Major non-food retailers in the war against the landlords, doesn’t make concessions during the current crisis, decided to take another chance. Top managers of the networks sent a joint letter to the Supreme court (SC) to consider additional questions on leases that “now is not find the appropriate legal permission.” The majority of the aforementioned retailers of controversial issues, according to some lawyers, are private and can be resolved during litigation. Retailers, however, believe that these disputes can be delayed, if the aircraft is not give explanations.That the number of non-food retail networks, including “dreams retail” fashion designer Alena Akhmadullina, Fashion continent (brand Incity) families of ex-Governor of the Tula region Vladimir Gruzdev, Inventive Retail Group, Shoe network “Econika” and Tervolina, addressed to the President of the Supreme court Vyacheslav Lebedev, “Kommersant” reported several signers of the letter. His copy is in “Kommersant”. Retailers asked to consider some questions related to rental and that “now is not find the appropriate legal permission.””It is really a very controversial position, but retailers should not worry about this point, because the final draft resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme court, he did not come,” said the lawyer Forward Legal Oleg sheikin.The adoption of this provision had feared and owners of commercial real estate. This is evidenced by the letter addressed to the managing Director of the Russian Council of shopping centres Oleg Voitsekhovsky Vyacheslav Lebedev at the meeting of the Plenum of the armed forces. Mr. Wojciechowski reported that this provision is contrary to the logic adopted by the state Duma of the law providing an opportunity for small and medium businesses to terminate leases without penalty if the owner failed to negotiate reduction of payments for the period until 1 October 2020.Retailers are also asking the head of the armed forces to explain how tenants can protect their rights if a landlord illegally rents accrued during the period when it is impossible to use the premises. Or whether a party to a Treaty unilaterally to estimate and establish an objective loss of interest, and by what criteria. These and other described in the letter, the points are narrow and private, according to Oleg sheikin. “Such issues can be addressed in specific legal disputes without further clarification by the Supreme court,” said the lawyer.The retailers themselves do not think so. “We have already started to face a large number of issues related to retention (of retailers.— “B”) from the landlords, with their categorical disagreement with the departure of tenants, a refusal of acceptance of notification,” says the basicsthe user Retail Trust Eugene Bulavitskaya. According to its forecasts, in the short term, all these questions come down to the courts. Therefore, says Mrs. Bulavitskaya, “much more correct to answer these questions now than to upload even more the already overloaded judicial system.”The lack of uniformity of interpretation, in particular, on the application of the rules on the termination of the lease due to the impossibility of their execution, will inevitably lead to congestion of the judicial system of mass claims in disputes between retailers and owners targetrow, agrees the head of the legal service of the network, “Leonardo” Konstantin Pirozhki. “Their explanation of the Plenum of the Supreme court,” he continues, “will lead to uniformity in the perception by the parties of the emerging and already existing norms of law and a clear justification of the negotiating position of each party”.According to the President of the network Baon Ilya Yaroshenko, in terms of the resulting uncertainty, landlords and tenants will seek to interpret legal rules, each in their favor. “It would interfere with the achievement of agreements and quick stabilization of the situation,” he fears.Khalil Amine
