The tenancy contract between “Central House” SRL and “Central Group” SRL is perfectly valid and produces legal effects. The agreement was concluded with the consent of all the associates, based on minutes of the General Assembly of the Associates of “Central House”, said lawyer Raisa Morozan, who represents the interests of Vitalie Perciun, founder of “Central House” and founder and administrator of
“Central Group”.
In a news conference at IPN, the lawyer said the contract to lease out commercial areas does not affect anyone, while the relevant taxes are paid to the state. This contract is a legal method of protecting the business of Vitalie Perciun if the activity of “Central House” is blocked and the company is taken under control by third parties.
“The insolvency administrator of “Central House” Veaceslav Timotin cannot annul this contract because “Central Group” fulfilled its duties and paid the rental in full amount and even made a payment in advance. Veaceslav Timotin’s notification of the termination of the contract is contrary to the general law principles concerning the safety of contractual legal relations and to the characteristics of ownership and use guaranteed by Article 1, Protocol 1 of the ECHR,” stated Raisa Morozan.
According to the lawyer, the invoked Insolvency Law norm is actually irrelevant in the given situation. The insolvency administrator has the right to sequestrate the debtor assets only if they are in the illegal ownership of third parties. But this is not the case. “Central Group” uses the areas based on a legal and valid lease. Only the court of arbitration can pronounce on the validity and termination of this contract.
The fact that the alleged defenders of “Central House” distort the reality is the invoking of point 4.4, letter l of the lease, namely the termination of the contract earlier and the freeing of the areas by “Central Group” during ten days. This clause is not fully enunciated. More exactly, “Central Group” is obliged to free the areas during ten days only after the one that terminates the contract pays contractual penalties and damages. “We note that Veaceslav Timotin does not have any right to order the freeing of areas as neither the contract nor the law allows him to do this. Moreover, he causes damage if at least €4 380 000 to “Central House” by the early termination of the contract. How do the alleged defenders of “Central House” defend the interests of “Central House” this way,” asked Raisa Morozan.
She also referred to the arbitral judgment that the alleged defenders doubt. According to the lawyer, insurance measures, like the suspension of the notification of termination and freeing ordinance, were ordered by that judgment the day the application was submitted. “There is nothing unordinary here as the courts of law pronounce the same day on the application to introduce insurance measures. Moreover, the arbitration method was stipulated by lawyers as an accelerated procedure,” said Raisa Morozan, noting there is no reason to present this judgment as illegal.
