-72204(75) On August 18, 2003, the Municipality of Lima lodged an appeal against the judgment of June 30, 2003123 (supra para. 204(74). On June 9, 2005, the Sexta Sala Civil (Sixth Civil Chamber) of the Corte Superior de Justicia de Lima (Supreme Court of Justice of Lima) affirmed the appealed judgment. The court grounded its decision on the fact that in the complaint to annul judgment “there is no indication of the conduct, whether by act or omission, unilateral or collusive, by the parties to the lawsuit, by third parties, by the judge or by court assistants which involve harmful disregard of the proceeding, in whole or in part; in other words, there is no description of the alleged fraud or collusion.”124 F) REGARDING THE PREMISES OF THE UNION HEADQUARTERS 204(76) By means of Resolution No. 905 of October 16, 1980, the Municipality of Lima transferred the use, temporarily and for no consideration, of the property located at Jirón Lampa No. 170, to the SITRAMUN-LIMA and the FETRAMUN. It was established that they were to return said property when the Consejo Provincial de Lima (Provincial Council of Lima) so required to carry out works of public interest, and that they would be relocated to any other municipal property. 125 204(77) A Direct Deal Memorandum or Collective Bargaining Agreement was signed on December 13, 1988, whereby the Municipalidad Metropolitana de Lima (Metropolitan Municipality of Lima) agreed, in Article 19, “to adopt the necessary measures to have the SITRAMUN-LIMA headquarters, located at Jirón Lampa No. 170, ground floor and upper stories, […] transferred by gift.126 204(78) On November 26, 1996, Agreement-in-Council No. 129 was executed and published on January 2, 1997, whereby it was established that all transfers of use of property owned by the Municipalidad Metropolitana de Lima (Metropolitan Municipality of Lima) were to be terminated.127 204(79) The Empresa Municipal Inmobiliaria de Lima S.A –EMILIMA-, responsible for the management of Municipality-owned real estate, instituted eviction proceedings against the SITRAMUN-Lima. By means of Judgment of March 19, 1998, the Corte Superior de Justicia de Lima (Supreme Court of Justice of Lima) upheld the complaint on the grounds that “even though the plaintiff undertook to adopt all necessary measures to transfer the property by gift to the defendant union, pursuant to the 123 Cf. Appeal lodged by the Municipalidad de Lima (Municipality of Lima) on August 18, 2003 (file of preliminary objections and merits, reparations and costs, Volume VIII, folio 2512). 124 Cf. Judgment rendered by the Sixth Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of Lima on June 9, 2005 (file of appendixes to the submission of comments by the common intervener submitted on January 4, 2006, Appendix 3(23), folio 6934). 125 Cf. Lima Mayoral Resolution No. 905 of October 16, 1980 (submission by the Attorney General of the Metropolitan Municipalidad de Lima (Municipality of Lima) on its behalf on August 12, 2005, appendix 5, folio 5348). 126 Cf. Memorandum of Agreement of December 13, 1988 (file of appendixes to the application, appendix 37, folio 1816). 127 Cf. Judgment rendered by the Supreme Court of Justice of Lima on March 19, 1998 (submission by the Attorney General of the Metropolitan Municipalidad de Lima (Municipality of Lima) on its behalf on August 12, 2005, appendix 5, folio 5349).