Olenka, Dzheriev’s bar in Sochi, was under threat of demolition because of the unsubstantiated accusations of his neighbours. The commercial building presented no harm to them, but the courts of first instance took a decision to pull it down, applying the highest possible corrective action against the nonexistent commensurable offence and without an independent forensic analysis. Moreover, it was the plaintiff Marina Miroshnichenko’s trade stand that stood too close to Dzheriev’s building and, according to the conclusion written by the regional Prosecutor’s Office and the regional branch of the Ministry of Emergency Situations, her stand was breaking the fire regulations. Nonetheless, Judge Olga Didik was not stopped even by the fact that Dzheriev’s building had been erected at least ten years earlier than Miroshnichenko’s stand and therefore it could not have occupied the land parcel claimed by Marina Miroshnichenko and Igor Potekhin.
When the media got involved in the case, the Panel of Judges reversed the judgement and remitted the matter for a fresh trial at the same court of first instance but with a new bench. They appointed an independent forensic examination. Meanwhile, the journalist’s inquiry was going on. Owing to it, Judge Olga Krizhanovskaya was not merely listening to the parties but she really went into the matter and specified its details. However, Dzheriev’s opponents did not give up when faced exhaustive evidence, and they appealed against the fair verdict.
Naren Hairapetyan, an entrepreneur from Lazarevskoe and the owner of several food service facilities, is also trying to assert his rights in the unequal fight with Sochi City Administration. The story of his confrontation began in 2005, when he and his wife Laura bought a 15.3 sq m trade stand at the central beach (4, Yantarnaya Street).
“There was a lifeboat station in the adjacent land parcel,” Naren Hairapetyan explains. “In 2008, the local authorities decided to hand over this building to Lazarevskoe District Police Office to open there a police centre. The [city] authorities suggested that our pavilion should be reconstructed, and the police centre be built in our land. We performed the construction works, installed the utility services (over 200 metres), built on the second floor with premises for the police centre and a detention facility – all at our own cost.” At present, the police centre works – but Hairapetyan’s café does not. The matter is that when trying to register the document of title at the District Administration, the Hairapetyan couple was denied registration for their building. Then a judge acknowledged the Hairapetyans’ right to compensation in amount of a bit more than 4.3 million roubles. But the businessman’s family have not received compensation, nor have they got the right of title. Nobody can answer the question: why Hairapetyan’s land was handed over to a third party and why does he not own the café opened in the police centre after many years of working on the building? The judges keep on postponing the court sessions and appointing new dates for them.
Follow our news on Facebook.
За всеми важными новостями следите в Telegram, во «ВКонтакте», «Одноклассниках» и на YouTube
