The Moscow Property Department’s buyout price and instalment terms were disputed by Desyatka LLC before a sale contract was concluded. In its decision of 6 February 2020, Case A40-150652/19-85-877, Moscow Commercial Court determined the wording of two provisions governing the sale of non-residential premises. The remaining claims were refused.
⚖️ The dispute and representation
Desyatka LLC was the claimant and Moscow’s Property Department the defendant. Judge D. N. Fedorova heard the case. The document records my participation as the claimant’s representative, P. I. Petrov, under a power of attorney.
The dispute concerned a sale contract for non-residential premises measuring 252.9 square metres at 6 Dybenko Street, Building 1, Moscow. My original note identified the price as the substantial disagreement and referred to a court expert valuation. Its heading stated that we accepted the expert’s figure. That does not establish the contents of the expert report, the valuer’s name or a percentage reduction in price.
⚖️ The terms determined by the court
| Provision | Wording established by the decision | Practical significance |
|---|---|---|
| Clause 3.1: price | RUB 23,435,000 | The price of this property was determined; the previous price is absent |
| VAT | Not charged, with reference to Tax Code Article 146(2)(12) | A term of this contract, rather than a universal rule for every property sale |
| Clause 3.4: first payment | No later than one month after contract conclusion | The deadline is linked to conclusion, not automatically to the decision date |
| Monthly payment | At least RUB 390,583.33 toward principal plus instalment interest on the balance | The principal component is not the full payment including interest |
| Remaining demands | Refused | A partial result, rather than satisfaction of the entire claim |
The published wording of Clause 3.4 leaves the particular day for later monthly payments blank. This article does not fill that gap or calculate the contractual instalment period from one payment figure. A full schedule, interest rate, contract performance and registration of the transfer of title are not established by this document.
The Department was ordered to reimburse the company RUB 6,000 in paid court fees. The company was separately ordered to pay RUB 6,000 in unpaid fees to the federal budget. These are historical amounts from the 2020 proceeding and cannot be used to calculate the current fee for a new claim.
⚖️ Original judgment and related appeal
Moscow Commercial Court decision of 6 February 2020, Case A40-150652/19-85-877, two pages
The operative part records the court, parties, contract terms and fee allocation.
The appeal in the same case is covered separately: the Department’s appeal and objections to valuation. This article concerns contract wording at first instance; that article concerns the subsequent procedural outcome. They are two stages of one case, not separate successes.
⚖️ Preparing a new price dispute
Civil Code Article 446 provides for judicial determination of disputed terms where pre-contract disagreements are validly referred to the court. Check the basis for compulsory contracting or the parties’ agreement to refer the dispute, when disagreement arose and applicable deadlines. Paragraph 2 specifies a six-month limit for referring such disagreements; the actual calculation depends on the documents.
Under Commercial Procedure Code Article 86, an expert report is examined alongside the other evidence. Accepting a justified valuation is possible, but the mere existence of an expert examination does not guarantee a preferred price. Examine the object, valuation date, input data, calculation and whether the conclusion answers the court’s question. Neither the Department’s initial valuation nor the full expert report accompanies the operative decision.
| Prepare | Check |
|---|---|
| Draft contract | The particular price and payment provisions actually disputed |
| Disagreement protocol and correspondence | Competing wording, dispatch dates and when the dispute arose |
| Property-right documents | The object and legal basis for concluding the contract |
| Valuation and expert reports | Valuation object, date, information and calculation |
| Requested court relief | Precise proposed wording for each disputed provision |
⚖️ Four steps in a pre-contract dispute
- 1. Identify disagreements. Compare the parties’ proposed provisions.
- 2. Check procedure. Establish the referral basis and deadlines.
- 3. Examine valuation. Review records and expert conclusions.
- 4. Formulate wording. Separate price from payment arrangements.
⚖️ Frequently asked questions
Did the court reduce the price by a stated percentage?
The operative part does not state the initial price. It cannot support a reduction percentage.
Is RUB 390,583.33 the entire monthly payment?
No. It is the minimum principal component; instalment interest on the balance is provided for separately.
Was the entire claim allowed?
No. The court determined two contract clauses and refused the remaining claims.
Can these terms be applied to any Department contract?
No. The property, buyout basis, price and terms of the particular contract require a separate assessment.
Where can the original be read?
The PDF above contains two pages of operative wording, without the full reasons concerning the expert valuation.
⚖️ Sources and related practice
Checked: 10 October 2026. The original decision was read in full. The author’s note supplies the position of accepting the expert’s amount. Guidance for a new dispute was checked against primary legal texts.
A different dispute concerned amending lease terms for construction work; it did not determine the buyout price of these premises.
This material is informational and is not legal advice. Document forms are used at your own risk and require review for the particular case. The terms established in 2020 do not guarantee the outcome of a new dispute.