THE COURT BEGINS TO UNFOLD IN THE DIRECTION OF ARBITRATION MANAGERS

A little hope for objectivity was given by the Fourth Arbitration Appeal Court in its Decision on case NoA10-4882 / 2016 18 January 2017.

It follows from the judicial act that the Service with respect to arbitration managers is not entitled to exercise state control (supervision) on its own initiative and has no right to draw up a protocol on an administrative offense in accordance with clause 1, part 1, article 28.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation.

The Court of Appeal considers that the Regulations on the Federal Service for State Registration, Cadastre and Cartography imply that the Service has the right to draw up a protocol on an administrative offense against the arbitration administrator only on the basis of information provided by third parties containing sufficient grounds to believe that an administrative event exists in the person’s actions Offenses.

At the same time, the court considered that the arguments of the service that it had conducted an analysis of publicly available information and established the circumstances indicating the existence of an event of an administrative offense in the actions of the arbitration administrator can not be taken into account, since the specified actions, actually expressed in the apparent intention to conduct Verification activities of the activities of the arbitration administrator, which are not referred to the competence of this state body by the abovementioned Regulation.

The court regards this approach as a deliberate intention to expand the powers of the authority and to circumvent the procedure of control of activities of arbitration managers. Moreover, because these remarks to Article 28.1 of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses, the basis for drawing up a protocol on an administrative offense in accordance with Cl. 1 Part 1, Art. 28.1 of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses is an act of verification. In this case, the Service did not make a verification report, therefore, the administrative authority had no legal grounds to draw up a protocol on an administrative offense.