Protecting Land Rights and Real Estate Assets in Russia

 

June 21, 2022

BRACE Law Firm ©

 

Land may represent a significant asset; therefore, protecting rights to land plots (the "LP") is a priority in asset protection.

The protection of rights to an LP involves not only ownership and the power of possession but also the determination of usage limits, disputes with adjacent land users, oversight and control authorities, and other persons. While the protection of LP rights may occur through out-of-court means, the most effective method is generally the judicial protection of land rights.

Land rights include those providing the ability to possess, use, and/or dispose of a land plot. Thus, land rights may include ownership, leaseholds, free fixed-term use, life inheritable possession, easements (servitudes), and other limited rights in rem.

This article examines the legal issues surrounding the protection of rights to land plots.

Out-of-Court Methods of Protecting Land Rights

When defining out-of-court protection methods, one must first highlight the preventive method, which arises from the need for a thorough inspection of the land plot (and the rights thereto) upon acquisition. It involves not only verifying legal "cleanliness", the rights of possession, and the absolute nature of such rights held by the seller (or lessor), but also checking for restrictions on the potential use of the land plot in accordance with its permitted use.

A thorough analysis conducted at the acquisition stage helps minimize future risks and avoid numerous problems.

When inspecting a land plot, one should establish not only the seller's (lessor's) right of disposal but also the characteristics of the plot, specifically the presence of data in the Unified State Register of Real Estate (the "USRE") regarding boundaries, permitted use, and any encumbrances, including usage restrictions due to the plot's location within a protected zone or a sanitary protection zone.

Out-of-court protection methods also involve right holders implementing administrative procedures for acquiring rights to an LP, such as the right to privatize an LP located under real estate objects owned by the applicant.

Out-of-court methods concerning relations with a public owner involve undergoing administrative procedures to acquire ownership or leasehold rights.

Such methods may include procedures conducted via auctions or without them — for example, obtaining ownership of land plots located under real estate objects or acquiring leasehold rights through the procedure of preliminary approval for the provision of a land plot.

A characteristic feature of these protection methods is that these administrative procedures are regulated and must be completed in accordance with administrative regulations, which are generally approved for each municipality. Another characteristic is that these protection methods often lead to judicial protection when challenging unlawful refusals to provide a land plot for ownership or lease.

Judicial Protection of Land Rights

Judicial protection of land rights encompasses classic protection methods. These may be conventionally divided into three large groups:

• protection methods aimed at amending the USRE (concerning establishing the owner or other lawful possessor of the land plot, and disputes over land plot boundaries);
• protection methods not aimed at amending the USRE (disputes related to recovering the cost of using land plots);
• disputes with a public element.

The state registration of rights to real estate and transactions therewith is a legal act by which the state recognizes and confirms the creation, restriction (encumbrance), transfer, or termination of rights to real estate in accordance with the Civil Code of the Russian Federation (the "Civil Code"). State registration serves as the sole evidence of the existence of a registered right. A registered right to real estate may only be challenged in court. Since the court resolves a dispute over civil rights during such a challenge, the corresponding claims are considered through merit proceedings.

Challenging a registered right to real estate is carried out by filing lawsuits, the judgments of which serve as the basis for making entries in the USRE. Specifically, if the operative part of a judicial act resolves the existence or absence of a right or an encumbrance, the return of property to the owner's possession, or the application of the consequences of an invalid transaction in the form of returning real estate, such judgments serve as the basis for making an entry in the USRE.

At the same time, a court judgment declaring a transaction invalid without applying the consequences of its invalidity does not serve as a basis for making an entry in the USRE.

When filing a lawsuit to establish the lawful holder of rights, the dispute will be considered through general merit proceedings. Furthermore, the dispute will be heard at the location of the property (exclusive jurisdiction).

Disputes with a public element, aimed at challenging non-normative acts and/or the actions or omissions of state bodies, are considered through public proceedings under Chapter 24 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation (the "APC RF"). If the plaintiff (applicant) is an individual citizen, the dispute will be considered in a court of general jurisdiction.

Judicial Protection when Obtaining a Land Plot for Lease or Ownership

When obtaining a land plot from state or municipal ownership, relevant protection methods include those aimed at obtaining the plot for lease or ownership under the special norms of land legislation. Let us consider various types of disputes arising in this context.

1. Challenging a refusal to approve the provision of a specific land plot.

A refusal of the preliminary approval for providing an LP is challenged in court and considered through public proceedings under the rules of Chapter 24 of the APC RF or the Code of Administrative Procedure of the Russian Federation (the "CAP RF") when challenged by individuals.

Pursuant to the provisions of Clause 3, Article 31 of the Land Code of the Russian Federation (the "Land Code"), which provides for mandatory public notification regarding the potential provision of a land plot for the construction of a non-residential object with preliminary approval of its location, interested parties may apply for the provision of said plot even if they are aware of other applicants. In such a situation, the right to enter into a lease agreement for the specified plot is put up for auction according to the rules of Clause 4, Article 30 of the Land Code. [1]

As a reminder, providing a land plot held in state or municipal ownership without an auction is carried out in the following order:

• preparation of the land plot layout;
• submission of an application for preliminary approval of the land plot provision to the authorized body by a citizen or legal entity. If the land plot on which a building or structure is located is to be formed, or if its boundaries require clarification, any right holder of the building, structure, or premises therein may apply for preliminary approval;
• adoption of a decision on the preliminary approval of the land plot provision in the manner established by Article 39.15 of the Land Code;
• ensuring the performance of cadastral work by the interested citizen or legal entity to form the land plot in accordance with the territory boundary plan, the land plot layout, or cadastral work necessary to clarify boundaries, if a decision on preliminary approval has been made;
• performance of state cadastral registration of the land plot or state cadastral registration in connection with the clarification of boundaries;
• submission of an application for the provision of the land plot to the authorized body;
• entry into a sale and purchase agreement, a lease agreement, or a free use agreement, or the adoption of a decision by the authorized body to provide the land plot for ownership free of charge or for permanent (perpetual) use.

The grounds for providing a land plot without an auction are listed in Clause 2, Article 39.3, Article 39.5, Clause 2, Article 39.6, or Clause 2, Article 39.10 of the Land Code. As a rule, authorized bodies issue refusals as early as the preliminary approval stage. The grounds for refusal are listed in Article 39.16 of the Land Code and are primarily related to the rights of third parties or full or partial boundary overlaps.

2. Challenging a refusal to provide a land plot for ownership under real estate objects.

A common category of disputes involves those arising when acquiring rights to an LP located under real estate objects situated on the plot.

The owner of a building or structure located on a public land plot has the right to privatize it within the boundaries and area determined by the need to ensure the functional use of the building or structure. Furthermore, the size of a plot provided for construction may not coincide with the size necessary for operation, as these purposes differ. [2]

The procedure for acquiring land plots held in state ownership without an auction is defined in Article 39.14 of the Land Code. The procedure for submitting and considering an application is regulated by Article 39.17 of the Land Code.

According to Article 11.2 of the Land Code, land plots are formed through division, consolidation, redistribution, or allocation, as well as from lands held in state or municipal ownership. Requirements for formed land plots are established by Article 11.9 of the Land Code, which provides that the maximum and minimum sizes for which urban planning regulations are established are determined by such regulations.

Grounds for refusing to provide a land plot held in state or municipal ownership without an auction are specified in Article 39.16 of the Land Code, including if:

• the permitted use of the land plot does not correspond to the purposes of use specified in the application, except for cases involving the placement of a linear object in accordance with an approved territory planning project;
• the area of the land plot specified in the application exceeds the area specified in the layout or territory boundary plan, according to which the plot was formed, by more than 10%.

The provision of land plots for ownership without an auction under Subclause 6, Clause 2, Article 39.3 of the Land Code is carried out primarily based on functional use exclusively for the operation of objects located thereon; therefore, the area is determined in accordance with the requirements of Clauses 1 and 2, Article 11.9 of the Land Code.

The size of the land plot necessary for the operation of a real estate object depends not only on the area of the capital construction object but also on the purpose of the object and its usage goals.

In one specific case, an entrepreneur applied to acquire ownership of a land plot with an area of 15,002 sq. m. by way of an exclusive right, due to the presence of non-residential buildings: salon-shops with total areas of 1,451.8 sq. m. and 1,446.5 sq. m.. The courts established that the total area of the real estate was 2,898.3 sq. m., meaning the area occupied by these objects was 19.322% of the entire plot, while 80.678% of the requested plot was free of real estate. Based on this, the courts noted that the area of the requested plot several times exceeded the area of the real estate located thereon.[3]

3. Recovery of lease payments regarding a land plot that does not meet the requirements of the lease agreement

This protection method applies not only to LPs provided for lease by state and municipal bodies; however, it is predominantly applied to disputes with a public element.

Pursuant to Clause 1, Article 611 of the Civil Code, a lessor must provide the lessee with property in a condition corresponding to the terms of the lease agreement and its purpose. The lessee, in turn, must use the property in accordance with the terms of the agreement or its purpose (Clause 1, Article 615 of the Civil Code), and must also make timely payments (Clause 1, Article 615 of the Civil Code).

Clause 3, Article 405 of the Civil Code implies that a debtor is not considered to be in default as long as the obligation cannot be performed due to the creditor's default. A creditor is considered to be in default if they refuse to accept proper performance or do not perform actions provided for by law, other acts, or the agreement, before the performance of which the debtor could not perform their obligation (Clause 1, Article 406 of the Civil Code).

Under Article 328 of the Civil Code, the performance of an obligation by one party is recognized as reciprocal if it is conditioned upon performance by the other party. If the obligated party fails to provide performance, or if circumstances clearly indicate that such performance will not be rendered on time, the party entitled to reciprocal performance may suspend its obligation or refuse to perform and demand damages.

Thus, a lessee may demand a proportional reduction in lease payments if, due to circumstances for which they are not responsible, usage conditions or the condition of the property have significantly deteriorated.

An analysis of these norms shows that a lease agreement is reciprocal in nature, and the risk of the inability to use the leased property lies with the lessor. If the inability to use the property arose for a reason for which the lessee is not responsible, the lessee is not obliged to pay rent. [4]

In a specific case, the court established that the land plot provided under a lease agreement could not be used by the lessee for the designated purpose (construction of a non-residential commercial building) due to an unlawfully installed water supply network for a third party running under the plot in close proximity to the foundation. Having established this circumstance and correctly applying the legal norms, the courts concluded that there were no grounds to recover the lease payment arrears or the penalties.[5]

Disputes Related to Challenging Ownership Rights

1. Disputes over the recognition of ownership rights to a land plot.

In accordance with Article 12 of the Civil Code, the protection of civil rights is carried out, inter alia, through the recognition of a right. The recognition of a right serves as a means of eliminating uncertainty, creating necessary conditions for its realization, and preventing actions by third parties that hinder its normal exercise.

Clause 58 of Resolution No. 10/22 clarifies that a person who considers themselves the owner of real estate in their possession, the right to which is registered to another subject, may apply to the court with a lawsuit for the recognition of ownership. Unless otherwise provided by law, a lawsuit for recognition shall be satisfied if the plaintiff presents evidence of the creation of the corresponding right. Lawsuits filed by persons whose rights and transactions were never registered may be satisfied in cases where the rights arose before Federal Law No. 218-FZ dated July 13, 2015, On State Registration of Real Estate entered into force and were not registered in accordance with Clauses 1 and 2, Article 6, or arose independently of registration in accordance with Clause 2, Article 8 of the Civil Code.[6]

Evidence of ownership is an extract from the USRE. In the absence of registration, ownership is proven using any evidence provided for by procedural legislation (Clause 36 of Resolution No. 10/22).

Thus, based on these provisions, a lawsuit for recognition shall be satisfied upon the establishment of the combined circumstances of actual possession and the creation of the corresponding right.

2. Lawsuits for the recognition of joint ownership when a real estate object is located on a land plot belonging to different owners.

This protection method is applied in both public legal relationships (privatization) and private law relationships, such as when several buildings or premises in one building belong to different owners.

In accordance with Clause 1, Article 36 of the Land Code, citizens and legal entities owning buildings, structures, or objects located on land plots held in state or municipal ownership acquire rights in accordance with the Land Code. Unless otherwise established by federal laws, the exclusive right to privatize or acquire leasehold rights belongs to the owners of the buildings, structures, or objects.

The exclusive nature of the right to privatize means that no one except the owner of the building, structure, or object has the right to privatize the land plot occupied by that object.

The privatization by one person of that part of a land plot necessary for use by another person violates the latter's exclusive right to privatize the land plot.

The exclusivity of the right to privatize by the owner of a building, structure, or object, as established in Article 36 of the Land Code, means that such an owner is entitled to privatize exclusively the land plot occupied by that object and necessary for its use.

An owner whose rights were not taken into account may, if ready to exercise the buyout right provided for by Article 36 of the Land Code, file a lawsuit to establish (recognize) the right of joint ownership regardless of its divisibility. Based on the content and grounds for the creation of the right, the corresponding claim belongs to a variety of claims to eliminate violations not related to dispossession (Article 304 of the Civil Code).[7]

These disputes also arise when a real estate object belonging to different owners is erected on a single land plot. In such cases, ownership of the plot may be registered to one of them without taking into account the rights of the others.

A claim for the recognition of joint ownership of a land plot on which real estate objects of several owners are located is a negatory claim.

In cases where an entry in the USRE violates the plaintiff's right, which cannot be protected by the recognition of a right or the recovery of property from another's unlawful possession (e.g., ownership of the same object is registered to different persons, or an encumbrance has terminated), the challenge may be carried out by filing a lawsuit to recognize the right or encumbrance as non-existent (a negatory claim). The statute of limitations does not apply to a negatory claim.

If the owner whose rights were not considered is ready to exercise the buyout right provided by Article 36 of the Land Code, they may file a lawsuit to establish (recognize) joint ownership regardless of divisibility.

Furthermore, based on the content and grounds for the creation of the right provided for by Article 36 of the Land Code, this claim belongs to a variety of claims to eliminate any violations of their right not related to dispossession, to which the statute of limitations does not apply.[8]

Additionally, a claim for recognition of joint ownership may also be filed within the framework of private law relations in cases where the right was registered in violation of the rules for determining shares.

3. Challenging transactions where the subject is a land plot.

Land rights may also be protected by challenging transactions where the subject is a land plot. As a general rule under Clause 1, Article 168 of the Civil Code, a transaction that violates requirements is voidable, unless other consequences apply. Thus, a transaction that violates requirements and simultaneously infringes upon public interests or the rights of third parties is void, unless it is voidable or other consequences apply.

According to Clause 1, Article 166 of the Civil Code, a transaction is invalid either by virtue of being recognized as such by a court (voidable) or independently of such recognition (void).

At the same time, Clause 3, Article 166 of the Civil Code allows a party — and in cases provided by law, another person — to file a claim for the application of consequences of invalidity for a void transaction. A claim to recognize a void transaction as invalid may be satisfied if the person filing the claim has a legally protected interest.

When challenging transactions involving land plots, the general norms of Russian civil legislation are fully applicable.

Clause 78 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 25 dated June 23, 2015, On the Application by Courts of Certain Provisions of Section I, Part One of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation provides clarifications that a lawsuit by a person who is not a party to apply the consequences of invalidity for a void transaction may also be satisfied if civil legislation does not establish another method for protecting that person's right. Challenging transactions may be carried out on general civil, "corporate", or "bankruptcy" grounds. Challenging a transaction and applying the consequences of its invalidity serves as a basis for making an entry in the USRE.

Protecting Land Rights in Disputes Over Land Plot Boundaries

In accordance with Resolution No. 10/22, lawsuits regarding rights to real estate include, in particular, lawsuits for recovery from another's unlawful possession, for the elimination of violations not related to dispossession, for recognition of a right, for establishment of an easement, for establishment of land plot boundaries, and for release from attachment.

Challenging a registered right is carried out by filing lawsuits, the judgments of which serve as the basis for making an entry in the USRE. In cases where an entry violates the plaintiff's right, which cannot be protected by recognition or recovery (e.g., ownership of the same object is registered to different persons, or an encumbrance has terminated), the challenge may be carried out by filing a lawsuit to recognize the right or encumbrance as non-existent. The defendant is the person to whom the disputed right or encumbrance is registered.

Entering data regarding a change in area due to the adjustment of boundaries requires changing the corresponding data for all registered right holders, including the owner. This represents the disposal of the plot, as a result of which the ownership and other rights in rem to the plot in its previous form terminate. [9]

If there is a dispute over the boundaries between right holders, it cannot be resolved by correcting a registry error in the USRE data. [10]

When the subject of a dispute is the overlapping of land plots, the applicant's claims are considered as a claim to establish the boundaries of the land plot. [11]

A claim to establish (determine) boundaries is an independent protection method aimed at eliminating uncertainty when there are objections from an interested party. The result must be a judicial act that establishes the adjacent boundary between the land plots according to the coordinates of the turning points. Based on the judicial act, the established boundary is entered into the USRE.[12]

The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, in Ruling No. 1789-O dated July 16, 2015, noted that federal legislation, taking into account the necessary balance, ensures the ability of the body performing state cadastral registration to promptly correct errors, and on the other hand — in the case of a dispute — guarantees judicial protection against arbitrary changes.

The right to file a lawsuit to establish boundaries belongs to an interested party who has rights to the disputed land plot. [13] Legislation does not provide a person who is not a right holder with the right to apply to amend the USRE data based on their opinion that a cadastral error was made. [14]

The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation notes that the federal legislator included the principle of the unity of the fate of land plots and objects firmly connected thereto among the principles of land legislation in the Land Code. According to this principle, all objects firmly connected to land plots follow the fate of the land plots, except in cases established by federal laws.

Expanding on this principle, the Land Code provides the owners of buildings or structures with the exclusive right to privatize the land plots on which these objects are located, as well as a procedure for using another's land plot by persons who have acquired ownership of the buildings or structures.

In Rulings No. 309-ES20-11360 dated September 7, 2020, and No. 310-ES21-14749 dated September 6, 2021, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation did not find the legal position of the courts to be unlawful, which held that if an individual entrepreneur is the owner of a real estate object located on a land plot for which they filed a lawsuit to establish boundaries, and their rights are registered in the USRE, they have the right to such a lawsuit as they possess a legal interest. Any other approach would deprive the owner of an object — located on several plots as a result of an error or violation made during surveying — of the exclusive right given by Clause 1, Article 39.20 of the Land Code, potentially leading to the complete practical inability to operate their object. In such a situation, the owner has no other methods of protection except a lawsuit to establish the boundaries of adjacent land plots.

Protecting Land Rights in Cases Involving the Establishment of an Easement

Clause 1, Article 274 of the Civil Code defines that the owner of real estate is entitled to demand from the owner of an adjacent land plot the provision of a right of limited use of the adjacent plot (an easement).

An easement may be established to ensure passage through the adjacent land plot, the construction, reconstruction, and (or) operation of linear objects, and for other needs of the owner that cannot be ensured without an easement.

An easement is established by agreement and must be registered. If an agreement is not reached, the dispute is resolved by a court.

An easement may be terminated due to the disappearance of the grounds for which it was established, as well as in cases where a land plot cannot be used for its designated purpose.

If the grounds have disappeared, both the owner of the encumbered land plot and the owner of the land plot for whose benefit the easement was established may apply to the court with a claim for termination. [15]

An easement shall not be established if its terms deprive the owner of the ability to use their plot in accordance with its permitted use. [16]

Pursuant to Clause 5, Article 274 of the Civil Code and Clause 12 of the Review of Judicial Practice in Cases Related to the Establishment of an Easement on a Land Plot, approved by the Supreme Court of the RF on April 26, 2017, payment may be established either as a one-time payment or as periodic payments.

When establishing payment, the size and terms must be definite and not create legal uncertainty.

In a specific case, the court of cassation, in vacating the lower courts' acts and remanding the case, noted that the established payment for the easement created unjustified obstacles to using the easement by limiting access to the plots of a Gardening Non-profit Partnership (the "GNP"). This led to various fees imposed on persons arriving at the GNP, based on the rationale that only GNP members driving a vehicle could use the easement. Meanwhile, guests, relatives, and even GNP members themselves who were not driving could not use the easement. This contradicts the fundamental principles of civil law, such as the good faith of participants, the consideration of each other's rights, and mutual respect. [17]

Protection of Land Rights in the Presence of Restrictions on Activities on a Land Plot

Owners or lessees often encounter restrictions on the performance of specific types of usage when they begin using the LP, due to the existence of protected zones, sanitary protection zones, and other similar restrictions.

When analyzing potential protection methods upon discovering such restrictions, one can highlight the termination of the agreement through which the corresponding rights were acquired. As stated previously, when transferring rights, the transferring party must disclose the material terms and any restrictions; failure to do so may serve as grounds for refusing to perform the agreement. Such a refusal may be implemented out of court, but judicial protection is generally applied. In some cases, the inaccuracy of the information provided may be used to challenge the agreement. Such a challenge may also be related to the establishment of a special regime for LPs located in special zones, by virtue of which such LPs are withdrawn from circulation and cannot be provided for private ownership. [18] However, to exercise the right to refuse, one must prove that the location of the LP in the relevant zone prevents its use for its designated purpose. [19]

In conclusion, it should be noted that judicial protection of rights to land plots is characterized both by the use of general protection methods (recognition of rights, negatory claims) and specific protection methods (e.g., boundary disputes).

_____________________________

References

1. Resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the RF No. 7638/11 dated November 15, 2011.
2. Ruling of the Constitutional Court of the RF No. 935-O dated April 23, 2020, On the Refusal to Consider the Complaint of Citizen Lev Evgenyevich Volkov Regarding the Violation of His Constitutional Rights by the Provisions of the Land Code of the Russian Federation.
3. Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the East Siberian District No. F02-4917/2019 dated October 4, 2019, regarding case No. A74-20062/2018.
4. Clause 4 of the Review of Judicial Practice of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 2 (2015), approved by the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on May 26, 2015; Clause 5 of the Review of Judicial Practice of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 3 (2017), approved by the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on July 12, 2017; Clause 27 of the Review of Judicial Practice of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 3 (2020), approved by the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on November 25, 2020; Ruling of the Judicial Chamber for Economic Disputes of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 305-ES17-17952 dated February 20, 2018.
5. Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the East Siberian District No. F02-6525/2021 dated December 8, 2021, regarding case No. A33-37210/2020.
6. Resolutions of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation No. 10/22 dated April 29, 2010, On Certain Issues Arising in Judicial Practice in Resolving Disputes Related to the Protection of Ownership Rights and Other Rights in Rem (the "Resolution No. 10/22").
7. Ruling of the Judicial Chamber for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the RF No. 56-KG15-10 dated August 18, 2015.
8. Resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the RF No. 5361/12 dated October 2, 2012, regarding case No. A46-3074/2011.
9. Resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation No. 14765/10 dated March 22, 2011.
10. Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 310-KG16-4280 dated May 19, 2016.
11. Ruling of the Judicial Chamber for Economic Disputes of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 305-KG15-7535 dated October 7, 2015.
12. Ruling of the Judicial Chamber for Economic Disputes of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 310-ES16-10203 dated February 6, 2017.
13. Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 310-ES19-4555 dated April 9, 2019.
14. Resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation No. 8410/13 dated December 3, 2013.
15. Clause 6 of the Review of Judicial Practice in Cases Related to the Establishment of an Easement on a Land Plot (approved by the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the RF on April 26, 2017).
16. , Clause 8.
17. Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the Moscow District No. F05-9436/2021 dated July 12, 2021, regarding case No. A41-34103/2018.
18. Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the Ural District No. F09-1035/15 dated April 15, 2015, regarding case No. A60-19815/2014.
19. Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the Moscow District No. F05-12259/2021 dated June 8, 2021, regarding case No. A41-111550/2019.