Disputes about the recovery of property If a transaction is made by a person who did not have the right to make it, the consequences of the invalidity of the transaction, as a general rule, occur in the form of the claim of property by the owner from someone else's illegal possession.  

JSC Leasing Company E (hereinafter referred to as the Company) filed a lawsuit against S. for the recovery of a 2013 Toyota Camry motor vehicle, VIN: XW7BF4FK90SO44616, owned by the plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the disputed property). The claims are motivated by the fact that this car was taken out of the owner's possession against his will, as established by the verdict of the Moscow District Court of Kazan on May 8, 2015. Subsequently, the car was found in the territory of the Republic of Kazakhstan by defendant S. The claim was dismissed by the decision of the district court No. 2 of the Kazybekbiysky district of the city of Karaganda dated October 4, 2017. By the resolution of the judicial Board for Civil Cases of the Karaganda Regional Court dated December 14, 2017, the decision of the court of first instance remained unchanged. The Judicial Board for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court overturned the judicial acts of local courts and issued a new decision to satisfy the claim of JSC "Leasing Company "E". Claimed from someone else's illegal possession. in favor of JSC "Leasing company "E" ToyotaCamry vehicle, VIN:XW7BF4FK90S044616, built in 2013, for the following reasons. It follows from the case file that the Company acquired ownership of the disputed vehicle on the basis of a purchase and sale agreement dated November 27, 2013, after which, as a lessor, it transferred it for a fee and on the terms specified in the agreement to the temporary possession and use of LLC "A" for a financial lease (leasing) for a period of 34 months. LLC "A" violated the terms of the lease agreement, and therefore, on January 31, 2014, the lessor sent the lessee a notice of unilateral cancellation of the lease agreement with the requirement to return the property transferred under the lease agreement within three working days. The obligation of the lessee to return the disputed car to the plaintiff is also established by the decision of the Arbitration Court of Moscow dated July 29, 2014 on the satisfaction of the claim of CJSC "E" to LLC "A" for the seizure of property and debt collection under the lease agreement. By the decision of the bailiff dated December 18, 2014, the enforcement proceedings on this decision were completed, the writ of execution was returned to the recoverer due to the impossibility of establishing the location of the debtor and property. Also, during the execution of the court decision, it became clear that the disputed vehicle was sold to unidentified third parties through fraudulent actions of the perpetrators. Since November 27, 2014, according to the statement of LLC "A", the disputed vehicle was on the Interpol wanted list.

Disputes about the recovery of property If a transaction is made by a person who did not have the right to make it, the consequences of the invalidity of the transaction, as a general rule, occur in the form of the claim of property by the owner from someone else's illegal possession.  

By the verdict of the Moscow District Court of Kazan dated May 8, 2015, which entered into force, L. was found guilty of committing crimes of fraud, including by stealing a disputed car in relation to the victim of CJSC "E", whose civil claim against the defendant was left without consideration. On December 20, 2013, the disputed vehicle was registered in the ORER of the Administrative Division of the Pavlodar region in the name of M. On February 5, 2014, the car was registered in the ORER of the Administrative Division of the East Kazakhstan region (Semey city) in the name of U. On May 16, 2014, the above-mentioned car was registered with the Department of Internal Affairs of the Karaganda region (Karaganda city) for defendant S. The local courts, refusing to satisfy the Company's claims, concluded that S. had acquired the disputed property in good faith, and there were no encumbrances on it at the time of registration. The Board considers the conclusions of the local courts to be erroneous, based on an incorrect definition of the range of circumstances relevant to the proper resolution of the dispute, which do not comply with the applicable rules of substantive law. It has been reliably established by local courts that the disputed car was taken out of the Company's possession against the will of the owner, which was established by the courts of the Russian Federation and cannot be proven again. In accordance with paragraph 11 of the regulatory resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated July 7, 2016 No. 6 "On certain issues of invalidity of transactions and the application by courts of the consequences of their invalidity", if the transaction is made by a person who had no right to make it, the consequences of the invalidity of the transaction, as a general rule, come in the form of the claim of property by the owner from someone else's illegal ownership on the basis of Article 260 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (vindication). In accordance with this rule, the owner has the right to claim his property from someone else's illegal possession. When applying to the court with this claim, the company proceeded from the above-mentioned legal norms and chose a way to restore the violated right by claiming property from S. At the time of the transactions with respect to the disputed property by third parties and S., including the disputed vehicle, there were already legal claims, since from January 31, 2014 the disputed property was He's been put on the wanted list. A criminal case on fraud against L. It was initiated on March 17, 2014, and since November 27, 2014, the specified property has been wanted by Interpol, the initiator of the search for the Ministry of Internal Affairs in the city of Kazan of the Russian Federation on the basis of the application of LLC "A".  In the decision, the court unreasonably indicated that the disputed vehicle was wanted by Interpol at the request of LLC "A" since November 27, 2017. The court, rejecting the claim, referred to the good faith of the defendant's purchase of the car, while recognizing that the property had left the owner's possession against his will. At the same time, the court did not take into account that the first buyer of the car was M. she owned it for only one day, on December 20, 2013 (she later died); that in four and a half months in Kazakhstan, the car was reissued four times. In view of the above circumstances, S. He cannot be recognized as a bona fide acquirer of disputed property, since the first transaction for the alienation of a car that does not belong to L. is null and void, respectively, and all subsequent transactions cannot be recognized as complying with the law. Recognizing S. as a bona fide acquirer, the court pointed out that the owner had not taken measures to recover the amount of material damage from the culprit. At the same time, the fact and circumstances of the plaintiff's appeal to the courts of the Russian Federation for protection of his rights were established by the verdict of the Moscow District Court of Kazan dated May 8, 2015. Thus, under the circumstances established in the case, the judicial acts that took place in the case cannot be recognized as legitimate and justified. 

Attention!   

       Law and Law Law Law draws your attention to the fact that this document is basic and does not always meet the requirements of a particular situation. Our lawyers are ready to assist you in legal advice, drawing up any legal document suitable for your situation.  

 For more information,  please contact a Lawyer / Attorney by phone: +7 (708) 971-78-58; +7 (700) 978 5755, +7 (700) 978 5085. 

Attorney at Law Almaty Lawyer Legal Services Legal Advice Civil Criminal Administrative Cases Disputes Protection Arbitration Law Firm Kazakhstan Law Office  Court Cases