Marina Melikhova appealed the lifting of the ban on the registration of property sold during bankruptcy.
Krasnodar activist Marina Melikhova appealed the decision of the arbitration court to lift restrictions on part of her property, sold as part of the bankruptcy procedure. The lawyer noted that the court exceeded its authority by allowing the lifting of restrictions on Melikhova's property, despite existing prohibitions from Rosfinmonitoring, which the court cannot cancel in bankruptcy cases.
As reported by "Caucasian Knot", on April 4, it became known that the public organization "Era of Aquarius", led by activist Marina Melikhova, planned to hold an interfaith conference in Krasnodar, for which more than a hundred people from different regions of Russia applied to participate, but the security forces disrupted its holding.
On February 7, 2025, activist Marina Melikhova complained in a video appeal about the demand from a government representative to evict her and her children from their home in the village of Yablonovsky. She called for people to come and help her protest against the eviction. On February 10, about 20 people gathered near Melikhova's house to support her protest against the eviction. The bailiff they were waiting for did not come. On February 10, Melikhova reported that the development center she opened in Krasnodar was seized by the security forces. The bailiffs stated that her house was being used as a hostel.
Today, Marina Melikhova filed an appeal against the ruling of the Arbitration Court of Krasnodar Krai dated September 7, 2026, which canceled the records of prohibitions on registration actions regarding part of her property. In the appeal, she demanded the cancellation of the first-instance court's ruling (copies of the ruling and the appeal are available to "Caucasian Knot").
After Marina Melikhova was included in the Rosfinmonitoring list, the Rosreestr prohibited registration actions and transactions with her property. At the same time, the bankruptcy procedure against her continued, Melikhova reported.
"Inclusion in the register of terrorists and extremists means a complete defeat of my civil rights: Rosreestr, based on notifications from Rosfinmonitoring, imposed a strict ban on any registration actions and transactions with my property. At the same time, bankruptcy proceedings were ongoing against me in the arbitration court, case No. A32-31361/2018. The creditors' claims against me reached an astronomical amount – over 164.2 million rubles, of which 162.1 million rubles is the debt to the authorized body – the Federal Tax Service of Russia No. 1 for Krasnodar," Melikhova told a correspondent of "Caucasian Knot".
By its ruling of September 7, the court satisfied the claims of Irina Piletskaya, Angela Khizetel, and Natalia Isaeva to cancel the records of prohibitions on registration actions regarding three properties, Melikhova indicated in her complaint. These include a land plot of 473 square meters and a non-residential building of 53.1 square meters in the Takhtamukay district of Adygea, purchased by Piletskaya for 2.88 million rubles, a land plot of 1998 square meters in the Seversky district of Krasnodar Krai, purchased by Isaev for 1.1 million rubles, and a plot of 5037 square meters in the village of Enem, purchased by Khizetel for 3.5 million rubles.
"The first-instance court did not take into account the imperative nature of the prohibitions established by Federal Law No. 115-FZ <...> The law does not link the application of freezing measures to who exactly disposes of the property – the owner or his representative. Satisfying the application creates a precedent that allows circumventing restrictions <...> which contradicts public interests," Melikhova indicated in her appeal.
The court's decision created a legal contradiction between the existing restrictions of Rosfinmonitoring and the realization of property within the framework of bankruptcy, noted lawyer Elena Pavlova.
"We are facing a paradoxical situation: the commercial court allowed the transfer of property, previously blocked by the state under the law on countering extremism and terrorism. This resembles a conflict between two state structures with a blatant disregard for the laws issued by the state, in the name of which the court makes decisions," the lawyer told a correspondent of "Caucasian Knot".
The materials of the arbitration case reveal a deep legal contradiction: the judicial system has entered into direct conflict with the relevant agencies for the sake of a quicker sale of property, believes Pavlova.
The first-instance court considered the issue without the participation of Melikhova and her representative, failing to ensure the consideration of the property owner's position. The arbitration court does not have the authority to cancel public law prohibitions of Rosfinmonitoring within the framework of bankruptcy proceedings, the lawyer continued.
"The court exceeded its competencies and acted arbitrarily regarding Federal Law No. 115-FZ, which in this case is a public law act of the highest priority aimed at protecting public order and state security. There is no provision in Russian legislation allowing the arbitration court to cancel public law prohibitions and arrests imposed by Rosfinmonitoring within the framework of bankruptcy proceedings. The arbitration court has effectively appropriated the powers of the executive authority," Pavlova indicated.
The resulting conflict creates risks for property buyers, the lawyer noted.
"The attempt to circumvent Rosfinmonitoring through an arbitration ruling creates void transactions. If the ruling is canceled in the 15th Arbitration Appeal Court, their rights registration will be annulled, and the funds will be blocked in the bankruptcy estate," she said.
Melikhova should seek the cancellation of the ruling of September 7, the involvement of the human rights commissioner in the case, and the resolution of the conflict between bankruptcy legislation and the requirements of Law No. 115-FZ, noted Pavlova.
Rosfinmonitoring opposed the lifting of restrictions and informed the court that the prohibitions under Law No. 115-FZ are imperative, and there are no grounds for their removal, as Melikhova remains on the relevant list. The financial manager Dergachev, on the contrary, supported the lifting of restrictions, according to the case materials.
Rosfinmonitoring's ban "effectively blocks the manager's powers to realize property and execute court acts on the sale of the debtor's property, which contradicts the goals of the property realization procedure," Dergachev indicated in his response to the application.
The representative of the buyers Ardakova insisted on lifting the restrictions, stating that the sale of the property is under the control of the arbitration court within the framework of bankruptcy. The court agreed with the arguments of the buyers and the financial manager, considering the norms of bankruptcy law to be priority in forming the bankruptcy estate and stating that the property is being sold in the interests of creditors under the court's control.