Igor Chaika instilled immunity from a judge

The Moscow City Court supported the judge, who is known for the “correct” decision in the case of the son of the Prosecutor General.
Origin source
The Moscow City Court appeals instance left unchanged the ambiguous decision of the judge of Zamoskvoretsky District, who in one case for two years rendered two decisions, fundamentally contradictory to each other. This is a dispute between two businessmen, where 25 million rubles are at stake. Earlier, the same servant of Themis became famous for the decision in favor of the son of Prosecutor General Yuri Chaika in an environmental conflict. Details and possible interrelations of these litigations are in the PASMI material.

Judicial battles in a corporate dispute between two medium-sized businessmen - Denis Mishin and Alexander Andreyev - have been dragging on in Moscow courts since 2017. At first glance, this story is unremarkable: two business partners could not agree on how to do business with joint equipment for the tire industry. But from a number of similar cases this one stands out with a strange inconsistency of court decisions. Moreover, the author of two mutually exclusive resolutions, one of which relates to 2017, the other - to 2018, is the same judge of the Zamoskvoretsky District Court of Moscow, Maria Patyk. She is known in the case of Igor Chaika, the son of Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation Yuri Chaika.

Illogical justice

The first decision in the framework of the dispute between Denis Mishin and Alexander Andreev was made by the judge Maria Patyk in 2017. The conflict was that Mishin, who owned 70% of the ownership of tire equipment, and Andreev, who owned 30% by that time, disagreed on how to proceed with the joint property further. Business skidded. Mishin offered to sell assets, but his partner did not agree.

It would seem that the dispute was settled in June 2017 - business partners concluded an amicable agreement, which was approved by the judge Maria Patyk. By its terms, Andreev bought out Mishin’s share and became the sole owner of all the equipment. There were no complaints about the price or quality of the equipment from any of the participants in the transaction. Andreev accepted the property in the form in which it was located at the time of the agreement, which was fixed in this agreement.

Partners reached a consensus with the fact that a few months earlier - in January 2017 - the assessment of the state of technology was carried out with the participation of bailiffs. After that, all the equipment was in custody of Alexander Andreev until the conclusion of a settlement agreement.

However, five months after the purchase of equipment, Andreev again appealed to the Zamoskvoretsky court. The reason was the claim to the condition of the property. The entrepreneur considered that he was short of assets. And in the opinion of the new owner, it was Mishin who was guilty of this, who allegedly disposed of some of the equipment secretly from him.

Thus, the conflict of merchants reached the second stage, and the lawsuit again came to the consideration of judge Maria Patyk. And in October 2018, she rendered a verdict in favor of Andreev. The damage caused to him was estimated at 25 million rubles. According to lawyers Denis Mishin, such a position of the judge means the de facto cancellation of the settlement agreement, which Maria Patyk herself approved earlier in 2017, because within the framework of this agreement Andreev personally confirmed that he did not have any comments on the equipment.

Appellate roof

Mishin’s representatives filed a complaint with the Moscow City Court against Judge Patyk’s decision. The review took place on June 6, 2019. In the complaint, lawyers pointed out the contradictory position of the court of first instance. In addition, Mishin’s defense found unconditional grounds for the annulment of the judicial act: the minutes of the court session, where Andreev’s claims were clarified, turned out to be without signatures.

“Based on the legal position of the Supreme Court, by virtue of procedural legislation, an unsigned judicial protocol is the basis for the abolition of a judicial act,” representatives of Mishin explained their position.

In addition, lawyers drew the attention of the court to the fact that Mishin simply physically could not dispose of the equipment and the charges of his partner are unfounded.

In essence, Andreev’s claims boil down to the fact that the volume of equipment specified in the settlement agreement of June 2, 2017, turned out to be inconsistent with reality. However, the inventory of equipment, on the basis of which the settlement agreement was concluded, was conducted in January 2017. This involved bailiffs.

“Andreev saw a list of equipment compiled by bailiffs in January. Moreover, after the inventory, all the equipment was transferred to Andreeva for safekeeping, after which Mishin did not have access to it. Then, in June 2017, Andreev himself signed a settlement agreement, which was based on the same inventory of bailiffs, and he had no complaints about the amount of assets received. Why these claims appeared after — it is not clear, ”Mishin’s lawyers pointed out in court.

However, the appellate court of the Moscow City Court upheld the first-stage court decision. Mishin’s lawyers are planning to appeal this decision to the Presidium of the Moscow City Court.

“The position of the court certainly surprises me because there is an amicable agreement and its terms are written in simple Russian and it follows from them that the dispute is settled. But I have no specific information about the affiliation of judges, ”said Mishin’s representative.

They should be aware of:

- Chairman of the Court of Zamoskvoretsky Intermunicipal (District) Court of the Central Administrative District of Moscow Marina Petrenko
- Chairman of the Moscow City Court - Olga Egorova

Although it is possible that the fact that the judge of the Zamoskvoretsky court Maria Patyk in June 2018 took the side of the Charter company of the son of Russian Prosecutor General Igor Chaika in a dispute with ecoactivists about the closure of a landfill in the Moscow region, plays a significant role. Perhaps this scandalous and dubious decision gives immunity to the servant of Themis and allows colleagues not to admit her mistakes.