A Sochi resident claimed his rights were violated in a case in which a land deal was declared illegal.

THIS MATERIAL (INFORMATION) WAS PRODUCED AND DISTRIBUTED BY FOREIGN AGENT MEMO LLC, OR CONCERNING THE ACTIVITIES OF FOREIGN AGENT MEMO LLC.

Bryansk Oblast resident Nina Kuznetsova, who demanded the seizure of her neighbor Alexander Batalin's land in the Sochi SNT Kommunalnik, has filed a cassation appeal. Batalin stated that he had repeatedly appealed for an appellate court ruling, but it was denied, while the plaintiff received one.

As reported by "Kavkazsky Uzel," Bryansk Oblast resident Nina Kuznetsova purchased a plot of land in the Sochi gardening association "Kommunalnik" and filed a lawsuit against her neighbor, demanding that an access road be built through his land. The plaintiff, Alexander Batalin, stated that there was never any access to the plot purchased by the neighbor. The court revoked Kuznetsova's rights to the plot of land in the Sochi gardening association "Kommunalnik" because the land was sold under a power of attorney from the deceased owner. Kuznetsova appealed the decision. The appellate court upheld the seizure of the plot from Kuznetsova.

Nina Kuznetsova, the plaintiff in the case over a disputed land plot in Sochi, filed a cassation appeal. On February 14, the defendant, a resident of the Kommunalnik gardening association, Alexander Batalin, received a copy of the appeal by mail. He told a "Caucasian Knot" correspondent that he had been denied documents from the case until today.

The cassation appeal was filed by Kuznetsova's representative, Sochi lawyer Andrei Dubovsky. The appeal challenges the courts' findings regarding the legality of ownership of the land plot and the evaluation of evidence, and raises questions about significant violations of substantive and procedural law.

Batalin, who has a legal education, stated that he sees in the text of the appeal a "substitution of legal assessments for factual circumstances." "In essence, the cassation appeal repeats the arguments of the appellate court and the first instance. Kuznetsova's representative again insists on a different interpretation of the evidence, but the cassation court does not re-evaluate the facts, but rather verifies the correct application of the law. "This is an attempt to present disagreement with the court's findings as a violation of the law," he said, adding that the plaintiff is abusing her rights.

According to him, the complaint emphasizes "an incomplete examination of the evidence," however, as Batalin asserts, "all documents were subject to review, and the party's arguments received a reasoned assessment."

Batalin particularly pointed out procedural issues related to the timing of the preparation of the appellate ruling and the filing of the cassation appeal. According to him, he received the appellate decision of November 2025 only on February 13, although he repeatedly requested its issuance, first to the regional court, and after its refusal, to the Khostinsky District Court. At the regional court, he was told that the case had been sent to the Khostinsky Court, and the Khostinsky Court stated until February 13 that the case had not yet arrived.

Batalin is surprised that Kuznetsova managed not only to obtain an appeal but also to write and file a cassation appeal while he was searching for the court's verdict. "Judging by the dates, for some reason Kuznetsova was immediately given the regional court's decision, while my receipt was constantly delayed. And the appellate ruling itself was only published two months later, on February 11," he noted.

"I see a violation of my procedural rights in the court's actions. I was not sent a copy of the appellate ruling in a timely manner, despite a written request. In December, I submitted a written request for a copy. The judge's office promised to send it before the New Year, but this was not done. Today I received Kuznetsova's cassation appeal, and yesterday, the appellate ruling. In other words, I was kept in the dark about the case for two months," Batalin stated.

Independent lawyer Ivan Kostenko confirmed to a "Caucasian Knot" correspondent that courts often "play ping-pong" with litigants, sending them from court to court in search of judicial decisions. However, they fail to publish these judicial decisions in a timely manner, or fail to publish them at all, which is, of course, a violation.

In this case, the defendant must file an objection to the plaintiff's cassation appeal, stating not only their position on the merits of the case but also noting that, by failing to receive the court's ruling in a timely manner, the defendant was deprived of the opportunity to review the case documents for two months, unaware of their whereabouts. This raises questions about how the plaintiff managed to obtain everything necessary to file a cassation appeal.

"Kuznetsova's cassation appeal has been received, but the case has not yet been scheduled," the duty officer at the Krasnodar Regional Court told a "Caucasian Knot" correspondent.