22 نوفمبر 2016محكمة التمييز فـي دبـ

22 نوفمبر 2016

محكمة التمييز فـي دبـي
مذكرة جوابية
بالرد على صحيفة الطعن رقم 146/2016 عقاري


مقدمة من:
1) شركة تعمير القابضة للاستثمار (ش ذ م م ) المطعون ضدها الأولى
2) شركة تعمير الشارقة العقارية ( ش ذ م م ) المطعون ضدها الثانية
3) أحمد سليمان عبد العزيز الراجحي بصفته الشخصية وبصفته أحد الشركاء في المستأنفة الأولى. المطعون ضده الثالث
بوكالة المحاميين/ محمد راشد السويدي وعلي حسين الرئيسي
ضـــــــــــــــــد:
1) ايجور بانشينكو - اوكراني الجنسية الطاعن الأول
2) ايرينا كوروشكا - أوكرانية الجنسية الطاعنة الثانية
بوكالة المحامي الأستاذ/ يوسف محمد البحر
الدفــــــــــــــــاع:
يتمسك المطعون ضدهم بما سبق تقديمه من مذكرات دفاعية ومستندات أمام محكمة الاستئناف، ونبين لعدالة المحكمة بأن أسباب الطعن التي أوردها الطاعن من مخالفة الحكم المطعون فيه للقانون والقصور بالتسبيب والفساد في الاستدلال والإخلال بحق الدفاع ومخالفة الثابت بالأوراق أمر لا اساس له من الصحة، حيث أن ذلك الحكم قد صدر موافقاً للأصول والقانون وقد جاءت أسباب الطعن مبنية على تحريف الوقائع ومخالفة الثابت بالأوراق حيث اعتمدت الجهة الطاعنة في لائحة الطعن على التضليل المقصود ، لذلك وتفنيداً لما أوردته من مغالطات ورداً على أسباب الطعن فإننا نوجز دفاعنا وفقاً لما يلي :


أولاً- عدم صحة أسباب الطعن :
في الرد على الوجه الأول من السبب الأول للطعن :
1- تنعى الجهة الطاعنة على الحكم المطعون فيه في الوجه الأول من السبب الأول للطعن أنه قد صدر مشوباً بمخالفة القانون والثابت بالأوراق تأسيساً على أن تفسير بنود اتفاقية البيع والشراء من اختصاص القضاء وحده، وأنه ليس من شأن الخبرة الفنية التي خلصت بأن المساحة الواردة في اتفاقية البيع هي المساحة الصافية مضافاً إليها المساحة المشتركة ، ويبدو أن الجهة الطاعنة لم تراجع الحكم المطعون فيه والذي تضمّن الرد المسقط لهذا السبب من الطعن .

2- ونبين لعدالة المحكمة بأن هذا السبب من الطعن لا يقوم على أي أساس من الواقع ويخالف الحقيقة ويعتبر تجنياً على العدالة، حيث أقرت الجهة الطاعنة بلائحة الطعن أنها كانت قد اعترضت على تلك النتيجة التي خلصت إليها الخبرة أمام محكمة الاستئناف أي أن الأمر كان مطروحاً على المحكمة صاحبة الحق في تفسير الاتفاقية للوقوف على الإرادة المشتركة للمتعاقدين.

3- وقد تصدت محكمة الاستئناف في حكمها المطعون فيه وبما لها من سلطة في تفسير الاتفاقيات إلى بيان المساحة المقصودة الورادة في الاتفاقية، حيث أوردت في الحيثيات ما يلي: " الثابت من اتفاقية البيع والشراء المؤرخة 7-5-2007 أن المستأنف ضدهما تعاقدا مع المستأنفة الاولى على حجز وحدة عقارية بمساحة 1.517.50 قدم مربع وقد تضمن بند التعريفات بالاتفاقية أن العقار يعني الوحدة بالإضافة إلى نسبة في المساحة المشتركة من العقار حسب الحصة المشتركة وأن الملكية المشتركة تلك الأجزاء من قطعة الأرض والمباني (باستثناء مواقف السيارات) والتي لا تشكل جزءاً من الوحدات بما مفاده أن إرادة طرفي التعاقد قد انصرفت إلى أن الملكية المشتركة تقتصر على مواقف السيارات وأنها تشكل جزءا من مساحة الوحدة المباعة حسب حصتها ".

4- وفي مكان آخر من الحكم ورد ما يلي : " كان البين من تقرير الخبير المنتدب من المحكمة والذي تطمئن اليه انه قد اثبت في تقريره من واقع اطلاعه على مخطط الوحدة محل التداعي رقم 902 الصادر عن دائرة الأراضي والأملاك بتاريخ 10-10-2010 أن مساحة الوحدة هي 1324قدم مربع وأن (موقف السيارة ) 148 قدم مربع ، ومن ثم فإن المحكمة تخلص مما تقدم الي أن مساحة الوحدة مضاف اليها حصتها في المساحة المشتركة هي1472 قدم مربع وبطرح تلك المساحة من المساحة الواردة في العقد ومقدارها 1.517.50 مربع قدم يكون النقص في مساحة الوحدة مقداره 45,50 قدم مربع بما يعادل نسبة 3% أي أن النقص لم يتجاوز النسبة المسموح بها المتفق عليها في البند 9 /2 من العقد بما لا يجوز للمستأنف ضدهما - المشتريان - إعمالاً لما اتفق عليه بالبند سالف البيان باعتبار أن العقد في هذا الشأن هو قانون المتعاقدين مطالبة البائع بتخفيض الثمن بسبب ذلك النقص " .

5- وقد استندت الجهة الطاعنة في هذا السبب من الطعن على تفسيرات خاصة بها ومجتزأة للإتفاقية موضوع الدعوى ، حيث تجاهلت عن سوء نية بأن البيع ينصب على عقار و أن الثمن قد جرى تحديده على هذا الأساس وطالبت دون وجه حق باستبعاد مساحة موقف السيارات من المبيع رغم النص على أنها من مشتملات البيع ، وكأن تلك المساحة البالغة 148 قدم مربع يجب أن تمنح بالمجان وذلك بعيداً عن أي منطق قانوني سليم وفي مخالفة لإرادة المتعاقدين حيث نص البند رقم 2-1 من الاتفاقية بأنه يوافق البائع على أن يبيع المشتري والذي يوافق على شراء العقار بالأحكام والشروط المنصوص عليها في هذه الاتفاقية وهذا دليل على أن البيع لم يكن منصباً على وحدة عقارية فقط .

في الرد على الوجه الثاني من السبب الأول للطعن :
1- تنعى الجهة الطاعنة على الحكم المطعون فيه في الوجه الثاني من السبب الأول للطعن بأنه قد صدر متناقضاً مخالفاً للثابت بالأوراق مشوباً بالفساد في الاستدلال والقصور في التسبيب تأسيساً على أن الحكم المطعون فيه وبعد أن اطمئن لنتيجة التقرير خالف ذلك التقرير وأسس قضائه على أن ( المرافق العامة ) مواقف السيارات تعد من المساحات المشتركة رغم أن الخبير نفسه قد اعتبر أن هذه المرافق مستقلة عن مساحة الوحدة .

2- وفي الواقع فإن هذا النعي غير صحيح حيث لا يوجد أي تناقض ومن المعلوم أن (المرافق العامة ) مواقف السيارات تعد من المساحات المشتركة ورأي الخبير لا يوجد فيه ما يخالف ما قررته المحكمة وأنه في كل الأحوال فإن للمحكمة أن تأخذ من

النتائج (الإنجليزية) 1:

22 November 2016The Court of Cassation in DubaiFile aResponding to a newspaper appeal number 146/2016 TTCFrom:1) investment holding construction company (LLC) is appealed against it first.2) Sharjah real estate construction company (LLC) is appealed against her second.3) Ahmed Sulaiman Abdul Aziz Al Rajhi in his personal capacity and as a first resumed partners. Contested against third Agency lawyers Mohammed misthi and Ali Hussein main Against: 1) Igor banshinko-Ukrainian nationality first appellant 2) Irina Korushka-Ukrainian second contesting The lawyer Mr Yusuf Mohamed seaDefence:Contested against clings from previous defensive notes and documents to the Court of appeal, show justice court that the grounds of appeal by the appellant from the impugned rule violation of law and shortcomings in causation and corruption in the inference and the defence and breach hard foul papers was unfounded, since that judgment was issued in accordance with law and grounds of appeal were based on hard facts and misrepresentation breach the sheets where the older side adopted in appeal on misinformation, and rebuttal to the Fallacies in response to the grounds of appeal, we summarize our defense according to the following: 1. invalidity grounds of appeal:In reply to the first side of the first ground of appeal: 1. mourns the contesting the contested judgement on the first side of the first reason to dispute that has dogged released breaking the law firm based on papers that explain the terms of the sale and purchase of jurisdiction alone, and that it was not for the expertise that size contained in the sales agreement are net plus common area space, and it seems that the older didn't undo the contested judgement which ensure the projected response to this appeal. 2. show the Justice of the Court of appeal why not on any basis of fact and contrary to truth and justice, where gymnastics is recognized the contesting list challenge she had objected that the outcome of any appeals court experience that it was open to the Court of her right to interpret the Convention to determine the common will of the contractors.3. the Court of appeal addressed the contested judgment and authority to interpret conventions to landing space statement contained in the Convention, as reflected in the rationale: "firm sale and purchase agreement dated 7-5-2007 the appellant against adversity with the first real estate unit reservation resumed with 1.517.50 square feet of space and tariff item included in the Convention to property means the unit plus a percentage in common space from the drug as common joint property share those parts of a piece of land and buildings ( Except for parking) and that are not part of the units that will contract had left to joint ownership restricted to parking lots and they are part of the unit space sold by market share.4. in another of the judge stated: "it was evident from the report of the expert assigned by the Court, which he has proven secure in his reality studied the blueprint module replace faltering 902 number issued by the land Department on 10-10-2010 the unit area is 1324 SQFT (parking) 148 square feet, then the foregoing the Court concludes that the unit space plus share in the common space is 1472 square feet and put up that area of space. Contained in the contract of 1.517.50 square feet unit space shortage is $45, 50 square feet, equivalent to 3% that is allowable only for lack of agreed in item 9/2 of the contract to the appellant may not against them-buyers-pursuant to the above item agreed statement considering that the contract is the law of the seller's claim for contractors to reduce the price because of that shortfall. "5. who were contesting in this reason of appeal on their own interpretations and misinterpretations of the Convention merits, where bad faith shrugged to sale on property and the price has been determined on this basis and wrongfully demanded the exclusion of parking space sale despite the text inclusions of sale, was the area of 148 square feet should be given away for free so far from any proper legal logic and contrary to the will of contractors where text Item # 2 (1) of the Convention that the seller agrees to sell and the buyer agrees to buy the property by the terms and conditions set forth in this agreement and this is proof that the sale was not focused on the real estate unit only.In reply to the second side of the first ground of appeal:1. mourns the contesting the contested judgement on the second side of the first ground of appeal that it had issued contradictory contrary to its hard leaves uncertain corruption in inference based on causation and deficiencies in the contested judgement and after checking the report result that report and bucking foundations spend that (public utilities) parking is common spaces although the expert considered that these facilities are independent of the unit area.2. in fact, this obituary incorrectly so that there is no contradiction is known (public utilities) parking are common areas where no expert opinion contrary to the decision of the Court and that in each case, the Court should take

النتائج (الإنجليزية) 2:

November 22, 2016 the

Court of Cassation in Dubai
reply memorandum to
respond to the newspaper , real estate appeal No. 146/2016


Submitted by:
1) Tameer Holding Investment Company (LLC) appealed against the first
2) reconstruction of the Sharjah Real Estate Company (LLC) appealed against it second
3) Ahmed Suleiman Abdul Aziz Al - Rajhi in his personal capacity and as a partner in the first resumed. Respondent third
agency lawyers / Mohammad Rashid Al Suwaidi, Ali Hussein main
against:
1) Igor Pan_inko - Ukrainian citizenship appellant first
two) Irina Kouroska - Ukrainian citizenship and wounded the second
agency Lawyer / Yusuf Mohamed sea
defense:
sticking challenged them to previously submitted defensive diary the documents before the Court of appeal, and demonstrate to the justice court that the grounds of appeal cited by the appellant of the offense impugned law and palaces Balzbeb and corruption in the inferred and prejudice to the right of defense and violation of the securities firm is not unfounded, since that judgment was in agreement of the assets and the law ruling came reasons appeal based on a distortion of the facts and violation of the securities firm where the contesting adopted in the list of the appeal on misinformation intended, so the rebuttal to the stated fallacies and in response to the grounds of appeal , we summarize our defense, as follows:


I. invalidity grounds of appeal:
in response to the first face of reason the first appeal:
1. mourns the contesting the contested provision in the first face of the first reason to challenge that has been issued tainted by breaking the law and the securities firm on the ground that the interpretation of the terms of sale agreement and the purchase of the competence of the judiciary alone, and it is not for the expertise that concluded that the space contained in the sale agreement is the net area plus common area, and it seems that the contesting not drop the impugned judgment of it, which ensures respond projected for this reason the appeal.

2. demonstrate to the fairness of the trial that this is the cause of the appeal is not based on any basis of fact and contrary to the truth and is affront to justice, where the contesting approved the Regulation of appeal it had objected to the finding of the experience before the Court of appeal means that it was lying on her right to interpret the agreement the court to find out the common will of the contractors.

3. the engaged Court of appeal in its judgment impugned and with its authority in the interpretation of the agreements to the statement of the intended area Aloradh in the Convention, as reported in the reasoning as follows: "hard from the sale and purchase agreement dated 07/05/2007 that the appellant against them a contract with the first resumed on the reserve and real estate unit area of 1.517. 50 sq . ft . the tariff item to the Convention to ensure that the drug means the unit as well as the percentage change in the common area of the property by the common share and that the joint ownership of those parts of the land and buildings (except for parking), which does not form part of the units to the effect that the will of the parties to the contract may I turned to the co - ownership is limited to parking lots and they are part of the unit sold space on its stake. "

4. in another part of the provision is as follows:" the manifest of the report of the expert director of the court and who assured him that he has proved in his report from the reality briefed on the unit scheme replaces crumbling No. 902 issued by the land and property department dated 10-10-2010 that the area of the unit is 1324 square feet and (PARKING) 148 square feet, and then the Court concludes from the foregoing that the unit to the space added to it share space common is 1472 square feet and asking that same area of space contained in the contract and the amount of 1.517.50 square feet will be shortages in the unit area of $ 45.50 square feet, equivalent to 3% of any shortfall that did not exceed the allowable percentage agreed in item 9/2 of contract , including not permissible for the appellant against them - Almstraean - realized what was agreed upon item stated above , given that the contract in this regard is the contracting law required the seller to reduce the price because of that shortage. "

5. it was based on the contesting this reason it is challenged on its own and partial explanations the Convention merits of the case, which ignored the bad faith that the sale is on the drug and that the price had been determined on this basis and called for unlawfully excluding the car park of the sales area , despite the text as one of the inclusions sales, as if that space amounting to 148 square feet must granted free of charge and so far from any sound legal logic and in violation of the will of the contractors where the text of the item No. 2-1 of the Convention as a seller agrees to sell the buyer who agrees to buy the property on such terms and conditions set forth in this agreement and this is evidence that the sale was not focused on the real estate unit only.

in response to the second face of the first reason for appeal:
1. mourns the contesting the contested provision in the second face of the first reason to challenge that has been issued contradictory contrary to fixed securities tainted by corruption in the inferred and deficiencies in the causation on the ground that the impugned judgment Having reassured by the outcome of the report otherwise report and foundations spend that (public utilities) parking is one of the common areas even though the expert himself had considered that these facilities independent of the area of the unit.

2. In fact, this obituary is true where there is no contradiction it is understood that (public utilities) parking is one of the common areas and the expert opinion contains nothing which is contrary to the decision of the court and that in any case, the court may take the

النتائج (الإنجليزية) 3:

November 22, 2016The court of cassation in DXBA replyResponding to newspaper appeal No. 146 / 2016 of the land.Submitted by:1) the reconstruction of holding investment company (L M) appealed against it, first2) the reconstruction of Ajman real estate company (L M) appealed against it, second3) Ahmed Sulaiman Abdul Aziz al Rajhi resumed in his personal capacity and as a partner in first. Except him, thirdWith the bar / Mohammed Rashid al Suwaidi, Ali HusseinDd:1) Igor Banshynkw. Ukrainian nationality aged first2) Irina Kwrwshka ageing. The Ukrainian citizenship in secondProf / Youssef Mohamed's lawyer.Aldfa:Raise challenged them with previously provided defensive notes and documents to the court of appeal, and show the fairness of the court that the grounds of appeal from the appellant of the challenged rule violation the law and Baltsbyb corruption in inference and the inalienable right of defense, and the cards are not a basis in truth, as this rule was issued in accordance with the principles and law the grounds of appeal were based on the distortion of the facts, and fixed by adopting The ageing challenge regulations intended to mislead, so as to Wtfnydaan distortions when we sum up our grounds of appeal, as follows:The validity of the grounds of appeal.In response to the first face of the first ground of appeal.1. Mourns the ageing ruling challenged in the face of first of the first ground of appeal that was Mshwbaan breaking the law and securities based on interpretation the terms of the sale and purchase of the sole jurisdiction, and that the expertise of the area included in the sale are net area plus the common space area, it appears that the ageing response had not been contested judgement included projected The reason of the appeal.2. To show the fairness of the court that this ground of appeal is without basis in fact and truth and justice Tjnyaan, adopting the ageing by the appeal it had objected to that experience before the appeals court's finding that it was open to the court the right to interpret the Convention. To find out the common will to contractors.3. The court of appeal was addressed by the judgment of the contested and its authority in the interpretation of conventions to indicate the intended area contained in the Convention, as set out in findings: "constant of the sale and purchase agreement dated 7-5-2007 to brief them on first resumed engagements with the reservation of property units, with 1.517.50 square feet it convention to ensure tariff item property means the unit plus a combined area of real estate by class. Lmshtrkt and joint ownership of portions of the land and buildings (except for the parking lots) which are not part of the units to the effect that the will of the contract parties have during the joint ownership limited to car parks and is part of the unit sold, according to its size. "4. In another part of the judgment stated: "it was evident from the report of the director of the court which assures him he has