A challenge to DGI’s refusal to amend a Moscow land lease succeeded in case A40-130983/2020. The department relied on alleged unauthorised construction at the same address, but the documents distinguished the applicant’s premises from a two-storey extension. The court declared the refusal unlawful and ordered an additional agreement replacing the tenant.
⚖️ The application and refusal
An individual entrepreneur bought non-residential premises and applied on 3 February 2020 for an additional agreement amending a land lease with multiple tenants. DGI refused by letter dated 10 March 2020, relying on the listing of a property at that address in appendix 2 to Moscow Government Resolution 819-PP, concerning unlawful land use and construction.
The applicant owned premises in the principal building. The alleged construction concerned an extension. The original author’s note identifies this distinction as the central argument, supported in advance by evidence. The judgment shows which records mattered.
The operative part was announced on 14 January 2021. This is a first-instance judgment; subsequent appeal and actual compliance have not been confirmed here.
⚖️ Why the court declared the DGI refusal unlawful
A property-inspectorate letter of 18 December 2019 distinguished the listed two-storey extension of 1,351.4 square metres from the applicant’s non-residential premises. It stated that the latter was not an unauthorised structure. No evidence that the particular disputed property had been declared an unauthorised structure was provided.
The court rejected reliance on another demolition case because that claim concerned a different object. It also rejected DGI’s reliance on an inspection record of unlawful land use as justification for this refusal: that circumstance had not been stated as a ground of the public-service refusal.
| DGI argument | Document check | Significance in this case |
|---|---|---|
| A property at the address is listed | The inspectorate letter identifies the extension | A shared address did not establish identical objects |
| A separate unauthorised-construction case is pending | The subject of that claim was compared with the applicant’s property | It did not establish grounds to refuse this premises-related service |
| There is an unlawful-land-use inspection record | The disputed refusal letter was examined | This was not the stated ground for that refusal |
The court ordered an agreement replacing the tenant within one month after the judgment became final and awarded RUB 3,000 in court-fee costs. That is the historical amount in the 2021 case, not the current fee for a new application.
⚖️ Records useful for a similar refusal
Start with the exact refusal and identification of each property. Compare the address, cadastral reference, premises, building and extension. An EGRN title record matters but does not by itself guarantee freedom from construction-legality issues: Civil Code Article 222 establishes separate criteria and consequences.
| Record | What to check |
|---|---|
| DGI refusal and service application | Receipt dates, precise ground and requested amendment |
| EGRN extract and acquisition document | The applicant’s title and property identifiers |
| Plans and technical records | Boundaries of the premises, principal building and extension |
| List and inspection materials | The exact object described and supporting evidence |
| Land lease and correspondence | Tenants, replacement requested and the affected right |
⚖️ Challenging a refusal today
An economic dispute over an authority’s refusal may fall under chapter 24 of the Arbitrazh Procedure Code, subject to court competence. Article 198 sets a general three-month filing period from knowledge of the rights violation unless federal law provides otherwise. In this case the court found the period observed, taking account of the letter of 13 April 2020. This is a finding on a particular chronology, not a rule that further correspondence always restarts time.
The application should show both inconsistency with law and infringement of the applicant’s rights in economic activity. Under Article 200 the authority bears the burden of proving legality and the circumstances underlying its decision. The applicant should still provide evidence of its property, right and requested service. Article 201 governs the judgment and remedy; the action requested from the authority should be stated precisely.
Identify the ground and date relevant to filing.
Compare EGRN records, plans and inspection documents.
Connect illegality with infringement of your right.
Establish appeal and compliance separately.
The Moscow regulation provisions cited in the judgment explain the 2020 refusal. A new application requires checking the regulation applicable on its relevant date. This historical case does not guarantee an agreement in every present situation.
⚖️ Frequently asked questions
Does a listing automatically establish an unauthorised structure?
The court did not regard the reference as sufficient for the applicant’s premises in this case. Assessment requires identification of the object and the Article 222 grounds.
Why was a shared address insufficient?
The principal building and extension shared an address reference. The inspectorate letter distinguished the property.
Did the court merely cancel the refusal?
No. It also ordered an additional agreement replacing the tenant and awarded RUB 3,000 in court-fee costs.
Does another complaint to DGI always extend the court deadline?
No. The Article 198 period requires assessment of the chronology and applicable rules. This case’s finding cannot be transferred automatically.
Is actual receipt of the agreement confirmed?
The PDF establishes DGI’s obligation. This publication does not contain evidence of actual compliance.
⚖️ Sources and related cases
Checked on 9 October 2026. All four judgment pages were read; procedural provisions and Article 222 were checked separately. Moscow regulations are discussed within the historical judgment. Sources are in Russian.
- Original judgment — PDF
- Arbitrazh Procedure Code Article 198: challenge and deadline
- Article 200: review and evidence
- Article 201: judgment and remedy
- Civil Code Article 222: unauthorised structures
- DGI withdrew a debt claim: a separate case
- Land-boundary register error: the role of evidence