Considering the case, the Kaliningrad Regional Tribunal indicated that in violation of Art. 100 40 eight Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, providing for the clarification of factual events that are important for the correct resolution of the case, and the presentation of the necessary evidence by the parties at the stage of preparing the case for trial, the trial court did not demand evidence from L. confirming the conclusion of the storage contract and did not offer the defendant submit your evidence. With all this, blaming the defendant for the damage caused as a result of improper storage conditions is impossible without proving the fact of transferring the car to him under the storage agreement concluded between the parties, the court emphasized.

According to the generally accepted rule, a storage agreement is concluded in simple written form (Clause One, Art. Eight hundred eighty seven of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). The requirements to which storage agreements should correspond specifically to the vehicle are specified in the Rules for the provision of parking services (approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of November 17, two thousand and one, No. 795). So, it is supposed that the contract, which is made in two copies, of the data of the contractor and the consumer of the service, also the parking lot employee who concludes it, information on the vehicle being handed over for storage (brand, model, state registration mark, price determined by agreement of the parties), date of conclusion of the contract and the storage period of the car (motorcycle, scooter), the price of the service (paragraph ten of these rules).