imperative legislative regulation, the transfer of public land, including that occupied by public roads, to private ownership is not allowed. Therefore, the person who bought this land plot at the auction did not acquire legal rights to make claims to third parties, despite the fact that he concluded the corresponding transaction during the sale of the property of the bankrupt developer.
Without disputing this transaction itself, we proved that a right to claim cannot arise from it by virtue of the principle known since Roman law “Nemo plus iuris transferre potest quam ipse habet” (No one can transfer more rights than he himself has). The developer did not have legal grounds to transfer to his successor those rights to the plot occupied by the highway, which the developer himself could not have by law. Further complaints of the plaintiff in case No. А56-5459/2023 and in case No. А56-78828/2023 were rejected by the appellate instance, respectively, on October 25, 2023 and November 21, 2024. The plaintiff also failed to convince the Arbitration Court of the Northwestern District and the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of his position, just as his attempts to revise the decisions on newly discovered circumstances were unsuccessful.
