Do you think you are Russian? Born in the USSR and think that you are Russian, Ukrainian, Belarusian? No. This is wrong.

You are actually Russian, Ukrainian or Belarusian. But you think you are a Jew.

Game? Wrong word. The correct word is "imprinting".

A newborn associates himself with those facial features that he observes immediately after birth. This natural mechanism is characteristic of most living beings with vision.

Newborns in the USSR for the first few days saw their mother for a minimum of feeding time, and most of the time they saw the faces of the maternity hospital staff. By a strange coincidence, they were (and still are) mostly Jewish. Reception is wild in its essence and effectiveness.

All your childhood you wondered why you live surrounded by non-native people. Rare Jews on your path could do anything with you, because you were drawn to them, while others were repelled. Yes, even now they can.

You cannot fix this - imprinting is one-time and for life. It is difficult to understand, the instinct took shape when you were still very far from being able to formulate. From that moment, no words or details have been preserved. Only facial features remained in the depths of memory. Those traits that you consider your family.

3 comments

System and Observer

Let us define a system as an object whose existence is not in doubt.

An observer of a system is an object that is not a part of the system it observes, that is, it determines its existence, including through factors independent of the system.

From the point of view of the system, the observer is a source of chaos - both control actions and the consequences of observational measurements that do not have a causal relationship with the system.

An internal observer is a potentially achievable object for the system in relation to which the inversion of the observation and control channels is possible.

An external observer is even an object potentially unattainable for the system, located beyond the event horizon of the system (spatial and temporal).

Hypothesis #1. All-seeing eye

Let's assume that our universe is a system and it has an external observer. Then observational measurements can take place, for example, with the help of "gravitational radiation" penetrating the universe from all sides from the outside. The capture cross section of "gravitational radiation" is proportional to the mass of the object, and the projection of the "shadow" from this capture onto another object is perceived as an attractive force. It will be proportional to the product of the masses of objects and inversely proportional to the distance between them, which determines the density of the "shadow".

The capture of "gravitational radiation" by an object increases its randomness and is perceived by us as a passage of time. An object that is opaque to "gravitational radiation", the capture cross section of which is larger than the geometric size, looks like a black hole inside the universe.

Hypothesis #2. Internal Observer

It is possible that our universe is watching itself. For example, using pairs of quantum entangled particles spaced apart in space as standards. Then the space between them is saturated with the probability of the existence of the process that generated these particles, which reaches its maximum density at the intersection of the trajectories of these particles. The existence of these particles also means the absence of a sufficiently large capture cross section on the trajectories of objects capable of absorbing these particles. The remaining assumptions remain the same as for the first hypothesis, except:

Time flow

External observation of an object approaching the event horizon of a black hole, if the “outside observer” is the determining factor of time in the universe, will slow down exactly twice - the shadow from the black hole will block exactly half of the possible trajectories of “gravitational radiation”. If the determining factor is the "internal observer", then the shadow will block the entire trajectory of interaction and the flow of time for an object falling into a black hole will completely stop for a view from the outside.

Also, the possibility of combining these hypotheses in one proportion or another is not excluded.

In the course of monitoring the state of agricultural land and land plots for agricultural use, a violation of land legislation was revealed during the development of a quarry and overburdening, the fertile soil layer was destroyed in the area 0.80 ha as well as when pushing out the underlying clay layers by a bulldozer, the fertile soil layer was covered in the area 0.20 ha. The total area of damage to the fertile layer is 1 ha. On this fact, the inspector of the land supervision department of the Office of the Rosselkhoznadzor for the Republic of Ingushetia Arapiev I.I. conducted an administrative investigation into Capital LLC drawn up a report on an administrative offense in the amount of 40 thousand rubles and according to the methodology for calculating the amount of damage to soils as an object of environmental protection, approved by order of the Ministry of Natural Resources of Russia No. 238 of 08.07. In 2010, the damage was calculated. The statement of claim for compensation for damage caused to soils as an object of environmental protection, and other case materials will be transferred to the Arbitration Court of the city of Nazran in the near future.

Department of Land Supervision

During the monitoring of agricultural land and agricultural land use, an infringement of the land legislation in the development of career and stripping work destroyed fertile soil on the area 0.80 hectares and with a bulldozer pushing the underlying clay layers produced overlap of topsoil on the area 0 20 hectares. The total area of damage fertile layer is 1 hectare. On this fact the inspector of land supervision Rosselkhoznadzor in Ingushetia Arapievym II conducted an administrative investigation against "Capital" a protocol of administrative violation in the amount of 40,000 rubles, and according to the method of calculating the amount of harm soil as an object of protection of the environment, approved by Order of Ministry of Russia № 238 from 08.07.2010 calculated the damage. of Arbitration of Nazran.

Supervision of the Land

Bei der Überwachung von landwirtschaftlichen Flächen und landwirtschaftliche Nutzung, ein Verstoß gegen das Land Gesetzgebung in der Entwicklung von Beruf und Stripping Arbeit zerstört fruchtbare Böden auf den Bereich 0,80 Hektar und mit einem Bulldozer schieben die zugrunde liegenden Tonschichten produziert Überlappung von Mutterboden auf dem Gebiet 0 20 Hektar. Die Gesamtfläche der Schäden fruchtbaren Schicht 1 Hektar. Auf dieser Tatsache, der Inspektor des Landes Aufsicht Rosselkhoznadzor in Inguschetien Arapievym II führte eine administrative Untersuchung gegen "Capital" ein Protokoll der administrativen Verletzung in der Höhe von 40.000 Rubel, und nach der Methode der Berechnung der Höhe des Schadens Boden der Schut als Objekt Umwelt durch Auftrag des Ministeriums der Russischen Föderation no.

Aufsicht des Landes

Judge of the Murmansk Regional Court Pyrch N.V.,

Having considered the complaint Piven C.M. on the decision of the judge of the Kolsky District Court of the Murmansk Region dated November 28, 2013 in the case of an administrative offense,

SET UP:

by the decision of the head of the department of land control of the Office of the Rosselkhoznadzor for the Murmansk region of October 15, 2013 Piven S.M. found guilty of committing an administrative offense under part 2 of article 8.6 Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses - for violation of the norms of land legislation Russian Federation, for which subjected to administrative punishment in the form of an administrative fine in the amount of *** rubles.

Disagreeing with this decision, Piven C.M. filed a complaint with the court about its cancellation and termination of the proceedings due to the absence of an administrative offense in his actions.

He pointed out that it does not follow from the protocol on an administrative offense and the decision in the case of an administrative offense that they (Piven S.M.) committed any illegal actions related to the destruction or damage of the fertile soil layer as a result of non-compliance with the established rules for handling dangerous substances and waste. The possible installation of the pavilion does not indicate a violation of the rules for handling hazardous substances and waste, since the pavilion does not have such properties.

He considered that, during the proceedings on the case of an administrative offense, the objective side of the alleged offense was not established, namely, actions related to the destruction or damage of the fertile soil layer, as a result of non-compliance with the rules established by law for handling hazardous substances and waste.

In addition, no evidence has been found to support the destruction of the fertile soil layer. He referred to the fact that in the case file there is no objective evidence confirming the drawing up by the administrative body of the protocol on taking samples and samples, provided for by Article 27.10 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, which is necessary evidence for the sane corpus delicti.

He also pointed out that the administrative body did not take into account that the pavilion was installed in 2010, due to which the imputed actions were committed more than one year before the contested decision was issued, and therefore, the statute of limitations for bringing to administrative responsibility at the time of the consideration of the case had expired .

At the hearing Piven C.M. supported the arguments of the complaint in full.

The representative of the administrative jurisdiction objected to the satisfaction of the complaint.

By the decision of the judge of the Kolsky District Court of the Murmansk Region of November 28, 2013, the decision of the head of the land control department of the Rosselkhoznadzor for the Murmansk Region of October 15, 2013 on an administrative offense under Part 2 of Art. 8.6 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation in relation to Piven C.M. left unchanged, complaint Piven C.M. - without satisfaction.

In a complaint filed with the Murmansk Regional Court, Piven S.M., citing the arguments of the complaint that served as the basis for going to court, asks for a decision in the case of an administrative offense and the decision of the judge, adopted on the complaint against the decision in the case of an administrative offense, to cancel the proceedings in the case of an administrative offense to terminate due to the absence of an administrative offense in the actions.

Referring to the absence of guilt in committing an administrative offense, believes that the legal grounds for bringing him (Piven CM) to administrative responsibility are absent.

Piven S.M. at the hearing did not appear, notified of the case in accordance with Article 25.15 RF Code of Administrative Offences. This is evidenced by the received court notice.

After checking the case materials, after listening to the representative of the land control department of the Office of the Rosselkhoznadzor for the Murmansk region by proxy, I.Yu.

In accordance with Art. 24.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, proceedings in cases of administrative offenses should be carried out with a comprehensive, complete, objective clarification of all the circumstances of the case, its resolution in accordance with the law.

According to Art. 26.11 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, a judge, members of a collegiate body, an official conducting proceedings on an administrative offense case, evaluate the evidence according to their inner conviction, based on a comprehensive, complete and objective study of all the circumstances of the case in their totality. No evidence can have predetermined validity.

These requirements of the law by the judge of the district court during the consideration of the case of an administrative offense were complied with.

In accordance with part 2 of article 8.6 of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses, destruction of the fertile layer of soil, as well as damage to land as a result of violation of the rules for handling pesticides and agrochemicals or other substances hazardous to human health and the environment, and production and consumption waste - entails the imposition of an administrative fine on citizens in the amount of one thousand five hundred to two thousand rubles.

Part 2 of this article provides for liability for the destruction of the fertile soil layer.

By objective side- an act in the form of such actions as filling other soil on top of it, pouring it with concrete, asphalt, making it unusable during the harvesting and skidding of wood, etc. The destruction of the fertile soil layer can be the result of mechanical impact, for example, the demolition of the fertile layer during construction, laying roads; non-fulfillment of measures for land reclamation, passage of heavy vehicles, etc.

The object of this administrative offense is the protection of the fertile soil layer established by law.

The subject of the offense - land (land) - a natural resource, an integral component of the biosphere, a necessary condition for the existence of life, the basis of any human activity. As an object of legal protection, land covers all types of land plots, regardless of the form of ownership, the nature of ownership, the degree of development and use by a person to meet their needs (Article 6 of the Land Code of the Russian Federation).

In accordance with Part 1 of Art. 12 of the Land Code of the Russian Federation, land in the Russian Federation is protected as the basis of life and activity of the peoples living in the corresponding territory. Land use should be carried out in ways that ensure the conservation ecological systems, the ability of land to be a means of production in agriculture and forestry, the basis for the implementation of economic and other activities.

According to Art. 77 of the Land Code of the Russian Federation, agricultural lands are recognized as lands located outside the boundaries of a settlement and provided for the needs Agriculture and also intended for these purposes.

In accordance with Art. 12 of the Land Code of the Russian Federation in conjunction with Part 1 of Art. 9 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the legal regulation of the protection of land, as the basis for the life and activities of the peoples living in the corresponding territory, is one of the main tasks of land legislation.

The objectives of land protection are: prevention of degradation, pollution, littering, disturbance of land, other negative (harmful) impacts of economic activity; ensuring the improvement and restoration of lands that have been degraded, polluted, littered, disturbed, and other negative (harmful) impacts of economic activity.

The provisions of Art. 42 of the Land Code of the Russian Federation establishes a list of obligations of owners of land plots and persons who are not owners of land plots for the use of land plots, including: the obligation to use land plots in accordance with their intended purpose and belonging to a particular category of land and permitted use in ways that should not harm the environment, including land as a natural object; comply with the requirements of urban planning regulations, construction, environmental, sanitary and hygienic, fire and other rules and regulations when using land plots; to prevent pollution, littering, degradation and deterioration of soil fertility on the lands of the corresponding categories.

According to Article 4 federal law dated 10.01.2002 N 7-FZ "On environmental protection" soils are classified as objects of environmental protection from pollution, depletion, degradation, damage, destruction and other negative impacts of economic and other activities.

In accordance with Art. 3 of the Federal Law of 10.01.2002 N 7-FZ "On Environmental Protection", the main principles of economic activity that have an impact on the environment include protection, reproduction and rational use natural resources as necessary conditions for ensuring a favorable environment and environmental safety; presumption of ecological danger of the planned economic and other activities; the obligation to assess the impact on the environment when making decisions on the implementation of economic and other activities.

By virtue of h. 1 Article. 34 of the said Federal Law, placement, design, construction, reconstruction, commissioning, operation, conservation and liquidation of buildings, structures, structures and other objects that provide direct or indirect negative impact on the environment are carried out in accordance with the requirements in the field of environmental protection. At the same time, measures should be taken to protect the environment, restore the natural environment, rational use and reproduction of natural resources, and ensure environmental safety.

In paragraph 5 of the "Basic Provisions on Land Reclamation, Removal, Relocation and rational use fertile soil layer", approved by order of the Ministry of Natural Resources of Russia and Roskomzem dated December 22, 1995 N 525/67, it is indicated that, among other things, lands disturbed during the development of mineral deposits in an open or underground way, as well as peat extraction, laying of pipelines, underground method, as well as peat extraction, laying of pipelines, construction, reclamation, logging, geological exploration, testing, operational, design and survey and other works related to disturbance of the soil cover.

In accordance with paragraph 19 of Appendix No. 6 to the "Basic Provisions on Land Reclamation, Removal, Relocation and Rational Use of the Fertile Soil Layer", the fertile soil layer is the upper humus part of the soil profile, which has chemical, physical and agrochemical properties favorable for plant growth.

Paragraph 4 of the appendix to the "Instructions on the organization and implementation of state control over the use and protection of land by the bodies of the Ministry of Natural Resources of Russia", approved by order of the Ministry of Natural Resources of Russia dated 05.25.1994 N 160 (as amended in force at the time of the administrative offense), states that destruction of the fertile soil layer is its partial or complete destruction as a result of intentional or careless actions, as well as due to failure to take measures to prevent negative consequences caused by anthropogenic and natural factors, characterized by the loss of the fertile soil layer or the deterioration of its physical biological properties, as well as a decrease in the natural and economic value of the land.

Overlapping the surface layer of the soil prevents the soil from providing the necessary organic matter sufficient moisture and breathability. Soil compaction as a result of installation of multi-ton objects on the surface reduces its porosity, which prevents the development of the root system of plants and reduces their moisture supply. Also, soil compaction contributes to an increase in surface runoff and washout of fine earth, that is, it leads to an increase in erosion processes.

In accordance with paragraph 3.1.1 of the Order of the Ministry of Agriculture of Russia dated January 30, 2012 N 96 "On approval of the Administrative Regulations for the Federal Service for Veterinary and Phytosanitary Surveillance of the state function of exercising state land supervision in relation to agricultural land and land plots for agricultural use as part of land settlements"The legal facts that are the grounds for conducting inspections of compliance with the requirements of land legislation in the established area, along with others, are the receipt of appeals and applications from citizens, legal entities, individual entrepreneurs, information from state authorities, bodies local government, from funds mass media about the following facts: causing harm to life, health of citizens, harm to animals, plants, the environment, state security, as well as the occurrence emergencies natural and man-made character.

The above provisions of the substantive law were correctly applied by the judge when considering the present case.

In accordance with paragraph 3 of part 1 of article 28.1 of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses, the reasons for initiating a case on an administrative offense are reports and statements of individuals and legal entities, as well as messages in the media containing data indicating the existence of an event of an administrative offense (with the exception of administrative offenses provided for part 2 of article 5.27 of this Code);

As follows from the case file, on July 12, 2013, the Rosselkhoznadzor Office for the Murmansk Region received a statement from a citizen "..." dated July 11, 2013 about violation of the law.

According to the information provided in the application, in the area * km a / d ... - ... , on an agricultural land plot by an individual - Piven C.M. a pavilion with the name "***", * of the container, as well as garbage and production waste was installed.

On September 04, 2013, in order to verify the facts of violation of the land legislation of the Russian Federation by state inspectors of the land control department of the Rosselkhoznadzor Administration, Bershak V.S., Borzovoy A.A. a visit to the land plot with a cadastral number * was carried out, as a result of which an act of inspection of the land plot dated 09/04/2013 and a layout of a modular structure, a sea container and *** objects in the form of KUNGs were drawn up, photo table dated 09/04/2013.

So, according to the inspection report, on a land plot with cadastral numbers * approximately * meters away from the turn from the main road, the following objects are located: a trading pavilion, a sea container, * an object in the form of KUNGs (on the attached diagram - vol. 1, vol. 2 , v.3, v.4). The above objects, namely, a modular structure (area * sq.m) and a sea container (area * sq.m) are installed on the surface of the fertile soil layer, on a total area * sq.m.

Thus, the area of overlapping the surface of the fertile soil layer as a result of placing a trade pavilion and a sea container on the territory of an agricultural land plot with a cadastral number * is * sq.m.

Location lock ( geographical coordinates), trade pavilion and sea container, as well as the measurement of the area was made by *** navigator * (serial number *, inv. N *).

In accordance with Part 1 of Art. 26.7 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, documents are recognized as evidence if the information set forth or certified in them by organizations, their associations, officials and citizens is relevant for the proceedings on an administrative offense.

According to the cadastral extract on the land plot of the Federal budget institution"Cadastral Chamber" for the Murmansk region dated August 14, 2013 N *, a land plot with a cadastral number * is part of the unified land use of a land plot with a cadastral number *, classified as land - agricultural land, and is free from the rights of third parties , which is also confirmed by the letter from the administration of the Kola district of the Murmansk region dated August 22, 2013 N *

Thus, the objects: a trade pavilion, a sea container, are installed (placed) on the surface of the fertile soil layer of an agricultural land plot with a cadastral number *, the rights to which are not registered.

As follows from written explanations"...", works on the installation of objects (trading pavilion, sea container), were carried out in 2010, (the installation process was personally seen by "..."), the management of these works was carried out personally by Piven S.M.

According to written explanations Piven C.M., who previously explained the provisions of Art. 51 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, Art. 25.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, the latter confirmed that he has been using a land plot with a cadastral number * since 2010, and also, what exactly, he installed objects belonging to him on the territory of this land plot (shopping pavilion, sea container).

In accordance with h.h. 1, 2 art. 26.2 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, evidence in a case of an administrative offense is any factual data on the basis of which the judge, body, official in charge of the case establishes the presence or absence of an event of an administrative offense, the guilt of the person brought to administrative responsibility, and as well as other circumstances that are important for the correct resolution of the case.

These data are established by a protocol on an administrative offense, other protocols provided for this Code, explanations of the person in respect of whom proceedings are being conducted on the case of an administrative offense, the testimony of the victim, witnesses, expert opinions, other documents, as well as the testimony of special technical means, physical evidence.

Vina Piven S.M. in the commission of an administrative offense is confirmed by the submitted case materials, including: a protocol on an administrative offense dated 23.09.2013 N *; statement "..." about the presence of * containers on the plot of agricultural land; an act of inspection of the land plot dated 04.09.2013 from which it follows that in the area * km of the road ... - ... during the inspection of the land plot (part of the land plot) with the cadastral number *, the fact of the destruction of the fertile soil layer on the area * sq. m. of the territory of the specified land plot, classified as agricultural land and not provided for use by any legal or natural persons, as a result of unauthorized overlapping of the soil surface through the installation of objects (modular structure, sea container) by citizen Piven S.M. on the leveled base of the earth layer, the location of the trading module and KUNGs is fixed by a phototable; placement scheme; information provided by the administration of the Kola district of the Murmansk region dated 08/22/2013 N * that the land plot with the cadastral number * is located within the boundaries of the municipality of the settlement. ... Kola district of the Murmansk region, included in the land plot of unified land use with cadastral number *, free from the rights of third parties; cadastral extract on the land plot dated August 14, 2013 N * from which it follows that the land plot with cadastral number * is included in the single land use with the land plot with cadastral number *, which belongs to the category of agricultural land, there is no information on registration of rights to the land plot; written explanation "...", written explanation Piven C.M., which were evaluated by the judge according to the rules of Art. 26.11 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation.

In accordance with parts 1, 2 of Article 2.1 of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses, an administrative offense is an unlawful, guilty action (omission) of a physical or legal entity, for which Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses or the laws of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation establish legal liability.

Having established that the actions (omissions) Piven C.M. testify to the violations of the requirements of the land legislation of the Russian Federation, the judge came to a reasonable conclusion about the legality of attracting Piven C.M. to administrative responsibility.

In this case, the judge proceeded from the fact that the destruction of the fertile layer of soil of the land plot for agricultural purposes with cadastral number * on the area * sq.m. occurred as a result of the overlapping of the surface of the fertile soil layer with objects (trade pavilion, sea container) installed by Piven S.M. in violation of the Nome land legislation, in particular, the provisions of Art. 3 of the Federal Law of 10.01.2002 N 7-FZ "On the Environment", art. 12.42 of the Land Code of the Russian Federation.

The judicial act adopted in the case showed that the judge proceeded from the specific circumstances of the case, which were given an appropriate assessment according to the rules of Art. 26.11 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation.

The conclusions of the judge about the guilt Piven C.M. in committing an administrative offense, under Part. 2 Article.8.6 RF Code of Administrative Offenses, fully consistent with the actual circumstances of the case and based on evidence, with sufficient completeness and correctly given in the decision.

The decision in the case of an administrative offense was issued by an authorized official who, by virtue of Article 23.15 of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses, is authorized to consider cases of administrative offenses on behalf of the police.

The decision in the case of an administrative offense does not contradict the requirements of Article 29.10 of the RF Code of Administrative Offenses.

Administrative punishment is determined within the limits of the sanction of Part 2 of Art. 8.6 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation.

The case of an administrative offense considered within the statute of limitations bringing to administrative responsibility in accordance with the provisions of Article. 4.5 of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses.

According to part 2 of the said norm, in case of a continuing administrative offense, the time limits provided for in part 1 of the said article begin to be calculated from the day the administrative offense was discovered.

Within the meaning of this norm, the day when a continuing administrative offense is discovered is the day when the official authorized to draw up a protocol on an administrative offense revealed the fact of its commission.

From the materials of the case, it is seen that this offense was revealed by an official during the audit on September 04, 2013.

circumstances, which by virtue of Art. 24.5 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, could lead to the termination of the proceedings, has not been established.

The arguments of the complaint were the subject of verification during the consideration of the case by the judge of the district court and essentially boil down to a reassessment of the evidence already evaluated by the judge, for which there are no legal grounds.

References to the lack of evidence of guilt in committing an administrative offense are untenable, and are refuted by the submitted case materials, including the protocol on an administrative offense. The procedural document was drawn up by an authorized official - a state inspector of the land control department of the Rosselkhoznadzor Administration for the Murmansk Region, who, on the basis of the order of Rosselkhoznadzor dated 02.05.2012 N 220, is entitled to draw up protocols on administrative offenses in accordance with part 4 of article 28.3 Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses.

Other arguments of the complaint essentially boil down to disagreement Piven C.M. with bringing to administrative responsibility, misinterpretation of substantive law and their application to disputed legal relations, and cannot be taken into account.

Significant violations of the rules of procedural law during the proceedings on an administrative offense that allow considering the decisions taken as illegal and unreasonable have not been established, and therefore there are no grounds for their cancellation or change.

Guided by articles 30.6 - 30.9 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, the judge

the decision of the judge of the Kolsky District Court of the Murmansk Region dated November 28, 2013 to be left unchanged, the complaint of Piven C.M. - without satisfaction.

Murmansk regional court

Case No. 2-34/2015

SOLUTION

IN THE NAME OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

Borzinsky City Court of the Trans-Baikal Territory, composed of the presiding judge Darmaeva B.D., alone

under the secretary of the court session Saraeva O.V.,

with the participation of the representative of the plaintiff Anikiev D.S., acting on the basis of a duly executed power of attorney,

the representative of the defendant Satin E.N., acting on the basis of a duly executed power of attorney,

administration representatives municipal district"Borzinsky district" Zarubina I.G., Matafonova N.G., acting on the basis of powers of attorney duly executed,

representative of the Federal State Institution "Department of federal highways in the territory of the Trans-Baikal Territory of the Federal Road Agency (FKU Uprdor" Transbaikalia ") Yeremeev A.Yu., acting on the basis of a duly executed power of attorney,

representative of the limited liability company "Dormostproekt" Fedorov Yu.G. acting on the basis of rights ex officio,

Having considered in open court a civil case on the claim of the Office of the Rosselkhoznadzor on Trans-Baikal Territory and the Amur Region to the open joint-stock company Novosibirskavtodor on compensation for damage caused to the environment,

u s t a n o v i l:

The Department of the Rosselkhoznadzor for the Zabaykalsky Krai and the Amur Region filed a lawsuit with the above claim referring to the following.

During an unscheduled on-site inspection by officials of the Office of the Rosselkhoznadzor for the Trans-Baikal Territory and the Amur Region, a violation was found in the field of use and protection of agricultural land in the Borzinsky District of the Trans-Baikal Territory. JSC "Novosibirskavtodor" on the basis of the State contract No. for the performance of road works for major repairs highway from DD.MM.YYYY carries out activities for the overhaul of the highway. During the overhaul of the highway, a bypass road was built for the passage of transit vehicles, the total occupied area used for the construction of the bypass road is sq. meters, of which sq. meters is located in the right-of-way for servicing the highway, that is, on the lands of the category - industrial land, sq. meters are located on the adjacent territory belonging to the category of agricultural land. During the inspection (visual inspection of the territory), it was found that the land used for the construction of the bypass road was filled with soil, as a result of which the fertile soil layer is covered - soil damage, as evidenced by soil samples taken during the inspection. The total area of disturbed agricultural land plots is sq. meters, of which: violation in the form of overlapping of the fertile soil layer is sq. meters (bypass road, quarry dumps); violation in the form of removal of the fertile soil layer is sq. meters (quarry). In fact, land plots used for the placement of a quarry, dumps and a bypass road were not provided for free fixed-term use or other other legal use. The amount of damage caused to agricultural soils as a result of unauthorized illegal soil overlapping by JSC Novosibirskavtodor during earthworks for the construction of a bypass road for transit transport, as well as the placement of overburden dumps, as a result of overlapping the fertile soil layer of agricultural land with a total area of sq. meters amounted to

The plaintiff asks the court to recover from the defendant in the income of the budget of the municipal formation Borzinsky district of the Trans-Baikal Territory in compensation for damage caused to agricultural soils, as an object of environmental protection.

By a court ruling dated DD.MM.YYYY, the Administration of the municipal district "Borzinsky District" was involved on the side of the plaintiff as a third party, not declaring independent claims regarding the subject of the dispute.

By a court ruling dated DD.MM.YYYY, Dormostproekt LLC was involved in the case as a third party, not making independent claims regarding the subject of the dispute, on the defendant's side.

By a court ruling dated DD.MM.YYYY, Zabaykalskaya Project Company LLC was involved in the case as a third party, not making independent claims regarding the subject of the dispute, on the side of the defendant.

The representative of Zabaikalskaya Project Company LLC did not appear in the courtroom, he was duly notified of the date and time of the court session, he did not send a petition for consideration of the case, adjournment of the court session to the court.

By a court ruling dated DD.MM.YYYY, the rural settlement “Yuzhnoye” was involved in the case as a third party, not declaring independent claims regarding the subject of the dispute.

Head of Administration rural settlement Yuzhnoye N. Kozlovskaya did not appear in the courtroom, she filed a motion to consider the case in her absence.

By court ruling dated DD.MM.YYYY, the Federal State Institution “Administration of Federal Highways in the Trans-Baikal Territory of the Federal Road Agency (FKU Uprdor “Transbaikalia”) was involved in the case as a third party that does not declare independent claims regarding the subject of the dispute.

By a court ruling dated DD.MM.YYYY, StroyEvrokom Limited Liability Company was involved in the case as a third party not making independent claims regarding the subject of the dispute.

Representative of OOO "StroyEvrokom" Mitypov B.I. he did not appear in the courtroom, in his response to the statement of claim he indicated that DD.MM.YYYY signed a subcontract No. at the overhaul facility: highway with OOO Dorstroyservis. The total amount, according to the contract, amounted to RUB. without taking into account the % retained by the Contractor for the implementation of general supervision and control over the volume and cost of the work performed. No actions and / or inactions indicated by the plaintiff in the stated requirements were carried out by their organization.

By a court ruling dated DD.MM.YYYY, the Limited Liability Company Research and Production Center for Seismic Construction (hereinafter LLC NPTs Seismozashchita) was involved in the case as a third party not declaring independent claims regarding the subject of the dispute.

Pyshkin S.B., representative of SPC Seismozashchita LLC did not appear in the courtroom, sent a petition for consideration of the case in his absence. In response to the statement of claim, he indicated that he did not agree with the claims, while indicating that NPC Seismozashchita LLC carried out work on construction control over the overhaul of the highway on the basis of state contract No. DD.MM.YYYY, concluded with FKU Uprdor "Transbaikalia". In order to control the obligations performed by the Contractor under the contract - on a monthly basis, the Customer - FKU Uprdor "Zabaikalye" was given a report on the implementation of construction supervision over the overhaul of the facility in the form approved by the Customer in Appendix No. to the Terms of Reference. Acceptance of the work of the Contractor under the contract was carried out by the Customer, provided that all work was performed in accordance with the requirements of national standards, technical specifications and environmental regulations in force in the field of construction, reconstruction, modernization and repair of roads and artificial structures on them, as well as in accordance with Terms of reference for the performance of construction control works. Acceptance of work was carried out by the Customer without any claims in terms of the volume, quality and timing of work on the basis of acts of work performed.

Court, taking into account the views of the parties, according to Article. decided to consider the case at the available turnout.

At the hearing the representative of the plaintiff Anikiev D.C. claims supported on the grounds set out in the statement of claim.

Representative of Novosibirskavtodor JSC Satin E.N. did not recognize the claims, indicating that, in accordance with clause No. of the State Contract, Novosibirskavtodor OJSC assumed obligations to carry out the overhaul of the highway in accordance with the project approved by the FDA order dated DD.MM.YYYY. No. Completion date for work DD.MM.YYYY. According to the project documentation, all temporarily occupied lands are subject to reclamation after the completion of construction work, in accordance with the specifications issued by the land user, and are restored to pastures. At the same time, reclamation is carried out in two stages: technical and biological. The execution of work on the technical stage is carried out by the customer, the biological stage - by the land user, that is, the rural settlement "Yuzhnoye", at the expense of the customer - FKU Uprdor "Transbaikalia". The technical stage of reclamation by JSC Novosibirskavtodor was carried out, which is confirmed by the certificates of acceptance of work performed in the form KS-2 No. dated DD.MM.YYYY., No. dated DD.MM.YYYY., No. dated DD.MM.YYYY. Soil sampling was carried out at the time JSC Novosibirskavtodor carried out major repairs of the highway on land plots provided by FKU Uprdor Zabaikalye in accordance with the terms of the State contract. After the execution and delivery of works by Novosibirskavtodor JSC under the State contract, the Rossekhoznadzor did not take soil samples. The decision also cannot confirm guilt in causing harm, since Novosibirskavtodor OJSC was brought to administrative responsibility without taking into account further actions to compensate for harm. In addition, the Administration of the municipal district "Borzinsky district" appealed to the Customer - FKU Uprdor "Zabaikalye" with a request to leave the bypass road for further use when moving horse-drawn vehicles and tractor equipment, as well as for fire safety - to avoid the spread of fire from the right of way. This fact indicates the need for a bypass road for residents of the rural settlement "Yuzhnoye". Consequently, the overlapping of the fertile soil layer on the land plot on which the bypass road was located during the performance of works by JSC Novosibirskavtodor under the State contract, after the road was handed over to the Customer, could be carried out by third parties. In addition, in the act of verification No. dated DD.MM.YYYY there is no information about the verification of the brand receiver that was used for measurement, information about the accuracy of determining the coordinates, an indication of the starting point for determining the coordinates, there is no evidence that overburden dumps are located outside the boundaries a land plot allocated for the placement of a near-road dirt pit and reclaimed after the completion of work in accordance with the design documentation under the State contract, that is, the plaintiff did not prove the area of disturbed agricultural land plots. OJSC Novosibirskavtodor legally used the land plots necessary for the performance of work under the State contract. So, in accordance with subsection 1 of section 7

"Measures for the protection of the environment" of the project documentation, in fact, for free urgent use, land is allocated for a bypass road for the passage of transit vehicles (l8.2 ha) and a near-road dirt pit N2 1 (). The state contract stipulates that the customer transfers, and the contractor is obliged to accept the overhaul site. A temporary bypass road and an unpaved dirt pit are included in this section. Due to the fact that during the performance of work under the State contract of Novosibirskavtodor OJSC, the need was revealed to occupy not, but under a quarry, Novosibirskavtodor OJSC DD.MM.YYYY and DD.MM.YYYY. concluded with the Administration of the municipal district "Borzinsky district"

an agreement on compensation for the temporary use of a land plot, received the consent of the Administration to expand the previously agreed quarry during the overhaul of the highway, which is confirmed by Resolution No. dd.mm.yyyy. According to the Order of the senior state inspector of the department of land supervision Anikiev D.S. No. dated DD.MM.YYYY. on the elimination of the identified violations, JSC Novosibirskavtodor was ordered to eliminate the previously identified violation of the land legislation of the Russian Federation: to bring the violated agricultural land plots into a condition suitable for use in accordance with the intended purpose and type of their use by DD.MM.YYYY, which indicates opportunities to restore the environment and OAO

Novosibirskavtodor is able, within a reasonable period of time, to carry out necessary work to restore the broken state environment. According to the submitted documentation, the damage caused was compensated by JSC Novosibirskavtodor in kind by carrying out reclamation in the approved amount and within the established time frame, which excludes compensation in cash for the damage caused. By filing a claim, the plaintiff abuses his right. He asks to dismiss the claim.

The representative of the administration of the municipal district "Borzinsky district" Zarubina I.G. at the hearing, the claims were upheld, indicating that OJSC Novosibirskavtodor, on the basis of state contract No. for road work on the overhaul of the automobile from DD.MM.YYYY, carries out the overhaul of the highway. During the overhaul of the highway, a bypass road was built for the passage of transit vehicles, the total occupied area used for the construction of the bypass road is sq. meters, of which square meters are located on the adjacent territory belonging to the category of agricultural land. square meters on industrial lands. DD.MM.YYYY the defendant applied to the administration of the MR "Borzinsky district" with a statement on the registration of rights to the land requested for the development of a quarry located on the road being repaired. The administration of the MR "Borzinsky District" requested a list of documents required for registration of the site, but since the documents were not submitted, the requested land plot was not issued. DD.MM.YYYY, by the decision of the administration of the municipal district "Borzinsky district" No. JSC "Novosibirskavtodor", consent was given to the transfer of the land plot for the development of a near-road dirt pit No. area.m (cadastral No.) from the category of agricultural land to the category of industrial land and other special purpose. According to clause 2 of the resolution of JSC Novosibirskavtodor, it was necessary

apply to the Department of State Property and Land Relations of the Trans-Baikal Territory on the issue of transferring a land plot from the category of agricultural land to the category of industrial and other special purpose land. DD.MM.YYYY outgoing number, the administration of the municipal district "Borzinsky district" sent a letter to JSC "Novosibirskavtodor" on the provision of the resolution on the transfer of the above land plot from the category of agricultural land to the category - land for industry and other special purposes, certified by the Department of State Property and Land Relations of the Trans-Baikal Territory, or a license for subsoil use. However, OJSC Novosibirskavtodor did not submit any documents to the land department of the district administration. Documents confirming the fact of execution of work on the reclamation of land plots used by JSC Novosibirskavtodor were also not submitted to the district administration. DD.MM.YYYY during the inspection by Rosselkhoznadzor specialists, it was established that the land plot used for the construction of the bypass road was covered with soil, as a result of which the fertile soil layer is covered - soil damage. The total area of disturbed agricultural land plots is square meters (bypass road, quarry dumps); violation in the form of removal of the fertile soil layer is sq. meters (quarry). In fact, the administration of MR "Borzinsky District" did not, in fact, provide JSC "Novosibirskavtodor" for free fixed-term use or other legal use of land used for the placement of a quarry, dumps and a bypass road. DD.MM.YYYY, a commission inspection of the land plot was made and an act was drawn up for checking the reclamation of the land plot disturbed during the overhaul of the highway., Within the boundaries of the Borzinsky district, from which it follows that the work on the reclamation of disturbed lands has not been completed. He asks that the claims be satisfied in full.

The representative of Dormostproekt LLC Fedorov Yu.G. the court explained that he carried out architectural supervision of the overhaul of the said road, systematically visited the facility, checked the compliance of the work being carried out with the project documentation, and if violations were identified, they indicated in workbook about the need to eliminate them.

Representative of FKU Uprdor "Transbaikalia" Eremeev A.Yu. he did not recognize the claims and at the same time explained to the court that the design documentation for the overhaul of the road was by a licensed organization, no violations were committed by the contractor during the repair of the road, he could not explain in relation to the development of an earth pit.

Witness FULL NAME10 at the hearing testified that he had traveled to conduct an inspection at the facility, entered information about the violations found in the workbook.

Witness FULL NAME11 at the hearing testified that he was constantly at the facility, supervised the production of works, the fertile soil layer was removed in DD.MM.YYYY and stored in Cavaliers, temporary dumps, after the completion of construction, the fertile soil layer was moved to its original place.

After listening to the parties, the explanations of representatives of third parties, the testimony of witnesses, having studied the materials of the civil case, the evidence presented by the parties during the trial, having examined and evaluated in accordance with Art. the relevance, admissibility, reliability of each evidence presented to the court separately, as well as the sufficiency and interconnection of evidence in their totality, the court comes to the following.

DECIDED:

Satisfy the claims of the Office of the Rosselkhoznadzor for the Zabaikalsky Territory and the Amur Region against the open joint-stock company Novosibirskavtodor for damages.

To recover from the open joint-stock company Novosibirskavtodor to the budget of the municipal district Borzinsky district in compensation for damage caused to agricultural soils - rubles.

To collect from the open joint-stock company Novosibirskavtodor a state duty to the budget of the Borzinsky District municipal district in the amount of rubles.

The decision can be appealed to the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Trans-Baikal Regional Court within a month from the date of the final decision of the court through the Borzinsky City Court.

presiding judge (signature) B.D. Darmaeva

Copy is right

Judge B.D.Darmaeva