RusBankrot
We know everything about bankruptcy
05/12/2025
Friday
THIS DAY IN HISTORY:
5 December 
1936 The Stalinist Constitution of the USSR was adopted.
1936 the Stalinist constitution of the USSR was adopted.
1484 Pope Innocent VII initiated the "witch hunt".
1456 An earthquake that destroyed Naples occurred - 35 thousand people died.
1456 occurred an earthquake that destroyed Naples - 35 thousand people died.
5 December
1936 The Stalinist Constitution of the USSR was adopted.
1936 the Stalinist constitution of the USSR was adopted.
1484 Pope Innocent VII initiated the "witch hunt".
1456 An earthquake that destroyed Naples occurred - 35 thousand people died.
1456 occurred an earthquake that destroyed Naples - 35 thousand people died.
ACCESS TO DOCUMENTS AS A GUARANTEE OF PROCEDURAL EQUALITY OF THE PARTIES
Access to documents as a guarantee of procedural equality of the parties
The applicant appealed to the court demanding that the manager provide access to the debtor's documentation (case no. A40-178971/19).
In rejecting the application, the courts of two instances proceeded from the lack of evidence that the previous bankruptcy trustee had created obstacles to access to the debtor's previously submitted documentation. The courts pointed out that in the period from a certain date to the present, the applicant had only twice applied to the bankruptcy trustee with a request for access to documentation in order to inspect and compile an inventory of the documents placed at the disposal of the trustee, while such access had been granted to his representative on a certain date.
The cassation granted the application, stating the following.
The applicant referred to the existence of disagreements with the previous bankruptcy trustee regarding the volume of the company's documentation submitted and submitted to the former bankruptcy trustee. It is indicated that all the documentation available to the applicant was transferred to the previous bankruptcy trustee according to the act of acceptance and transfer. However, a specific act of acceptance and transfer of documentation indicating the identifying features of the transferred documentation was not drawn up either during the transfer of documents from the applicant to the arbitration administrator, or during the transfer from the arbitration administrator to the bankruptcy administrator.
The Court noted that the applicant's representative had noted that he had been provided with only a part of the documentation for inspection, which was stored in a limited number of boxes out of the total number. The applicant repeatedly asked the manager to review the documentation that had not been submitted to him for review, but the opportunity to review these documents was not provided.
The bankruptcy trustee sent a telegram to the applicant, but it was not delivered to the addressee, indicating that the addressee had failed to appear upon notification. At the same time, the telegram was sent to an address that is not the place of registration of the applicant, which the bankruptcy trustee was informed about. The reasons why the bankruptcy trustee prevents the applicant from examining the documentation at the disposal of the bankruptcy trustee have not been disclosed either in the courts of first instance and appeal instances, or in the review submitted to the district court.
The case file does not contain a specific list of documentation available to the bankruptcy trustee, which he received from the previous manager. This creates an obstacle to the protection of the applicant's rights in the judicial process.
The applicant has provided sufficient evidence indicating that he has obstacles to familiarizing himself with the documentation available to the bankruptcy trustee. The bankruptcy trustee has not refuted these circumstances with reference to the evidence available in the case file.
The applicant appealed to the court demanding that the manager provide access to the debtor's documentation (case no. A40-178971/19).
In rejecting the application, the courts of two instances proceeded from the lack of evidence that the previous bankruptcy trustee had created obstacles to access to the debtor's previously submitted documentation. The courts pointed out that in the period from a certain date to the present, the applicant had only twice applied to the bankruptcy trustee with a request for access to documentation in order to inspect and compile an inventory of the documents placed at the disposal of the trustee, while such access had been granted to his representative on a certain date.
The cassation granted the application, stating the following.
The applicant referred to the existence of disagreements with the previous bankruptcy trustee regarding the volume of the company's documentation submitted and submitted to the former bankruptcy trustee. It is indicated that all the documentation available to the applicant was transferred to the previous bankruptcy trustee according to the act of acceptance and transfer. However, a specific act of acceptance and transfer of documentation indicating the identifying features of the transferred documentation was not drawn up either during the transfer of documents from the applicant to the arbitration administrator, or during the transfer from the arbitration administrator to the bankruptcy administrator.
The Court noted that the applicant's representative had noted that he had been provided with only a part of the documentation for inspection, which was stored in a limited number of boxes out of the total number. The applicant repeatedly asked the manager to review the documentation that had not been submitted to him for review, but the opportunity to review these documents was not provided.
The bankruptcy trustee sent a telegram to the applicant, but it was not delivered to the addressee, indicating that the addressee had failed to appear upon notification. At the same time, the telegram was sent to an address that is not the place of registration of the applicant, which the bankruptcy trustee was informed about. The reasons why the bankruptcy trustee prevents the applicant from examining the documentation at the disposal of the bankruptcy trustee have not been disclosed either in the courts of first instance and appeal instances, or in the review submitted to the district court.
The case file does not contain a specific list of documentation available to the bankruptcy trustee, which he received from the previous manager. This creates an obstacle to the protection of the applicant's rights in the judicial process.
The applicant has provided sufficient evidence indicating that he has obstacles to familiarizing himself with the documentation available to the bankruptcy trustee. The bankruptcy trustee has not refuted these circumstances with reference to the evidence available in the case file.
01.11.2025
