If you want to understand the situation, bringing it to an absurdity Article 32 of the Civil Code regulates that "the owner has the right to claim property when property is lost by the owner or stolen or departures in addition to its will '. If you compare this article with Article 167 of the Civil Code of the consequences of a void transaction, then between these articles is a significant difference – in the first case, the property claimed back and 'goodbye', and second – there comes a two-way restitution (the return of funds, ie, "each party shall return to the other everything received in the transaction '). Each court decision is unique and the judge, based on internal conviction, may impose any of these articles in the event that the transaction invalid. In 2009, the Administration of Saratov claimed unlawful possession of your property by means of vindication of the claim, that donated to the Orthodox church. Controversial property from 2000 to 2008, was sold three times and each time the state on behalf of the frs in the Saratov region recorded the transaction and transfer of ownership, of course with a mandatory holding legal examination. I have repeatedly tried to claim in court that same 'legal expertise' in that state on behalf of the frs on the Saratov area generously explained that legal expertise – this is speculative, highly intellectual process of the state registrar, which materialized only in the consciousness (subconscious?) official. This legal act is remarkable in that a court has been proved – the property dropped out ownership of the Administration of Saratov 'beyond his control', namely the sale contract (!).
The treaty was signed by the authorized body – the Property Management Committee of the Administration of Saratov, 'misguided' Order official. 'Misled' committee 'unwittingly' got ot the buyer market value of the property to the account. Once the money has been disbursed (8 years) before Administration of Saratov was a question about the need to donate the Orthodox Church, a controversial premise. Further was a matter of technique – the Administration of Saratov is easy to prove in a court of general jurisdiction, that the property dropped out of her property against her will, and reclaimed the property in recent buyer (pensioner Muratova). Must not only be familiar with the Civil Code, but the main thing – the right to use it! Where is legal expertise? Where the state's responsibility for public ? The same place where the money of the pensioner Muratova – absolutely fair, as the two previous owner? If someone thinks that I am not something is not finished, concealed, or representing your primary sources: the decision of the District Court of the Volga city of Saratov (case 2-1705 2009) Administration of Saratov recover from Muratova nm non-residential premises at the address: Saratov, Russia. 24.
Cassation ruling (case 33-3830) upheld the decision. Saratov Regional Court on 11/18/2009, the definition did not find violations in the administration of justice. The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation 14.12.2009, the definition number 32-F09-673 refused to transfer supervisory appeal for judicial review of the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. It is appropriate for a few minutes each to present yourself in the place of the pensioner Muratova nm, which remained only to learn by heart art. 2 hpa rf – 'civil trial should help to strengthen law and order, prevent crime, the formation of respect for law and justice. "