When carrying out state construction supervision activities, officials of the Regional Service for State Construction Supervision of the Rostov Region may identify violations during construction and reconstruction, for which administrative liability is provided for in accordance with the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation).

In accordance with Article 2.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, an administrative offense is recognized as an unlawful, guilty action (inaction) of an individual or legal entity for which administrative liability is established by the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation or the laws of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation on administrative offenses.

A legal entity is found guilty of committing an administrative offense if it is established that it had the opportunity to comply with the rules and norms for violation of which the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation or the laws of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation provides for administrative liability, but this person did not take all measures depending on it compliance.

The imposition of an administrative penalty on a legal entity does not relieve a guilty individual from administrative liability for this offense, just as bringing an individual to administrative or criminal liability does not exempt an individual from administrative liability for this offense. entity.

Administrative violation protocols are drawn up against the guilty persons. In accordance with Article 28.5 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, a protocol on an administrative offense is drawn up immediately after the discovery of an administrative offense. The protocol on an administrative offense is a document initiating a case of an administrative offense.

An individual or a legal representative of a legal entity against whom a case of an administrative offense has been initiated must be given the opportunity to familiarize themselves with the protocol on the administrative offense. These persons have the right to submit explanations and comments on the contents of the protocol, which are attached to the protocol.

In preparation for the consideration of a case of an administrative offense, a determination is made to set the time and place for the consideration of the case of an administrative offense.

At the appointed time, the head or his deputies consider the materials of the case of an administrative offense.

Based on the results of consideration of a case of an administrative offense, a decision may be made:

1. - on the imposition of administrative punishment;
2. - on termination of proceedings in the case of an administrative offense.

The decision on the case of an administrative offense is announced immediately upon completion of the consideration of the case.

In cases of refusal to sign or receive materials from a case of administrative offenses, these materials are sent to the violators by mail with acknowledgment of delivery.

In accordance with current legislation, persons who refuse to sign (or receive) drawn up documents are not exempt from administrative liability.

The case of an administrative offense is considered with the participation of the person against whom the proceedings for the administrative offense are being conducted.

In the absence of the specified person, the case can be considered only in the cases provided for in Part 3 of Article 28.6 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, or if there is evidence of proper notification of the person about the place and time of the consideration of the case and if the person has not received a petition to postpone the consideration of the case or if such a petition has been abandoned without satisfaction.

If the consideration of a case regarding an administrative offense is postponed due to the failure to appear without good reason of the persons specified in Part 1 of Article 27.15 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, and their absence prevents a comprehensive, complete, objective and timely clarification of the circumstances of the case and its resolution in accordance with the law, The official considering the case makes a determination to bring the specified persons.

The arrest is carried out by the internal affairs body on the basis of a determination by the official considering the case of an administrative offense, in the manner established by the federal executive body in the field of internal affairs.

Administrative liability for offenses in the field of construction is determined by the following articles of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation:

Article 9.4. Violation of mandatory requirements in the field of construction and use building materials(products).

Part 1. Violation of the requirements of technical regulations, project documentation, mandatory requirements of documents in the field of standardization or requirements of special technical conditions, or violation of the mandatory requirements for buildings and structures established by the authorized federal executive body before the entry into force of technical regulations during the design, construction, reconstruction or major repairs of facilities capital construction, including when using construction materials (products), -

entails a warning or the imposition of an administrative fine on citizens in the amount of one thousand to two thousand rubles; for officials - from twenty thousand to thirty thousand rubles; for legal entities - from one hundred thousand to three hundred thousand rubles.

Part 2. Actions provided for in Part 1 of this article, which entailed a deviation from the design values ​​of the parameters of buildings and structures, affect the structural and other characteristics of the reliability and safety of capital construction projects and (or) their parts or the safety of building structures, sections of engineering and technical networks security, or which resulted in harm to the life or health of citizens, the property of individuals or legal entities, state or municipal property, the environment, the life or health of animals and plants, or which created a threat of harm to the life or health of citizens, the environment, life or health animals and plants, -

entail the imposition of an administrative fine on citizens in the amount of two thousand to four thousand rubles; for officials - from thirty thousand to thirty-five thousand rubles; for persons carrying out entrepreneurial activities without forming a legal entity - from thirty-five thousand to forty thousand rubles or administrative suspension of activities for a period of up to sixty days; for legal entities - from three hundred thousand to six hundred thousand rubles or administrative suspension of activities for a period of up to sixty days.

Part 3. Repeated commission of an administrative offense provided for in Part 2 of this article -

entails the imposition of an administrative fine on citizens in the amount of four thousand to five thousand rubles; for officials - from thirty-five thousand to forty-five thousand rubles; for persons carrying out entrepreneurial activities without forming a legal entity - from forty thousand to fifty thousand rubles or administrative suspension of activities for a period of up to ninety days; for legal entities - from seven hundred thousand to one million rubles or administrative suspension of activities for a period of up to ninety days.

Article 9.5. Violation of the established procedure for the construction, reconstruction, overhaul of a capital construction project, or its commissioning.

Part 1. Construction, reconstruction of capital construction projects without a construction permit, if construction or reconstruction of capital construction projects requires obtaining construction permits, -

entail the imposition of an administrative fine on citizens in the amount of two thousand to five thousand rubles; for officials - from twenty thousand to fifty thousand rubles; for persons carrying out entrepreneurial activities without forming a legal entity - from twenty thousand to fifty thousand rubles or administrative suspension of their activities for a period of up to ninety days; for legal entities - from five hundred thousand to one million rubles or administrative suspension of their activities for a period of up to ninety days.

Part 2. Violation of the deadlines for sending to the federal executive body authorized to carry out state construction supervision, the executive body of the constituent entity of the Russian Federation a notice of the start of construction, reconstruction of capital construction projects or failure to notify those authorized to carry out state construction supervision federal body executive power, executive power body of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation on the timing of completion of work that is subject to inspection -

entails the imposition of an administrative fine on citizens in the amount of five hundred to one thousand rubles; for officials - from ten thousand to thirty thousand rubles; for persons carrying out entrepreneurial activities without forming a legal entity - from ten thousand to forty thousand rubles; for legal entities - from one hundred thousand to three hundred thousand rubles.

Part 3. Continuation of work until reports are drawn up on the elimination of deficiencies identified by those authorized to carry out state construction supervision by the federal executive body, executive bodies of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation during the construction, reconstruction, and major repairs of capital construction projects -

entails the imposition of an administrative fine on citizens in the amount of two thousand to five thousand rubles; for officials - from ten thousand to thirty thousand rubles; for persons carrying out entrepreneurial activities without forming a legal entity - from ten thousand to forty thousand rubles or administrative suspension of their activities for a period of up to ninety days; for legal entities - from fifty thousand to one hundred thousand rubles or administrative suspension of their activities for a period of up to ninety days.

Part 4. Issuance of a permit to put an object into operation in the absence of conclusions of the federal executive body authorized to carry out state construction supervision, the executive body of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation in the event that during the construction or reconstruction of a capital construction project the legislation of the Russian Federation on urban planning activities provides for the implementation state construction supervision, -

shall entail the imposition of an administrative fine on officials in the amount of twenty thousand to fifty thousand rubles.

Part 5. Operation of a capital construction facility without permission to put it into operation, except for cases where the construction, reconstruction, and major repairs of capital construction projects do not require the issuance of a construction permit, -

entails the imposition of an administrative fine on citizens in the amount of two thousand to five thousand rubles; for officials - from twenty thousand to fifty thousand rubles; for legal entities - from five hundred thousand to one million rubles.

Article 9.5.1. Carrying out engineering surveys, preparing design documentation, construction, reconstruction, major renovation capital construction projects without a certificate of admission to the relevant types of work or in violation of the minimum necessary requirements for the issuance of certificates of admission to the relevant types of work.

Part 1. Execution of work on engineering surveys, for the preparation of design documentation for the construction, reconstruction, overhaul of capital construction projects that affect the safety of capital construction projects (hereinafter in this article - work that affects the safety of capital construction projects), without a certificate of admission to these types works, if such certificate is mandatory, -

shall entail the imposition of an administrative fine in the amount of forty thousand to fifty thousand rubles.

Part 2. Failure by a legal entity or individual entrepreneur, when performing work that affects the safety of capital construction projects, to comply with the minimum required requirements for issuing a certificate of admission to work that affects the safety of capital construction projects -

shall entail the imposition of an administrative fine in the amount of thirty thousand to forty thousand rubles.

Part 3. Repeated failure by a legal entity or individual entrepreneur, when performing work that affects the safety of capital construction projects, to comply with the minimum required requirements for issuing a certificate of admission to work that affects the safety of capital construction projects -

shall entail the imposition of an administrative fine in the amount of forty thousand to fifty thousand rubles or administrative suspension of activities for a period of up to ninety days.

Besides:

Article 19.5. Failure to comply on time with a legal order (resolution, presentation, decision) of the body (official) exercising state supervision (control), municipal control.

Part 6. Failure to comply within the prescribed period with a legal order of the federal executive body authorized to carry out state construction supervision, or executive bodies of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation -

shall entail the imposition of an administrative fine on citizens in the amount of one thousand five hundred to two thousand five hundred rubles; for officials - from five thousand to ten thousand rubles; for persons carrying out entrepreneurial activities without forming a legal entity - from five thousand to ten thousand rubles or administrative suspension of their activities for a period of up to ninety days; for legal entities - from fifty thousand to one hundred thousand rubles or administrative suspension of their activities for a period of up to ninety days.

Article 20.25. Evasion from execution of administrative punishment.

Part 1. Failure to pay an administrative fine within the period provided for by the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation -

shall entail the imposition of an administrative fine in the amount of twice the amount of the unpaid administrative fine, but not less than one thousand rubles, or administrative arrest for a term of up to fifteen days, or compulsory labor for a term of up to fifty hours.

Hello. There are three types of liability. civil, criminal and administrative.

According to Art. 751 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, when carrying out construction and related work, the contractor is obliged to comply with the requirements of the law and other legal acts on environmental protection and the safety of construction work. The contractor is responsible for violation of these requirements. In addition, he does not have the right to use materials and equipment provided by the customer during the work, or to follow his instructions, if this may lead to a violation of the requirements for environmental protection and safety of construction work that are mandatory for the parties. Unless it follows from the law or the contract The contractor is obliged to perform the work provided for in the contract personally; he has the right to involve other persons (subcontractors) in the performance of his obligations. In this case, the contractor acts as a general contractor (Article 706 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation).
In this case, the general contractor engaged a subcontractor who has SRO approval to perform the specified type of work to perform the work. The contract with him must contain a condition that the subcontractor, when performing work, comply with the requirements of the law and other legal acts, including safety regulations. The provision by the subcontractor of an order for engineering and technical workers responsible for labor protection and safety also confirms its acceptance of the responsibility provided for in the Code of Practice “Occupational Safety in Construction. Industry standard instructions on labor protection”, approved by Resolution of the State Construction Committee of Russia dated 01/08/2003 No. 2.
According to Art. 1084 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, harm caused to the life or health of a citizen during the performance of contractual obligations is compensated according to the rules of Ch. 59 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, unless a higher amount of liability is provided for by law or agreement. Article 1064 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation provides that harm caused to the person of a citizen is subject to compensation in full by the person who caused the harm... Criminal

Criminal Code of the Russian Federation Article 216. Violation of safety rules when conducting mining, construction or other work
1. Violation of safety rules when conducting mining, construction or other work, if this negligently resulted in the infliction of serious harm to human health or major damage - (as amended by Federal Law No. 162-FZ of December 8, 2003)

shall be punishable by a fine in the amount of up to eighty thousand rubles or in the amount wages or other income of the convicted person for a period of up to six months, or restriction of freedom for a term of up to three years, or forced labor for a term of up to three years with deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities for a term of up to three years or without it, or imprisonment for the same term with or without deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities for a period of up to three years.
(as amended by Federal Laws dated December 8, 2003 N 162-FZ, dated December 27, 2009 N 377-FZ, dated December 7, 2011 N 420-FZ)

(see text in the previous edition)

2. The same act that caused the death of a person through negligence - (as amended by Federal Law No. 162-FZ of December 8, 2003)

(see text in the previous edition)

shall be punishable by forced labor for a term of up to five years with deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities for a term of up to three years or without it, or imprisonment for a term of up to five years with deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities for a term of up to three years, or without one.
(as amended by Federal Law dated December 7, 2011 N 420-FZ)

(see text in the previous edition)

3. An act provided for in the first part of this article, resulting through negligence in the death of two or more persons, is punishable by forced labor for a term of up to five years with deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities for a term of up to three years or without it, or by imprisonment for up to five years. for a term of up to seven years with or without deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities for a period of up to three years.
(as amended by Federal Law dated December 7, 2011 N 420-FZ)

(see text in the previous edition)

(Part three introduced by Federal Law dated December 8, 2003 N 162-FZ)

Note. In the articles of this chapter, major damage is recognized as damage the amount of which exceeds five hundred thousand rubles.
(note introduced by Federal Law of December 8, 2003 N 162-FZ) Link Administrative

Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation Article 5.27.1. Violation of state regulatory requirements for labor protection contained in federal laws and other regulatory legal acts of the Russian Federation (introduced by Federal Law of December 28, 2013 N 421-FZ)

1. Violation of state regulatory requirements for labor protection contained in federal laws and other regulatory legal acts of the Russian Federation, with the exception of cases provided for in parts 2 of this article, shall entail a warning or the imposition of an administrative fine on officials in the amount of two thousand to five thousand rubles; for persons carrying out entrepreneurial activities without forming a legal entity - from two thousand to five thousand rubles; for legal entities - from fifty thousand to eighty thousand rubles. 2. Violation by an employer of the established procedure for conducting a special assessment of working conditions at workplaces or failure to conduct it - entails a warning or the imposition of an administrative fine on officials in the amount of five thousand to ten thousand rubles; for persons carrying out entrepreneurial activities without forming a legal entity - from five thousand to ten thousand rubles; for legal entities from sixty thousand to eighty thousand rubles. 3. Admission of an employee to perform job duties without undergoing training in the established order and testing knowledge of labor protection requirements, as well as mandatory preliminary (upon entry to work) and periodic (during employment) medical examinations, mandatory medical examinations at the beginning of the working day (shifts), mandatory psychiatric examinations or in the presence of medical contraindications - entails the imposition of an administrative fine on officials in the amount of fifteen thousand to twenty-five thousand rubles; for persons carrying out entrepreneurial activities without forming a legal entity - from fifteen thousand to twenty-five thousand rubles; for legal entities - from one hundred ten thousand to one hundred thirty thousand rubles. 4. Failure to provide workers with personal protective equipment - entails the imposition of an administrative fine on officials in the amount of twenty thousand to thirty thousand rubles; for persons carrying out entrepreneurial activities without forming a legal entity - from twenty thousand to thirty thousand rubles; for legal entities - from one hundred thirty thousand to one hundred fifty thousand rubles. 5. The commission of administrative offenses provided for in parts 1 of this article by a person who was previously subjected to administrative punishment for a similar administrative offense - entails the imposition of an administrative fine on officials in the amount of thirty thousand to forty thousand rubles or disqualification for a period of one to three years. years; for persons carrying out entrepreneurial activities without forming a legal entity - from thirty thousand to forty thousand rubles or administrative suspension of activities for a period of up to ninety days; for legal entities - from one hundred thousand to two hundred thousand rubles or administrative suspension of activities for a period of up to ninety days. Note. Personal protective equipment in Part 4 of this article should be understood as personal protective equipment classified by the technical regulations of the Customs Union “On the safety of personal protective equipment” to class 2, depending on the degree of risk of harm to the employee. Link http://www.consultant.ru/docum... I recommend writing a written complaint to the prosecutor's office with a request to investigate and take action. Good luck.

Advice from lawyers:

1. How to hold a developer accountable for violating SNiP?

1.1. You need to submit an application to the building supervision authority. The task of state construction supervision is to prevent, identify and suppress violations of the legislation on urban planning activities, including technical regulations, and project documentation committed by the developer, customer, as well as the person carrying out construction on the basis of an agreement with the developer or customer (hereinafter referred to as the contractor). paragraph 3 of the Regulations on the implementation of state construction supervision in the Russian Federation, approved by Resolution No. 54).

Did the answer help you? Not really

2. Situation: The neighbors made parking lots out of half the lawn, but did not make a sidewalk (there wasn’t one, the developer was bankrupt, so he saved money). Question: Should there be a sidewalk or not? Is it possible to be held accountable for violating SNiP, is it even possible to punish someone for the fact that there is no sidewalk in the yard, but only a parking lot, and pedestrians have nowhere to go?

2.1. First of all, you need to look at the plan, everything is indicated in detail where and what is located. it has been approved by the administration. After that, write to the prosecutor's office.

Did the answer help you? Not really

3. Is liability (fine) established for violation of SNiP 30-02-97 (1 meter from the boundary when constructing buildings)?

3.1. no, there is no such responsibility. but this is grounds for going to court.

Did the answer help you? Not really

4. Is SNiP 30-02-97 mandatory for members of the gardening community and what liability is provided for violation of these norms and rules?

4.1. Yes it is. Both civil and administrative. Possible criminal action in case of crime

Did the answer help you? Not really

5. What liability does the manager face for violating clause 4.1.3. SNiP 12-04-2002. and also paragraphs 7.2.2., 7.2.4., 7.2.5., 7.2.6. GOST 12.0.004-90

5.1. The main thing is that everything is clear, well, I believe that no more than a year of being shot with pickles...

Did the answer help you? Not really

6.1. Legal monitoring of documents is a paid service.

Did the answer help you? Not really

7. The director of the LLC associated with the design did not respond to my written request regarding the violation of this LLC SNiP when designing a comprehensive overhaul of our MK after 30 days. Please advise on two issues. 1.Did he violate the federal law dated 02.05.2006 No. 59-FZ? 2. And where should I contact about this issue?
It seems to me that every citizen of the Russian Federation has the right to apply to state and municipal institutions and other organizations entrusted with the implementation of publicly significant functions with a written application and receive a written response within the time limits established by law. Specified organizations must send the addressee written, motivated responses to requests received from them, while Article 5.59 of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses provides for administrative liability for failure to comply with these requirements of the law. The sanction of this norm, in particular, when bringing an official to justice, provides for the imposition of punishment in the form of a fine in the amount of 5,000 rubles to 10,000 rubles.
Thus, Article 33 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, as well as Article 2 of the Federal Law dated May 2, 2006 No. 59-FZ On the procedure for considering appeals from citizens of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as Federal Law No. 59-FZ), citizens of the Russian Federation are given the right to send individual appeals to government and municipal institutions and other organizations entrusted with the implementation of publicly significant functions. In accordance with paragraph 4 of part 1 of Article 10 of Federal Law No. 59-FZ, the official gives a written answer on the merits of the questions raised in the appeal.
According to Part 1 of Art. 12 of the Federal Law of May 2, 2006 N 59-FZ On the procedure for considering appeals from citizens of the Russian Federation (as amended on 05/07/2013, hereinafter referred to as Law N 59-FZ) a written appeal received by government agency, local government body or official in accordance with their competence, is considered within 30 days from the date of registration of the written appeal. Or am I wrong?

7.1. You're right, go ahead.

Did the answer help you? Not really

8. On June 30, 2016, an agreement was concluded with an LLC for the construction of a house made of timber on a summer cottage. The contract period is 07/12–09/12, 2016.
On July 22, 2016, a team arrived with materials and construction began. On July 27, 2016, together with a representative of the LLC, a decision was made to stop construction due to low-quality materials and violation of SNiP construction standards by the team. LLC decided to replace the material and crew. As of August 17, 2016, there is no brigade at the site, the material is old, and the LLC does not announce the timing of the arrival of the new brigade and the delivery of materials. (“they feed me tomorrow”). Do I have the right to demand early termination of the contract with a return of funds paid and demand compensation for moral damage? (pre-trial/trial?)

8.1. If the contract is with you as an individual... you have the right, but you will need to prove that breaking the contract resulted in severe moral suffering for you.

Did the answer help you? Not really

8.2. If the agreement was concluded in writing, then before. how to go to court, you must also contact the LLC in writing with a proposal to terminate the contract due to failure to fulfill the basic terms of the contract (list).
Then, having received or not received a response from them, go to court. Keep all copies sent to the LLC, and the envelopes too, if letters arrive.

Did the answer help you? Not really

8.3. If your contract does not specify the construction stages and deadlines, then it is better to wait until the end of the contract period and send a claim to the service provider. Compensation moral damage Reimbursable only through legal proceedings.

Did the answer help you? Not really

8.4. Yes, you can contact them first with a corresponding claim, and then file a lawsuit.

Did the answer help you? Not really

8.5. Alexander, you not only have the right to terminate the contract and demand a refund Money, but also demand payment of a penalty for violation of deadlines. Contact a lawyer to write a competent claim. If your claim is not satisfied within 2 weeks, you will need to contact the Court. The main problem may be that this LLC has nothing on its balance sheet and accounts. Therefore, obtaining a court decision is not a problem, but executing a court decision and collecting money in reality can be a difficult task. Therefore, I strongly recommend that you contact specialists who have experience in challenging construction contracts and debt collection. Good luck!

Did the answer help you? Not really

9. In 2001 we bought a private house with central water already carried into it. I only learned that the well was located outside the household when, citing Federal Law 261-FZ dated November 23, 2009, water utility employees unauthorizedly installed a meter in it. They showed up at 7 am to sign the commissioning certificate, threatening that if we refused, they would turn off our water. Considering that they already have free access to our well without our knowledge and dispose of it at their own discretion, I signed an agreement and a deed that now we will pay for water according to the meter, because I was really afraid that they might turn off our water. There was no discussion and no paperwork about payment for the device and its installation. This summer they sent me a notice demanding payment for the cost of the device and its installation. I also went to the water utility, but no one would talk to me. They answered that they do not give any copies and that if we suddenly miss the scheduled maintenance of the meter, we will pay according to the tariff. But we had already paid according to the tariff and the amount for water did not exceed 150 rubles. per month, so such a meter, if there is one in the well at all, is not profitable for me at all. Moreover, scrolling through the Internet. I also came across the fact that this meter was installed in violation of SNiP, and moreover, by acquiring ownership of it, I will be responsible for its safety and the safety of the seals. How can I do this? Yesterday they sent a summons to court. How can I behave correctly there? Agree to pay? In this case, can I ask the court for an installment plan provided for by the same 261 Law or will this have to be decided with bailiffs? Or should I, citing incorrect installation of the meter, not agree with its payment and its installation? Help me what to do?

9.1. The claim, if refused, goes to court.

Did the answer help you? Not really

10. To the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases.
of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Bashkortostan from the representative of the plaintiff Alfiya Kamilevna Minnikhanova -
Lykov Denis Nikolaevich, address: 452602, Republic of Belarus, Oktyabrsky, Kuvykina st., 3,
LLC "UA "Aspect", tel.: 89274775225.

Defendant: Khusnullin Rubis Kamilyevich, living at the address: 452600, Republic of Belarus, Oktyabrsky, Kyzyl-Mayak St., 1 a. tel.: 89375000907.

Third parties:
1. Administration of the city of Oktyabrsky RB,
location: 452607, Republic of Belarus, Oktyabrsky, Chapaeva St., 23.
2. Management Federal service state registration, cadastre and cartography in the Republic of Belarus,
postal address: 450077, Republic of Belarus, Ufa, st. Lenina, 70.
3. Federal State Budgetary Institution "Federal Cadastral Chamber of Rosreestr" represented by the branch of the Federal State Budgetary Institution "Federal Cadastral Chamber of Rosreestr" in the Republic of Belarus, postal address: 450071, Republic of Belarus, Ufa, 50 Let USSR St., 30/5, PO Box 370.
4. MBU “Department of Architecture and Urban Planning”, Oktyabrsky RB, address: 452607, RB, Oktyabrsky, Chapaeva St., 23.
5. Committee for Property Management of the Ministry of Land and Property Relations of the Republic of Belarus for the city of Oktyabrsky,
location: 452607, Republic of Belarus, Oktyabrsky, Chapaeva St., 13. case No. 2-23/2016

By the decision of the Oktyabrsky City Court of the Republic of Belarus dated February 10, 2016, rendered in case No. 2-23/2016, in satisfaction of the claims of Minnikhanova A.K. to Khusnullin R.K. the elimination of violations of the owner's rights not related to deprivation of possession was refused in full.
With the court's decision, the plaintiff, Minnikhanova A.K. I do not agree, because I consider it illegal and unfounded, the court incorrectly determined legally significant circumstances, the court did not base its decision on circumstances that are important for the correct resolution of the dispute, the court incorrectly applied the norms of substantive and procedural law, and therefore the court decision is subject to cancellation with a new decision to satisfy the claims of Minnikhanova A.K. in full.
By virtue of Part 1 of Art. 195 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, a court decision must be lawful and justified. A decision is legal when it is made in strict compliance with the rules of procedural law and in full compliance with the rules of substantive law that are subject to application to a given legal relationship, or is based on the application, where necessary, of an analogy of law or an analogy of law. A decision is justified when the facts relevant to the case are confirmed by evidence examined by the court, satisfying the requirements of the law on their relevance and admissibility, or by circumstances that do not require proof, and also when it contains exhaustive conclusions of the court arising from the established facts. (clauses 1, 2, 3 of the Plenum Resolution Supreme Court RF dated December 19, 2003 No. 23 “On the court decision”).
We consider the following grounds for canceling the court decision.
After the death of Khusnullin’s father Kamil Sagitovich, who died on May 29, 2012, the parties inherited in equal shares, 1/2 share, a land plot with cadastral number 02:57:030206:21, with an area of ​​2418 sq.m, and an individual residential building located on it , with cadastral number 02:57:030206:43, area 62.2 sq.m., built in 1979, located at the address: Oktyabrsky, Kyzyl Mayak St., 1, which is confirmed by certificates of the right to inheritance by law dated January 17, 2013, registration numbers 160 and 157.
In accordance with paragraph 4 of Art. 1152 Civil Code Russian Federation, an accepted inheritance is recognized as belonging to the heir from the date of opening of the inheritance, regardless of the time of its actual acceptance, as well as regardless of the moment of state registration of the heir's right to inherited property, when such a right is subject to state registration.
By virtue of the provisions of Art. 247 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, ownership and use of property located in shared ownership, are carried out by agreement of all its participants, and if agreement is not reached - in the manner established by the court.
Thus, based on the provisions of the above rules of substantive law, the defendant, R.K. Khusnullin, did not have legal grounds for the construction of a residential building until the division of the original land plot with cadastral number 02:57:030206:21, area 2418 sq.m. or concluding with the plaintiff an appropriate agreement on the construction of a residential building on a common plot of land, in which the parties would establish the procedure and conditions for new construction.
In June 2013, the parties came to an agreement on the division of a common land plot and a residential building. Thus, on the basis of the Agreement on the division of property in common shared ownership dated 07/09/2013, the parties divided the land plot with cadastral number 02:57:030206:21.
In connection with the division of a land plot with cadastral number 02:57:030206:21, two land plots were formed: with cadastral number 02:57:030206:56, with an area of ​​1211 sq.m. (the defendant’s plot), and with cadastral number 02:57 :030206:57, area 1207 sq.m. (plaintiff's site).
Information about the formed land plots was entered into the state real estate cadastre (GKN) on July 23, 2013 (the date of formation of new land plots) with the assignment of the above-mentioned cadastral numbers.
Cadastral work on the division of land plot No. 02:57:030206:21 was carried out on the basis of a common application of the parties. As a result of the implementation of cadastral work by cadastral engineer A.A. Zakirova, working at LLC “Service of Cadastral Engineers”, a land survey plan dated June 14, 2013 was prepared and sent to the state cadastral registration authority (branch of the Federal State Budgetary Institution “Federal Cadastral Chamber of Rosreestr” in the Republic of Belarus).
As follows from cadastral extract on the land plot dated 07/31/2015 No. 02/15/1-605105 from the land plot with cadastral number 02:57:030206:21, two land plots with cadastral numbers 02:57:030206:56 were formed, with an area of ​​1211 sq. m, and 02:57:030206:57, with an area of ​​1207 sq.m.
At the same time, the defendant sold to the plaintiff his 1/2 share of a residential building located at the address: Oktyabrsky, Kyzyl Mayak St., 1, inherited from his father, as follows from the Sale and Purchase Agreement dated July 09, 2013. Transfer of rights ownership of a 1/2 share of a residential building from the defendant to the plaintiff was registered in the Unified State Register on July 23, 2013, about which a registration record was made in the Unified State Register under No. 02-04-14/020/2013-536 dated July 23, 2013.
After dividing the land plot, the defendant began construction of a new residential building on his land plot with cadastral number 02:57:030206:56, with an area of ​​1211 sq.m., which was assigned a postal address: Oktyabrsky, Kyzyl Mayak St., 1 a .
Construction work on the construction of a residential building by the defendant began in July 2013.
In 2015, the defendant completed the construction of the frame of a residential building, installed the roof, and installed windows. Then he registered a residential building with the state cadastral register, having the following characteristics: total area 135.9 sq.m., 2 floors, wall material: wooden, the building was assigned cadastral number 02:57:030206:64.
Further, on 04.03.2015, the defendant registered the ownership of a residential building in a simplified manner in Rosreestr, about which a registration entry was made in the Unified State Register No. 02-04/114-04/314/001/2015-2132/1 dated 04.03.2015 g., which is confirmed by the certificate of state registration of rights dated 03/04/2015.
Due to the fact that Article 25.3 of the Federal Law of July 21, 1997 N 122-FZ “On state registration of rights to real estate and transactions with it" establishes a simplified procedure for registering rights to certain created real estate objects, which does not provide for the need to submit for state registration of rights to such a real estate object a document confirming that the created real estate object complies with town planning and construction norms and rules, the type of permitted use of land plot, the defendant was able to register ownership of a residential building, which is essentially an unauthorized construction.
The defendant erected a residential building on the site at the address: Oktyabrsky, Kyzyl Mayak St., 1 a with significant violations of town planning and construction standards, as he attached his residential building to a residential building owned by the plaintiff, Minnikhanova A.K. , i.e. the defendant blocked the houses without obtaining permission from the plaintiff, in addition, part of the defendant’s residential building was built on the plaintiff’s land plot, the overlapping area of ​​the residential building is 6.22 sq.m.
Significant violations of town planning and building codes and regulations during the construction of a residential building by the defendant are expressed as follows.
Firstly, the defendant blocked residential buildings without obtaining permission from the plaintiff, which is unacceptable and grossly violates the rights of the plaintiff as the owner of a residential building, makes it impossible to maintain the building, its repair, reconstruction, etc. One window in the living room was closed, now the view from the plaintiff’s window directly into the defendant’s room.
Secondly, as a consequence, the defendant violated fire safety distances between residential buildings, which must be at least 6 meters. In addition, the defendant violated the distance from the windows of a residential building to the walls of a neighboring house located on an adjacent plot of land, which must be at least 6 meters. The distance from the border of the land plot to the wall of a residential building for sanitary conditions and depending on the degree of fire resistance must be at least 3 meters.
Thirdly, the defendant did not apply to the Administration of the Oktyabrsky city district for a permit to build a residential building in accordance with Art. 51 of the Town Planning Code of the Russian Federation, and also did not receive permission to put the facility into operation in accordance with Art. 55 of the Town Planning Code of the Russian Federation. The fact that the defendant visited the MBU “Department of Architecture and Urban Planning” in the city of Oktyabrsky RB in 2014, where he consulted with specialists from the institution about what documents he needed to prepare and submit in order to obtain a building permit does not mean that he made attempts to obtain permission for construction in the prescribed manner, since he did not apply with the corresponding application, but only ordered, for a fee from the institution, a topographic survey of the land plot and a diagram of the planning organization of the land plot for the construction of a house in November-December 2014. These diagrams, after their production, together with the title documents for the site are attached to the application for a construction permit and submitted to the authorized body. However, the defendant did not do this, and therefore the fact that the defendant took measures to obtain a construction permit cannot be considered proven. Without submitting an application, the Administration cannot consider issuing a construction permit. The defendant failed to prepare required package documents to contact the Administration, since he was unable to obtain permission to block the houses from the plaintiff and this was the end of his attempts to obtain a construction permit. Which once again proves that the plaintiff never gave the defendant her permission to block the houses, either verbally or in writing.
Fourthly, part of the defendant’s residential building with an area of ​​6.22 sq.m. built on the plaintiff’s land plot, which violated the plaintiff’s rights as the owner of the land plot. The plaintiff did not give the defendant permission to build part of a residential building on her land plot. In violation of the law, the defendant built a house on the plaintiff’s land, since he did not bother to double-check where the border separating the land plots was.
First, the land plot with cadastral number 02:57:030206:21 was divided into two, i.e. the parties, by mutual agreement, established an adjacent boundary between the plots, and only then a fence was erected and construction of a residential building began. This means there is no need to talk about any error. In this case, there is neither a cadastral nor a technical error in the information of the State Property Committee. There is also no error made when performing cadastral work, when establishing the boundary separating the plots. The survey work was carried out in full accordance with the parties' request. Land surveying was carried out in June 2013 according to the current regulations (Law on the State Property Committee). I draw the court’s attention to the fact that first the parties, in the presence of a cadastral engineer, determined the boundary on the ground dividing the land plot into two, and then the defendant erected a fence dividing the land plots of the parties and built his house. And as can be seen from the conclusion of the judicial complex construction and technical examination, which fully confirms the conclusions of the cadastral engineer of PKS LLC made in the conclusion on the geodetic survey of the boundaries of the land plot dated July 24, 2015, the fence was not installed along the adjacent border of the land plots, i.e. . not along the line of cadastral division (at characteristic points the coordinates of which are entered into the State Property Committee), but with an indentation into the territory of the plaintiff’s land plot, the overlap area was 15.65 sq.m. However, there is an overlay (capture) on the part of the plaintiff on the defendant’s plot, the area of ​​overlay is 44.13 sq.m., i.e. There are mutual violations of the boundaries of land plots. And therefore, the boundaries of the site should be restored, since it was proven that they were violated by the defendant; it was he who installed the fence.
According to clause 4, part 2, art. 60 of the Land Code of the Russian Federation, actions that violate the land rights of citizens or create a threat of their violation can be suppressed, including by restoring the situation that existed before the violation of the right, and suppressing actions that violate the right or create a threat of its violation.
According to paragraphs 1, 3 of Art. 76 of the Land Code of the Russian Federation, legal entities and citizens are obliged to compensate in full for the damage caused as a result of their commission of land offenses. Bringing land plots into a usable condition in the event of their contamination, other types of damage, unauthorized occupation, demolition of buildings and structures during unauthorized occupation of land plots or unauthorized construction, as well as the restoration of destroyed boundary signs is carried out by legal entities and citizens guilty of these land offenses, or at their expense.
By virtue of Art. 304 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the owner may demand the elimination of any violations of his rights, even if these violations were not associated with deprivation of possession.
In accordance with Articles 6, 11.1, 70 of the Land Code of the Russian Federation, a land plot is a part of the earth's surface, the boundaries of which are determined in accordance with federal laws; the right of possession, use and disposal of the owner of a land plot is determined by the boundaries of this plot.
Among the unique characteristics of land plots as real estate objects, pp. 3, 6 hours 1 tbsp. 7 of the Federal Law of July 24, 2007 No. 221-FZ “On the State Real Estate Cadastre” refers to a description of the location of boundaries and area.
According to Part 7 of Art. 38 of the Federal Law of July 24, 2007 N 221-FZ “On the State Real Estate Cadastre,” the location of the boundaries of a land plot is established by determining the coordinates of the characteristic points of such boundaries, that is, the points of change in the description of the boundaries of the land plot and dividing them into parts.
In paragraphs 45, 46 of the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 10, the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation No. 22 of April 29, 2010 (as amended on June 23, 2015) “On some issues arising in judicial practice when resolving disputes related to the protection of property rights and other real rights" states that the claim for elimination of violations of law not related to deprivation of possession must be satisfied regardless of whether the defendant commits actions (inactions) that violate the plaintiff’s right on his own or someone else’s land plot or other property. When considering claims to eliminate violations of law not related to deprivation of possession by the defendant’s erection of a building, structure, structure, the court establishes the fact of compliance with urban planning and construction norms and rules during the construction of the relevant facility. Failure to comply, including minor ones, with urban planning and building codes and regulations during construction may be grounds for satisfying the stated claim if this violates the plaintiff’s property rights or legal possession.
I consider it necessary to pay special attention to the existing judicial practice of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on disputes about the boundaries of a land plot.
In paragraph 2.9. “Disputes regarding the determination of the boundaries of land plots” of the Review of judicial practice on issues arising in the consideration of cases related to horticultural, gardening and dacha non-profit associations for 2010-2013, approved by the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on July 2, 2014, the following is explained:
“The location of the border of a land plot located on the lands of a horticultural, gardening or dacha non-profit association is determined based on the information contained in the document confirming the right to the land plot, and in the absence of such a document - from the information contained in the documents defining the location of the boundaries of the land plot during its formation.
The study showed that a significant number of disputes between members of horticultural, gardening or dacha non-profit associations regarding the establishment of boundaries of land plots are caused by the fact that for the most part land plots were provided to gardeners without carrying out land surveying and cadastral registration work. Many land plots are not registered in the cadastral register or are registered in the cadastral register declaratively when their boundaries are not defined in accordance with the requirements of land legislation.
The consideration of these disputes is related to the resolution of the issue of whether the disputed part of the site belongs to the plaintiff or the defendant, which is impossible without an accurate definition of the boundaries.
In the event that the exact boundaries of the land plot are not established based on the results of cadastral work (information about its coordinates is not available in the State Real Estate Cadastre (hereinafter referred to as the State Real Estate Cadastre), and therefore it is not possible to establish their location on the ground, the court will require evidence from the plaintiff that that the disputed part is part of the plot owned by him, and the defendant, by his actions, creates obstacles in its use. Establishing the location of the disputed border of the plot is carried out by the court by comparing the actual area with that indicated in the title documents (primary land allotment documents) with the help of natural or artificial ones existing on the ground landmarks (perennial plantings, residential buildings, economic and domestic buildings, pipelines, etc.), provided that they are recorded in the measurement plans of technical inventory bodies, topographic surveys or other documents reflecting previously existing actual boundaries.
In a situation where the area of ​​the plaintiff’s land plot, taking into account the actual boundaries, is greater or less than the area specified in the title document, the court checks at the expense of which lands this difference was formed, whether any of the parties or previous owners of the plots moved the disputed border, whether the plaintiff or defendant has added an additional addition to their land plot and whether this addition relates to that part of the plot about which the dispute is filed, as well as how long the parties have been using the plots within the existing boundaries.
At the same time, it should be noted that the court’s approach is correct, according to which the exact correspondence of the actual area of ​​the defendant’s plot with the issued title documents is not considered by the courts as a sufficient basis for refusing the claim, since it may be related to voluntary refusal the defendant from part of his plot on the other side while simultaneously seizing part of the plaintiff’s plot. The same circumstances are verified by the court in relation to the actions of the plaintiff himself.
Example. K. filed a lawsuit against Ya. to restore the border between the land plots and move the buildings.
In accordance with paragraph 1 of Article 209 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the owner has the rights to own, use and dispose of his property.
By virtue of Article 304 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the owner may demand the elimination of any violations of his rights, even if these violations were not associated with deprivation of possession.
The violated right to a land plot is subject to restoration, including in the case of unauthorized occupation of a land plot (subparagraph 2 of paragraph 1 of Article 60 of the Land Code of the Russian Federation).
In accordance with Articles 38, 39 of the Federal Law of July 24, 2007 No. 221-FZ “On the State Real Estate Cadastre”, coordination of the location of the boundaries of the disputed land plot with the rights holders of the adjacent land plot is mandatory.
In resolving the dispute, the court correctly proceeded from the fact that the location of the border of the land plot is determined based on the information contained in the document confirming the right to the land plot, and in the absence of such a document - from the information contained in the documents defining the location of the boundaries of the land plot when it was formed .
When resolving the dispute, the court established that K. owns land plot No. 5, located in SNT "Yu", and Ya. owns land plots No. 3 and 4 in the same partnership. The land plots of the parties are adjacent.
The court also found that the fence erected by Ya, as well as part of the pool 2.26 m wide and 7.8 m long, are located on the territory of plot No. 5, owned by the plaintiff.
Under such circumstances, since the plaintiff’s arguments about the defendant’s unauthorized seizure of part of his land plot were confirmed during the trial, the court reasonably satisfied K.’s demands regarding the establishment of a boundary line and the transfer of disputed buildings to the defendant’s land plot.
A generalization of judicial practice has shown that if the boundaries of the plaintiff’s or defendant’s plot are determined in the State Property Committee based on the results of land surveying (cadastral work) and no demands have been made to invalidate these works, the courts, when resolving the dispute, were guided by the specified boundaries. Evidence of a violation of the plaintiff’s rights in this case is the discrepancy between the actual boundaries of his land plot and the boundaries established in the State Property Committee based on the results of cadastral work.
In such cases, the courts, regardless of the duration of existence of the actual boundaries, make decisions to bring them into line with the results of cadastral work.
It should also be recognized that the position of the courts is correct, according to which the parties’ arguments about disagreement with the land survey results in the absence of properly stated demands to invalidate them cannot be taken into account.
Thus, when considering disputes about the boundaries of plots, one should take into account whether the plaintiff has a subjective right to a land plot (ownership rights, permanent (perpetual) use, lifelong inheritable possession, lease of a land plot); the presence of obstacles to the exercise of rights to use and own the site (what constitutes a violation or threat of violation of the right); the fact that it was the defendant who unlawfully created obstacles to the plaintiff’s exercise of powers to use and (or) dispose of the land plot and other circumstances.”
From the above it follows that the court should not have refused to satisfy the plaintiff’s claim for restoration of the boundaries of the land plot, since the defendant did not present the counterclaim to the court to recognize the survey of the land plot as invalid in terms of establishing the boundaries and area, or other admissible evidence that the dividing fence adjacent land plots were established correctly by the plaintiff herself, but were not presented to the court.
Below I provide links to building codes and regulations (codes of rules) that must be observed during the construction of an individual residential building and which were violated by the defendant.
By virtue of clause 2.2.6.6 of the Republican standards for urban planning "Urban planning. Planning and development of urban districts, urban and rural settlements Republic of Bashkortostan" approved by Decree of the Government of the Republic of Belarus dated December 18, 2014 N604, blocking is allowed residential buildings, as well as outbuildings on adjacent plots of land by mutual agreement of homeowners during new construction, taking into account fire safety requirements.
Similar requirements were contained in clause 2.2.48. Republican standards for urban planning "Urban planning. Planning and development of urban districts, urban and rural settlements of the Republic of Bashkortostan" approved by Decree of the Government of the Republic of Belarus dated May 13, 2008 N153 (as amended on July 17, 2013).
The distances to the border of the neighboring apartment plot according to sanitary conditions and depending on the degree of fire resistance should be no less than: from a manor house, one-, two-apartment and semi-detached house - 3 meters.
In areas where manor houses, one- and two-apartment houses are built, the fire-fighting distance from the windows of living rooms to the walls of a neighboring house and outbuildings (barn, parking lot, bathhouse) located on adjacent land plots may be reduced to 6 meters, provided that the walls of the buildings, facing each other, do not have window openings, are made of non-combustible materials or are subject to fire protection, and the roof and eaves are made of non-combustible materials.
On the border with a neighboring land plot, it is allowed to install fences, which must be mesh or lattice in order to minimize shading of the territory of the neighboring plot and no more than 2.0 meters in height.
By virtue of clause 8.3.2 of the Republican standards for urban planning, the classification of buildings by degree of fire resistance, structural and fire hazard classes when establishing fire distances between buildings should be taken in accordance with the requirements of the Federal Law "Technical Regulations on Fire Safety Requirements" and fire safety standards.
By virtue of clause 8.3.3 of the Republican standards for urban planning, fire distances between residential, public and administrative buildings, buildings, structures and structures of industrial organizations, depending on the degree of fire resistance and the class of their structural fire hazard, should be taken according to Table 114 and Table 115. ( from 6 meters to 15 meters).
In clause 2.12* of SNiP 2.07.01-89*. "Urban planning. Planning and development of urban and rural settlements" (approved by Decree of the USSR State Construction Committee dated May 16, 1989 N 78) (as amended on August 25, 1993) it is indicated that the distances between residential buildings should be taken on the basis of calculations of insolation and illumination in accordance with insolation standards, given in paragraph 9.19 of these standards, lighting standards given in SNiP II-4-79, as well as in accordance with fire safety requirements given in the mandatory Appendix 1.
In areas of estate development, the distance from the windows of residential premises (rooms, kitchens and verandas) to the walls of the house and outbuildings (barn, garage, bathhouse) located on neighboring plots of land, for sanitary and living conditions, should, as a rule, be at least 6 m; and the distance to the barn for livestock and poultry is in accordance with clause 2.19* of these standards. Outbuildings should be located at a distance of at least 1 m from the boundaries of the site.
Clause 2 of SNiP 2.07.01-89* states that it is allowed to block outbuildings on adjacent plots of land by mutual agreement of homeowners, taking into account the requirements given in the mandatory Appendix 1 (fire safety requirements).
In accordance with clause 7.1 of SNiP 2.07.01-89 and clause 5.3.4 of SP 30-102-99, in areas of estate and garden-dacha development, the distance from the site boundary must be at least a meter; to the wall of a residential building - 3 meters.
According to the requirements of the Code of Practice SP 4.13130.2013 "Fire protection systems. Limiting the spread of fire at protection facilities. Requirements for space-planning and design solutions" approved by Order of the Ministry of Emergency Situations of Russia dated April 24, 2013 N 288 (as amended on July 18, 2013, introduced effective from July 29, 2013) fire gaps between buildings located on land plots must be at least six meters.
According to clause 5.3.8. "SP 30-102-99. Planning and development of low-rise buildings housing construction"in areas where manor houses and one- and two-apartment houses are built, the distance from the windows of living rooms to the walls of the neighboring house and outbuildings (barn, garage, bathhouse) located on adjacent land plots must be at least 6 m.
According to clause 5.3.4. SP 30-102-99 to the border of the neighboring apartment plot, the distances for sanitary conditions must be no less than: from a manor house, one-two-apartment and semi-detached house - 3 m, taking into account the requirements of clause 4.1.5 of this Code of Rules; from buildings for keeping livestock and poultry - 4 m; from other buildings (bathhouse, garage, etc.) - 1 m; from the trunks of tall trees - 4 m; medium height - 2 m; from the bush - 1 m.
In accordance with paragraph 2 of Art. 42 of the Federal Law of December 30, 2009 N 384-FZ (as amended on July 2, 2013) “Technical Regulations on the Safety of Buildings and Structures” building codes and regulations approved before the entry into force of the Technical Regulations on the safety of buildings and structures , are recognized by sets of rules. At the same time, the Ministry of Regional Development of the Russian Federation in Letter dated August 15, 2011 N 18529-08/IP-OG explained that for the purposes of the transition period, the updated sets of rules do not cancel the previous sets of rules. Their replacement will be made by making appropriate changes to the above-mentioned Lists. Thus, those sets of rules that are included in the list approved by the Government of the Russian Federation are subject to mandatory application.
According to clause 1, 4 art. 6 of the Federal Law of December 30, 2009 N 384-FZ “Technical Regulations on the Safety of Buildings and Structures” The Government of the Russian Federation approves a list of national standards and sets of rules (parts of such standards and sets of rules), as a result of which the mandatory basis compliance with the requirements of this Federal Law is ensured. National standards and codes of rules included in the list specified in Part 1 of this article are mandatory for use, with the exception of cases of design and construction in accordance with special technical conditions.
The list of mandatory national standards and sets of rules (their parts) was approved by Order of the Government of the Russian Federation of June 21, 2010 N 1047-r. “On the list of national standards and codes of practice (parts of such standards and codes of practice), as a result of which, on a mandatory basis, compliance with the requirements of the Federal Law "Technical Regulations on the Safety of Buildings and Structures" is ensured" according to which, in accordance with Part 3 of Article 42 of the Federal Law “Technical Regulations on the Safety of Buildings and Structures” has approved a list of national standards and codes of practice (parts of such standards and codes of practice), as a result of which, on a mandatory basis, compliance with the requirements of the Federal Law “Technical Regulations on the Safety of Buildings and Structures” is ensured, which includes the above set out Codes of Rules (SNiPs), which were subject to mandatory application by the defendant.
Below are the rules of substantive law that, in our opinion, should be applied in resolving this dispute:
In accordance with Art. 40 of the Land Code of the Russian Federation, the owner of a land plot has the right to erect residential, industrial, cultural and other buildings, structures, structures in accordance with the intended purpose of the land plot and its permitted use in compliance with the requirements of town planning regulations, construction, environmental, sanitary and hygienic, fire safety regulations and other rules and regulations.
According to Art. 42 of the Land Code of the Russian Federation, owners of land plots and persons who are not owners of land plots are obliged, among other things, to comply with the requirements of urban planning regulations, construction, environmental, sanitary and hygienic, fire safety and other rules and standards when using land plots.
By virtue of Art. 2 of the Town Planning Code of the Russian Federation, construction must be carried out on the basis of territorial planning documents, land use and development rules and territory planning documentation.
In accordance with Art. 65 of the Federal Law of July 22, 2008 N 123-FZ “Technical Regulations on Fire Safety Requirements”, the planning and development of territories of settlements and urban districts must be carried out in accordance with the master plans of settlements and urban districts, taking into account the fire safety requirements established by this Federal Law .
According to paragraph 1 of Art. 263 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the owner of a land plot can erect buildings and structures on it, carry out their reconstruction or demolition, and permit construction on his plot to other persons. These rights are exercised subject to compliance with urban planning and construction norms and rules, as well as requirements regarding the intended purpose of the land plot (clause 2 of Article 260 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation).
By virtue of paragraph 2 of Art. 263 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the consequences of unauthorized construction carried out by the owner on a land plot belonging to him are determined by Article 222 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation.
By virtue of Art. 222 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation (as amended in force at the time of filing the statement of claim, i.e. as of 08/14/2015)
1. An unauthorized construction is a residential building, other building, structure or other real estate created on a land plot that is not allocated for these purposes in the manner established by law and other legal acts, or created without obtaining the necessary permits for this or with a significant violation of town planning regulations and building codes.
2. A person who has carried out an unauthorized construction does not acquire ownership rights to it. It does not have the right to dispose of the construction - sell, donate, lease, or make other transactions.
An unauthorized building is subject to demolition by the person who carried it out or at his expense, except for the cases provided for in paragraph 3 of this article.
3. The paragraph became invalid on September 1, 2006. - Federal Law of June 30, 2006 N 93-FZ.
The right of ownership of an unauthorized construction may be recognized by the court, and in cases provided for by law in another manner established by law, for the person who owns, has lifetime inheritable possession, and whose permanent (perpetual) use is the land plot where the construction was carried out. In this case, the person whose ownership of the building has been recognized shall reimburse the person who carried it out for the costs of construction in the amount determined by the court.

The right of ownership of an unauthorized structure cannot be recognized for the specified person if the preservation of the structure violates the rights and interests protected by law of other persons or creates a threat to the life and health of citizens.
(as amended by Federal Law No. 93-FZ of June 30, 2006).
The court erroneously applied Article 222 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation as amended by the Federal Law of July 13, 2015 N 258-FZ “On Amendments to Article 222 of Part One of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and the Federal Law “On the Entry into Force of Part One of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation”, since By virtue of Article 3 of this law, it comes into force on September 1, 2015.
A construction is recognized as unauthorized if it is established that it has at least one sign of such a construction. The criteria for unauthorized construction are listed in paragraph 1 of Art. 222 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. To recognize a construction as unauthorized, one of the following conditions is sufficient: 1) the rules for land allocation for construction have been violated; 2) the necessary permits are missing; 3) urban planning and construction norms and rules have been significantly violated. The defendant violated two of the three points, namely 2 and 3.
Federal Law No. 258-FZ of July 13, 2015 sets out the signs of unauthorized construction in new edition. In accordance with this edition, an unauthorized construction is also a construction on a land plot, the permitted use of which does not allow the construction of a given facility on it. In addition, to qualify a building as unauthorized, it is sufficient to have a violation of urban planning and building codes and regulations. Proving the significance of such a violation is not required.
Actions to erect an unauthorized structure are guilty if it is established that the structure meets at least one condition for recognizing it as unauthorized.
As follows from the “Review of judicial practice in cases related to unauthorized construction” (approved by the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on March 19, 2014), the imposition of an obligation to demolish an unauthorized building is a sanction for the offense committed in the form of unauthorized construction, and therefore the imposition of such the burden on the person who carried it out or at his expense is possible if the developer is at fault.
The Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation indicated that, within the meaning of Art. 222 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the sanction contained therein can be applied if the guilt of a person in carrying out unauthorized construction is proven. Carrying out unauthorized construction is a guilty act, evidence of the commission of which is the establishment of at least one of the conditions listed in paragraph 1 of Art. 222 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. The need to establish the guilt of the developer is also confirmed by the provision of clause 3 of Art. 76 of the Land Code of the Russian Federation, according to which the demolition of buildings, structures, structures during unauthorized occupation of land plots or unauthorized construction is carried out by persons guilty of these land offenses, or at their expense.
One of the legally significant circumstances in the case of recognition of ownership of an unauthorized building is the establishment of the fact that the preservation of the disputed building does not violate the rights and legally protected interests of other persons, in particular the rights of adjacent land users, development rules established in the municipality, etc. d.
To construct an individual housing construction project on a land plot intended for individual housing construction, permits from the authorized bodies of the municipality are required for the construction of such an object and for its commissioning; in the absence of such documents, it may be recognized as an unauthorized construction. (Resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated March 15, 2012 N 15285/11 in case No. A 50-24422/2010).
In accordance with Part 2 of Article 51 of the Town Planning Code of the Russian Federation (as amended in force at the time the case was considered by the court), the construction, reconstruction of capital construction projects, as well as their major repairs, if its implementation affects the structural and other characteristics of the reliability and safety of such facilities, carried out on the basis of a construction permit. A building permit is a document confirming the compliance of project documentation with the requirements of the urban planning plan of the land plot and giving the developer the right to carry out construction, reconstruction of capital construction projects, as well as their major repairs, except for the cases provided for in this article.
Position of the RF Armed Forces: A significant and irreparable violation of town planning and construction norms and rules is grounds for satisfying a claim for the demolition of an unauthorized building.
Review of judicial practice in cases related to unauthorized construction (approved by the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on March 19, 2014).
Violations of town planning and building codes and regulations committed during the construction of an unauthorized structure are grounds for refusal to satisfy a claim for recognition of ownership of such a structure, if the violations are significant and irreparable. Significant violations include, for example, irreparable violations that may lead to the destruction of a building, harm to human life or health, or damage or destruction of the property of others.
Position of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation: The right of ownership to an unauthorized construction does not arise, even if it has been registered.
Resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated June 15, 2010 N 2404/10 in case No. A 40-54201/08-53-485
The construction of an object that is an unauthorized construction does not entail the acquisition of ownership rights to this object, regardless of whether state registration right or wrong.
In paragraph 23 of the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 10, the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation No. 22 of April 29, 2010 (as amended on June 23, 2015) “On some issues arising in judicial practice when resolving disputes related to the protection of property rights and other property rights rights" the following is stated: in the case when real estate, the right to which is registered, has signs of unauthorized construction, the presence of such registration does not exclude the possibility of filing a demand for its demolition. The reasoning part of the court decision to satisfy such a claim must indicate the grounds on which the court recognized the property as an unauthorized construction.
The court's decision to satisfy the claim for the demolition of an unauthorized building in this case serves as the basis for making an entry in the Unified State Register of the termination of the defendant's ownership of the unauthorized building.
Position of the RF Armed Forces: Violation of urban planning norms and rules creates a threat to the life and health of an indefinite number of people, even if adjacent land users have given notarized consent to the construction of an object with such a violation.
Determination of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated February 17, 2015 N 18-KG 14-200 (Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases).
In refusing to satisfy the claim for the demolition of an unauthorized building, the court, in particular, proceeded from the fact that adjacent land users gave the defendant notarized consent to the construction of a residential building without observing the minimum setbacks from the boundaries of their land plots, therefore their rights and legitimate interests are not affected by such construction are violated.
However, this conclusion is not correct, since these consents do not exempt the defendant (developer) from complying with the requirements that are imposed on the structure under construction in urban planning norms and rules, and the very violation of which already creates a threat to the life and health of an indefinite number of persons.
Position of the RF Armed Forces: The erection of an unauthorized building without the necessary permits in itself is not a basis for satisfying a claim for its demolition.
Determination of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated December 29, 2009 N 18-B 09-93
Within the meaning of Art. 222 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the erection of an unauthorized building without the necessary permits in itself is not grounds for satisfying a claim for the demolition of this building. When considering a dispute over the demolition of an unauthorized building, the court must establish:
- whether the person who created the unauthorized construction took measures to obtain a construction permit;
- whether the refusal of the authorized body to issue such a permit is legal;
- whether the said construction violates urban planning norms and rules, the rights and legally protected interests of other persons, or creates a threat to the life and health of citizens.
Position of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation: A co-owner of a land plot has the right to demand the demolition of an unauthorized structure erected by another co-owner if it violates the procedure for using the common plot, the rights and interests of the plaintiff, or threatens the life and health of citizens.
Resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated May 18, 2011 N 15025/10 in case No. A 28-10550/2009-313/22
One of the co-owners of a land plot has the right to demand the demolition of an unauthorized building erected on this plot by another co-owner, if its construction violates not only established order use of a common land plot, but also the rights and legitimate interests of another co-owner, or creates a threat to the life and health of citizens.
The court's conclusion that the defendant began construction of a residential building in March 2013 is based only on the arguments of the defendant himself and the testimony of his wife V.V. Savelyeva, who is an interested party, by virtue of the law, half of the property, including that built during the marriage the residential house is the joint property of the spouses, so her testimony should be taken critically. I also believe that she should, in this case, be involved in the case as a third party who does not make independent claims regarding the subject of the dispute on the defendant’s side, since her rights are affected by this decision.
The court's conclusion is that at the time of the start of construction of a residential building on Kyzyl Mayak St., 1, Khusnullin R.K. shares in inherited property after the death of father Khusnullin K.Z. – a residential building on Kyzyl Mayak St., 1, the actual nature has not yet been determined and there is no evidence that the defendant began to build a new residential building close to the 1/2 share of the inherited homeownership, which belongs specifically to A.K. Minnikhanova. go against the provisions of Art. 247 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, according to which the ownership and use of property in shared ownership is carried out by agreement of all its participants.
The court’s argument that the plaintiff did not file complaints with the competent authorities, including the court, for a long time from 2013 to 2015 has no legal significance, since the citizen, by virtue of the provisions of Art. 9 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and Art. 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation decides when to apply for protection of his violated rights. Moreover, the plaintiff took measures to resolve the dispute pre-trial and appealed to the defendant, but this had no result.
The court's conclusion was that the light opening (and this is a window in the living room) during the life of the previous owner K.Z. Minnikhanov. was filled with furniture and was not used for its intended purpose, is not supported by anything, not by any evidence at all. The plaintiff and her representative did not provide any explanations on this matter. This circumstance has no legal significance, since the owner himself decides how to use his property.
I would like to draw special attention of the judicial panel to the conclusion of the judicial expert No. 147 dated December 25, 2015, prepared based on the results of a construction and technical examination, namely, to the expert’s conclusions on question No. 3 - “Are the actual boundaries of the land plots located at the address: RB , Oktyabrsky, Kyzyl Mayak St., 1 and at the address: RB, Oktyabrsky, Kyzyl Mayak St., 1 state cadastre real estate? If the specified actual boundaries do not correspond, indicate the area of ​​their overlap.”
Expert Kamaeva A.K. indicates that no unauthorized seizure of part of the plaintiff’s land plot by the defendant was revealed. Moreover, the expert concludes that the encroachment of the plaintiff’s plot onto the territory of the defendant’s plot amounts to a total of 28.48 sq.m. This conclusion is not true and is not substantiated in any way by the expert, i.e. is unfounded. We believe that the expert incorrectly interpreted the conclusion on the geodetic survey of the boundaries of the disputed areas prepared by the engineer-geodesist of Cadastral Engineers Service LLC, I.I. Agadullin. Thus, in conclusion on the geodetic survey of the boundaries of the disputed areas, it is stated: “As a result of the work carried out, a discrepancy between the actual boundaries of the land plot and the data of the state real estate cadastre was revealed. Thus, the actual border of the land plot located at the address: Republic of Belarus, Oktyabrsky, Kyzyl Mayak St., 1 is superimposed on the cadastral division of the land plot at the address: Republic of Belarus, Oktyabrsky, Kyzyl Mayak St., 1 and in the total area of ​​the overlap in the amount of 44.13 sq.m. ... On the contrary, the actual border of the land plot located at the address: RB, Oktyabrsky, Kyzyl Mayak St., 1 and is superimposed on the cadastral division of the land plot at the address: RB, Oktyabrsky, Kyzyl Mayak St., 1 in the total area overlays in the amount of 15.65 sq.m. ..." It turns out that the expert makes an offset by subtracting from 44.13 sq.m. area 15.65 sq.m. and receives its 28.48 sq.m. This approach is fundamentally incorrect and is not based on substantive law. Objectively, through instrumental research, engineer-geodesist Agadullin I.I. established the discrepancy between the actual boundaries of the land plots and the information contained in the State Property Committee and outlined them in detail in his conclusion. They established a mutual violation of boundaries in relation to both parties. The expert had no grounds for such an offset of areas. The adjacent boundary between the plots was established based on the results of cadastral work in June 2013 (the boundary plan is available in the case materials). It was revealed that the fence was not installed along the border taken into account in the State Property Code, which means that the violation of boundaries was confirmed, the boundaries of the plots must be restored, otherwise this is an infringement of the rights of the owner. In this connection, the conclusions of expert Kamaeva A.K. to question 3 are unfounded and illegal.
At the same time, the geodesist engineer did not determine the coordinates of the disputed residential building, i.e. did not find out the location of the house relative to the adjacent border (actual and recorded) between the plots. However, from the very diagram of the land plot prepared by the engineer (attachment to the conclusion) it is clearly visible that the defendant’s house is partially located on the plaintiff’s land plot, the overlapping area is 6.22 sq.m.
Based on the above, in accordance with Art. Art. 320, 322, 328, 330 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation,

To cancel the decision of the Oktyabrsky City Court of the Republic of Belarus dated February 10, 2016 in civil case No. 2-23/2016, according to the claim of Minnikhanova A.K. to Khusnullin R.K. on eliminating violations of the owner’s rights not related to deprivation of possession and make a new decision to satisfy claim Minnikhanova A.K. in full.

Attorney-in-fact.

10.1. And what's the question?
Your representative filed a claim that initially could not give you the desired result. I dare to assume that the decision will be left unchanged.
Look for a lawyer who understands such disputes.

Did the answer help you? Not really

11. I can’t resolve the issue not with the management company, not with the state... lived. inspection - for heat loss due to the penetration of cold air through the ceilings, through the inside of the apartment's electric meter (they say seal the apartment yourself, but the heat loss comes not from the room, but from the street and again somewhere through the ceilings, the entry of cold air and foreign odors through the ventilation shaft in the bathroom (to which I was advised to equip the hole with closing blinds, i.e. open when you wash, and close when odors arrive, according to the outlet of the fan riser, which goes into attic space, and not beyond the roof, as required by SNIP ( Management Company offered to draw up an estimate and finance it at the expense of the residents, since cap. the roof repair was carried out in 2008 and for the violation that was committed earlier, that they did not remove the vent riser, as should be according to the rules, they do not bear responsibility, since at that time there was another management company, and who should have controlled the repair no longer known. State housing. The inspection gives conclusions that the attic space is in satisfactory condition, and gives recommendations that I, as the owner, hire an independent expert. The question is, if I hire experts at my own expense, why do these structures need a management company, state government? lived inspectors who simply do not want to see the violations and problems listed above.

11.1. Apparently, you have only one option left - to file these demands in court. Then, if you can prove that there are violations and the management company is obliged to eliminate them, it will not escape liability and the costs of the examination will be reimbursed to you as legal expenses.

Did the answer help you? Not really

12. Got settled GPC agreement V construction company. I was assigned to a team of 3 people, I ask how to calculate the volume of work? The foreman answered me that the work will be counted in the dorm, that is, in the general Acceptance Certificate for the brigade. According to the conditions, the brigade and the deputy director worked from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. They were fed dinner, and those who worked until 10 p.m. were given money by taxi. Work for yourself and work, there are conditions! But for a number of reasons I decided to leave, I handed over my equipment, they told me to get the money after New Year's holidays call. I called the technician on January 10th and she answered that she hasn’t yet.
I thought nothing had been submitted yet, the process is still underway, call me back. I call back a week later, she answers like my volumes are not there, I have nothing to count and then she hangs up, I call again, she hangs up and categorically doesn’t want to talk! I go to the deputy director, he pokes me in the contract saying where is the acceptance certificate, I bring the certificate does not accept the volumes are not registered, I go to the foreman, let me measure the volumes, she measured it for me, and we remade all your work here, what did you do, you did it poorly and the whole team confirmed that your work is of poor quality, and despite the fact that I did this work together with them, what should I do if the team just decided to cheat me!? I was not notified that my work was not of high quality immediately after my dismissal, all the problems were solved without my participation, I didn’t even know anything about the quality of the work in their opinion or about these alterations (if there were any!) and now I am left completely without any payment! I decided to sue, but what demands should I make? Or should the contract be re-qualified? What kind of solution should there be?
And the contract that I signed says
The Contractor undertakes to carry out, according to the Customer’s instructions, using the Customer’s materials, and the Customer undertakes to accept and pay for the following work: finishing and rough finishing work, auxiliary work at the Customer’s facilities 1.2 for the purposes provided for in this agreement, the Contractor has the right to attract his team, workers cost (price) work cost works performed by the Contractor under this contract are paid at the agreed prices of LLC SK "Leader" in accordance with the Acceptance Certificate for completed work 2.2 The Contractor independently carries out all necessary tax payments to the budget provided for by Russian Legislation

Conditions of payment
3.1 Payment for the services provided by the contractor is made by the Customer on the basis of the Acceptance Certificate for completed work signed by the parties.

Contract time
4.1 this agreement comes into force from the moment of signing and is valid until the completion of finishing work at the facility "Perinatal center for 150 beds"
Duties of the parties
5.1 The Contractor is obliged:

51.2. Hand over the completed work to the customer in a condition that complies with the standards of GOSTs and SNiPs (other regulatory documents) according to the terms of this agreement.
5.2 The Customer is obliged:
5.2.1. Upon completion of the work specified in clause 1.1 of this agreement, accept the work performed by the Contractor within 3 days if it is of proper quality and compliance.
5.2.2. Pay for the work performed by the Contractor in the amounts and terms established by this agreement.
Procedure for acceptance of work
6.1 The Contractor, in accordance with the requirements of this agreement, transfers the result of the work to the customer by drawing up a two-sided Acceptance Certificate for the completed scope of work, which is signed by both Parties.
6.2. If the results of work do not comply with the terms of the contract, the Contractor is obliged to make the necessary corrections without additional payment within the agreed price within three days.
6.3. In case of early completion of the work, the customer undertakes to accept the result of the work in the manner established by this section of the contract and make payment for it.
7.responsibility of the parties


8. warranty periods

9. Dispute resolution procedure
9.1. all parties or disagreements arising between the Parties under this agreement or in connection with it are resolved through negotiations and in accordance with current legislation.
10.Other conditions

10.2. The contract may be terminated by decision of either party by giving at least 10 days’ notice.

12.1. I got a job under a GPC contract in a construction company. I was assigned to a team of 3 people, I ask how to calculate the volume of work? The foreman answered me that the work will be counted towards the common fund, that is, into the general acceptance certificate for the brigade. According to the conditions, the brigade and the deputy director worked from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. They were fed dinner; those who worked until 10 p.m. were given money by taxi. Work for yourself and work, there are conditions! But for a number of reasons I decided to leave, I handed over my equipment, they said call me for money after the New Year holidays. I called the technician on January 10th and she answered that she hasn’t yet.

I thought nothing had been submitted yet, the process is still ongoing, call me back. I call back a week later, she replies like my volumes are not there, I have nothing to count and then she hangs up, I call again, she hangs up and categorically doesn’t want to talk! I go to the deputy director, he pokes me into the contract, saying where is the acceptance certificate, I bring the certificate, he doesn’t accept the volumes are not registered, I go to the foreman, let me measure the volumes, she measured it for me, and we redid all your work here, what did you do, you did it not well, and the whole team confirmed that your work is of poor quality and despite the fact that I did this work together with them, what should I do if the team just decided to cheat me!? I was not notified that my work was not of high quality immediately after my dismissal, all the problems were solved without my participation, I didn’t even know anything about the quality of the work in their opinion or about these alterations (if there were any!) and now I am left completely without any payment! I decided to sue, but what are the best demands? Or should the contract be re-qualified? What kind of solution should there be?

And the contract that I signed says

The Contractor undertakes to carry out, according to the Customer’s instructions, using the Customer’s materials, and the Customer undertakes to accept and pay for the following work: finishing and rough finishing work, auxiliary work at the Customer’s facilities 1.2 for the purposes provided for in this agreement, the Contractor has the right to attract his team, labor cost (price) of work cost works performed by the Contractor under this agreement are paid at the agreed prices of SK Leader LLC in accordance with the Work Acceptance Certificate 2.2 The Contractor independently makes all necessary tax payments to the budget provided for by Russian Legislation

2.3 the approved cost of work is final and cannot be changed.

Conditions of payment

3.1 Payment for services provided by the contractor is made by the Customer on the basis of the Acceptance Certificate for completed work signed by the parties.

3.2 Payment for services provided by the contractor is made in cash or by transfer to the contractor’s personal account.

Contract time

4.1 this agreement comes into force from the moment of signing and is valid until the completion of finishing work at the facility "Perenatal center for 150 beds"

Duties of the parties

5.1 The Contractor is obliged:

5.1.1. Carry out the work provided for in clause 1.1 of this agreement.

51.2. Hand over the completed work to the customer in a condition that complies with the standards of GOSTs and SNiPs (other regulatory documents) in force at the time of completion of the work in accordance with the terms of this agreement.

5.2 The Customer is obliged:

5.2.1. Upon completion of the work specified in clause 1.1 of this agreement, accept the work performed by the Contractor within 3 days if it is of proper quality and compliance.

5.2.2. Pay for the work performed by the Contractor in the amounts and terms established by this agreement.

Procedure for acceptance of work

6.1 The Contractor, in accordance with the requirements of this contract, transfers the result of the work to the customer by drawing up a two-sided Acceptance Certificate for the scope of work performed, which is signed by both Parties.

6.2. If the results of work do not comply with the terms of the contract, the Contractor is obliged to make the necessary corrections without additional payment within the contract price within three days.

6.3. In case of early completion of the work by the contractor, the customer undertakes to accept the result of the work in the manner established by this section of the contract and make payment for it.

7.responsibility of the parties

7.1. For violation of the terms of this agreement, the Parties are responsible in accordance with the current Legislation.

7.2.In case improper execution works, the Contractor eliminates deficiencies in the work free of charge within a certain period of time by the customer, at his own expense.

8. warranty periods

8.1 The warranty period for the work performed is set at 12 months from the date of delivery and acceptance of the work performed.

9. Dispute resolution procedure

9.1. All parties or disagreements arising between the Parties under this agreement or in connection with it are resolved through negotiations and in accordance with current legislation.

10.Other conditions

10.1 responsibility for safety precautions when performing work rests with the Contractor. The Customer has the right to check the Contractor’s compliance with occupational safety and health regulations, issue orders and impose penalties for non-compliance.

10.2. The contract may be terminated by decision of either party with at least 10 days' notice.

10.3 this agreement is drawn up in Russian, signed in two copies, one for each of the parties, both copies have equal legal force.
Hello. Statement of claim on the collection of funds under a contract.

Did the answer help you? Not really

13. Help edit the petition to the court.
On April 12, 2017, I was driving my car along... and was stopped by an inspector... The inspector drew up a protocol # ... according to which an APN was filed against me in terms of the composition provided for under Part 4 of Article 12.15 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation.
I think that the inspector... Incorrectly qualified responsibility for violating clause 8.6 of the traffic rules. This paragraph indicates how a turn or turn should be made, but is not prohibitive.
My violation is related to turning left and partially crossing the markings at the end of the turn. There was no actual intent to drive into oncoming traffic.
Part 4 art. 12.15 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation states: Driving, in violation of the Traffic Rules, onto a lane intended for oncoming traffic, or onto tram tracks in the opposite direction, except for the cases provided for in Part 3 of this article, entails an administrative fine in the amount of five thousand rubles or deprivation of the right to drive vehicles for a period of four to six months. I also found violations of the markings in this area according to SNiP 2.07.01-89 p 6.22, namely, the radii of curvature of the roadway of streets and roads along the edge and dividing strips should be taken at least meters for main streets and controlled traffic roads of 8 meters, for local purposes 5 meters, for transport areas 12 meters. Please pay attention to the markings of this area; there is no radius for making a left turn

In this regard, and on the basis of Article 1.5 of the Administrative Code, I ask:
Terminate the proceedings on the APN case under Part 4 of Article 12.15 of 04/12/2017
Reclassify the APN I committed in accordance with paragraph 2 of Article 16.12, namely, turning left or turning in violation of the requirements prescribed by road signs or roadway markings

This petition is to be added to the case materials.
In case of refusal to satisfy the application, I ask, in accordance with the requirements of Part 2 of Article 24.4 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation and taking into account the requirement of Article 29.12 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, to make a decision in the form of a reasoned determination.

13.1. The study and preparation of procedural documents by website specialists is carried out exclusively for a fee

Did the answer help you? Yes

Greetings, friends! Today there will be a very interesting article. Be sure to read it to the end.

Construction, like any other type of activity, is regulated by industry legislation, regulations, rules, and regulations. Compliance with laws and regulations is the key to the successful implementation of any business.

Fine for building without permission

You will definitely bear responsibility for unauthorized construction without permits. Let’s take a closer look at what fines may be imposed on you in this case.

According to Article 9.5 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation), you are entitled to a fine for building without a building permit. The fine varies depending on the status of the offender (Table 1).

Table 1

Violator status	Amount of fine, thousand rubles.	Other punishment
Citizen (individual)
Executive
A person carrying out entrepreneurial activities without forming a legal entity (individual entrepreneur)
Entity		administrative suspension of their activities for up to ninety days

Additional penalties

If you started the construction of an object not on your own land (you do not have any rights to it), you may be punished under Article 7.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation and presented with a fine for unauthorized occupation of a land plot. The amount of the fine for construction in this case depends on the cadastral value of the land plot and the status of the violator (Table 2).

table 2

Violator status	Amount of fine % of cadastral value	Minimum value, thousand roubles.	Maximum value thousand roubles.
Citizen (individual)
Executive
Entity

For unauthorized construction of an object that does not belong to the permitted types of use of real estate on this site, a fine is also provided (Article 8.8 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation). The amount of the fine for the inappropriate use of a land plot ranges from 0.5 to 2% of the established cadastral value or from 10 to 200 thousand rubles, if it is not determined (Table 3).

Table 3

Violator status	Amount of fine % of cadastral value	Minimum value,	Maximum value
Citizen (individual)
Executive
Entity

You can read more about permitted types of use in the article “”

And finally, the saddest punishment for unauthorized construction is that you may be required to demolish the unauthorized construction personally or with someone else’s help, but at your expense.

Is it possible to legalize unauthorized construction?

It is possible to legalize unauthorized construction through the court. This is stated in Part 3 of Article 222 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation.
As shown arbitrage practice, such precedents do exist. Court decisions on this issue depend on each specific case.

The main conclusion to be drawn from this article is the following: be sure to obtain a building permit in advance to avoid various fines and other unpleasant consequences.

P.p.s. Friends, I would also like to recommend to you "Generator and additional documentation - Generator-ID" from the site ispolnitelnaya.com. The program is so simple and effective that it will save a lot of time. I advise everyone to check it out!!!

The housing construction boom observed in most regions of Russia has led to the emergence of so-called “samostroev”. We are talking about residential buildings and commercial premises erected with violations and without permitting documentation. The state was seriously concerned about the increase in the number of such objects, which is why a fine was introduced for illegal construction, and this is not counting the fact that capital object built with violations must be demolished. About which building is considered illegal, and which fine and punishment for illegal construction waiting for developers, will be discussed in this article.

What object can be considered illegal?

According to the rules established by Article 222 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, any structure erected without a building permit, built in violation of urban planning regulations, or on a plot of land intended for other purposes is considered illegal.

The presence of one of the listed signs is a reason for taking specific measures, and most often, “self-construction” buildings are “sentenced” to demolition by a court decision.

Most often they are erected without permission apartment buildings, and the south of Russia and the capital region especially suffer from this. Having received permission for individual housing construction, private developers begin multi-storey construction, violating urban planning standards. They begin active sales of apartments, which often contributes to the emergence of new defrauded shareholders.

In addition to multi-apartment buildings, unauthorized extensions and outbuildings built without architectural approval are also considered “samostros”. In this case, the provisions of paragraph 3 of the Federal Law “On Architectural Activities” also come into force, according to which liability arises for uncoordinated construction, and both individuals and legal entities have to answer.

What documents are needed to start construction

It is possible to understand people who decide to expand their living space by adding an extension or building a temporary shed, but even the fact of privatization of a land plot does not give the right to build illegally. In order not to fall out of favor with the state and not to lose money, in addition, before starting any construction, you need to perform several simple steps:

• register ownership of the plot (if you have not done so previously).
• create a project for a future garage or residential outbuilding and get approval from the relevant authorities.
• obtain permitting documents, including a warrant for performing land work and the actual construction permit.

Having received everything Required documents, you can begin construction, but it is worth remembering that non-compliance with the construction project can also be regarded as a violation of urban planning standards. It should also be understood that it is prohibited to build apartment buildings on a site intended for individual housing construction, it is prohibited to build on agricultural land, and there are other violations that professional lawyers will tell you about, and it is extremely necessary to obtain advice from them.

Are there exceptions to the rules?

Unfortunately, Russian laws cannot be called perfect, so it often happens that “self-construction” is legalized “retroactively,” but even this fact, according to the new rules, does not relieve the owner of such an object from responsibility. The courts, of course, sometimes make positive decisions, but this only applies to cases where the building was erected in compliance with sanitary standards and does not threaten the life and health of residents and others.

Every Russian can legalize self-construction that complies with urban planning standards using a simplified procedure until 03/01/2020.

In some cases, illegal builders refer to the statute of limitations, and claims against many properties are dropped within three years after the start of construction. There is such a provision, but it does not apply to objects built on plots without ownership rights. Also, the statute of limitations does not apply if the building threatens the residents or passers-by. In this case, the court will consider the claim of the commission to suppress the construction of “samostrov” and, most likely, sentence the house to demolition.

Responsibility for illegal construction

A person who has built a house illegally must understand that he can demolish it at his own request or by a court decision.

The court's decision will have to be implemented. In addition to the demolition of an illegal building, the court may impose a fine, the amount of which may vary:

• if a violation was committed an individual and does not have serious consequences, then the fine will be 2-5 thousand rubles.
• individual entrepreneurs and responsible employees will be punished with a fine of 20-50 thousand rubles.
• a legal entity may be fined by a court in the amount of 500 thousand to 1 million rubles.

It is worth noting that the court, when making a decision on demolition, must take into account all the circumstances of the case. First of all, judges must clarify whether there was an attempt to legitimize “squatter construction.” To do this, the defendant had to submit an appropriate application and wait for the decision of the authorized body. If officials ignored the application, the court may side with the defendant, and if permission was refused, the claim to declare the building illegal is most often satisfied. Remember that you have the right to appeal, and professional lawyers can help in this matter.

Assistance from lawyers and attorneys in case of illegal construction

To get help from a lawyer or lawyer regarding illegal construction write about your problem in form below. The duty lawyer will contact you