The Presnensky District Court of Moscow dismissed a lawsuit filed by a property owner in the IQ Quarter who challenged the decision of the owners’ meeting to fund repairs to the facade following drone crashes. TASS reported this on October 27, 2026; the agency’s article was published on Mail, and a summary of it appeared on Newsroom24.
The dispute concerns Tower No. 3 in the IQ Quarter complex. According to the agency, businessman Sergey Golygin objected to the additional expenses for restoring the common property. The court denied the claims in their entirety.
The damage was caused by drones crashing on July 30 and August 1, 2023. The owners’ meeting approved funding for the repair of Tower No. 3’s facade using additional funds contributed by the owners of units in that specific tower.
The text of Case No. 2-5973/2025, published in the “SudAkt” database, provides further details on the dispute regarding this allocation. The plaintiff objected to the fact that the costs were assigned to a single tower rather than to all owners of the complex. The document distinguishes between the restoration of Tower No. 3’s facade and the repair of the roof of the common terminal section: for the latter, all owners of the IQ Quarter are required to contribute.
The special assessment for the facade was calculated per square meter of the premises owned by each owner. The specific rate and the maximum cost of the work are replaced by the word “amount” in the published text. Therefore, it is not possible to specify the payment amount per owner based on this document.
Who Should Pay for the Damaged Facade
As the court pointed out
The court ruling classified the facade as common property. In determining the allocation of expenses, it was taken into account that the restoration of Tower No. 2, which sustained more damage, had already been paid for by the Federal State Institution “Support Center.” The owners of Tower No. 3 were exempted from these costs.
The court also cited the specific nature of the property’s use and the value of the premises, which implies higher maintenance costs. However, it would be inaccurate to attribute the reasoning solely to the high cost of the real estate: the document also addresses the specific procedure for dividing costs among the various parts of the complex.
What is known about the date and the future of the case
October 27 is the date of the media report, not the confirmed date of the ruling. A court ruling found on a similar matter dates back to 2025; however, the dates in its heading and text differ. It provides for an appeal, but we were unable to confirm the current status of the appeal or when the ruling will take effect.
Recent publications also do not indicate whether the facade renovation has been completed. It is not possible to draw conclusions about the building’s current condition based on them.
