RusBankrot
We know everything about bankruptcy
04/06/2026
Thursday
THIS DAY IN HISTORY:
4 June 
1970 Tonga gained independence from the Great Britain.
1970 Tonga gained independence from the Great Britain.
1856 The Tretyakov Gallery was founded in Moscow.
1856 The Tretyakov Gallery was founded in Moscow.
1716 African slaves were first brought to Louisiana.
1716 African slaves were first brought to Louisiana.
4 June
1970 Tonga gained independence from the Great Britain.
1970 Tonga gained independence from the Great Britain.
1856 The Tretyakov Gallery was founded in Moscow.
1856 The Tretyakov Gallery was founded in Moscow.
1716 African slaves were first brought to Louisiana.
1716 African slaves were first brought to Louisiana.
THE DUTY OF THE ORGANIZER OF THE AUCTION TO DISCLOSE THE SPECIFIC TYPE OF RESTRICTIONS OF THE LAND PLOT
The entrepreneur applied to the court for recognition of the auction for the sale of the debtor's property as invalid and the return of the deposit paid (case no. A40-119269/23).
In rejecting the application, the courts of two instances found that in the announcements of the auction, posted in accordance with the established procedure, in respect of each of the six land plots, it was explicitly stated that there was an encumbrance. The publications also contained comprehensive information on the procedure for reviewing lots, including the contact details of the bidder and the manager (address for inspection, phone numbers, e-mail addresses).
At the same time, the information posted in the auction notice was not distorted and could not lead to a misconception of potential buyers about the subject of the auction, and therefore concluded that the manager and the organizer of the auction provided evidence confirming the disclosure of sufficient information to establish the restrictions available on land.
The cassation sent the dispute for reconsideration, noting that the description of the subject of the auction should be drawn up in such a way as to allow the potential buyer to make an informed and objective decision on the expediency of submitting an application for participation in the auction. In the case in question, the notice of the auction indicated as a restriction that there were restrictions on the rights to the land.
This formulation of the encumbrance was general and did not allow the bidder to determine the actual content of the encumbrance and the essence of the restrictions, as well as its impact on the possibility of using the land for individual housing construction.
It follows from the materials of the separate dispute that all land plots are located within the boundaries of a zone with special conditions for the use of the territory — an architectural and planning zone where the construction of capital facilities is prohibited.
The courts did not properly verify the argument that when the organizer held repeated auctions, the notification already provided complete and specific information about the nature and amount of encumbrances, which in itself indicates that the organizer had relevant information at the time of the first auction and the incompleteness of the initial notification. The conclusion of the courts that the property being sold corresponded to the description of this property in the publication on the disputed auction is not supported by proper evidence.
Having refused to satisfy the application on formal grounds, the courts did not investigate the issue of compliance of the disputed property with the quality and characteristics declared during the auction by the manager. The fact that the bidder did not exercise the right to get to know the object more fully does not relieve the manager of the obligation to act in good faith and provide complete and reliable information about the property he is selling.
Having blamed the applicant for the lack of due diligence, the courts did not substantiate how a bona fide bidder, guided only by a general reference to Article 56 of the Land Code of the Russian Federation, could and should have independently established a specific type of encumbrance — a ban on capital construction in the architectural planning area, especially given that the type of permitted use in the notice it was explicitly listed as "for individual housing construction."
In rejecting the application, the courts of two instances found that in the announcements of the auction, posted in accordance with the established procedure, in respect of each of the six land plots, it was explicitly stated that there was an encumbrance. The publications also contained comprehensive information on the procedure for reviewing lots, including the contact details of the bidder and the manager (address for inspection, phone numbers, e-mail addresses).
At the same time, the information posted in the auction notice was not distorted and could not lead to a misconception of potential buyers about the subject of the auction, and therefore concluded that the manager and the organizer of the auction provided evidence confirming the disclosure of sufficient information to establish the restrictions available on land.
The cassation sent the dispute for reconsideration, noting that the description of the subject of the auction should be drawn up in such a way as to allow the potential buyer to make an informed and objective decision on the expediency of submitting an application for participation in the auction. In the case in question, the notice of the auction indicated as a restriction that there were restrictions on the rights to the land.
This formulation of the encumbrance was general and did not allow the bidder to determine the actual content of the encumbrance and the essence of the restrictions, as well as its impact on the possibility of using the land for individual housing construction.
It follows from the materials of the separate dispute that all land plots are located within the boundaries of a zone with special conditions for the use of the territory — an architectural and planning zone where the construction of capital facilities is prohibited.
The courts did not properly verify the argument that when the organizer held repeated auctions, the notification already provided complete and specific information about the nature and amount of encumbrances, which in itself indicates that the organizer had relevant information at the time of the first auction and the incompleteness of the initial notification. The conclusion of the courts that the property being sold corresponded to the description of this property in the publication on the disputed auction is not supported by proper evidence.
Having refused to satisfy the application on formal grounds, the courts did not investigate the issue of compliance of the disputed property with the quality and characteristics declared during the auction by the manager. The fact that the bidder did not exercise the right to get to know the object more fully does not relieve the manager of the obligation to act in good faith and provide complete and reliable information about the property he is selling.
Having blamed the applicant for the lack of due diligence, the courts did not substantiate how a bona fide bidder, guided only by a general reference to Article 56 of the Land Code of the Russian Federation, could and should have independently established a specific type of encumbrance — a ban on capital construction in the architectural planning area, especially given that the type of permitted use in the notice it was explicitly listed as "for individual housing construction."
03.06.2026
