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

having considered the complaint of the piven S.M. On the decision of the Judge of the Kola District Court of the Murmansk region of November 28, 2013 in the case of an administrative offense,

Installed:

resolution of the head of the Land Control Department of the Rosselkhoznadzor in the Murmansk region of October 15, 2013, Piveny S.M. found guilty of committing an administrative offense provided part 2 of Article 8.6 Code of the Russian Federation on administrative offenses - for violation of land legislation Russian Federation, for which they are subject to administrative punishment in the form of an administrative fine in the amount of *** rubles.

Disagreeing with this resolution, Paveen S.M. He complained of the court on his abolition and the termination of the proceedings in the lack of an administrative offense in its actions.

It was noted that the protocol on the administrative offense and the decision in the case of an administrative offense should not be not followed that they were (brewing S.M.) there were any illegal actions related to the destruction or damage of the fertile layer of soil as a result of non-compliance with the established rules for the treatment of dangerous Substances and waste. The possible installation of the pavilion does not indicate a violation of the rules of treatment of hazardous substances and waste, since the pavilion does not possess such properties.

It believed that, during the proceedings in the case of an administrative offense, the objective side of the invalidation of the offense was not established, namely actions related to the destruction or a damage of the fertile soil layer, as a result of non-compliance with the rules established by the legislation with hazardous substances and waste.

In addition, evidence has not been established confirming the destruction of the fertile layer of the soil. He referred to the fact that the materials of the case do not have objective evidence confirming the compilation of the Administrative Body of the Protocol on the Taking Samples and the Samples provided for by Article 27.10 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation, which is necessary evidence of the veneer of the offense.

Also indicated that the administrative body was not taken into account that the pavilion was established in 2010, due to the imputed actions were committed more than one year until the contested decree was made, and therefore, the period of reference to administrative responsibility at the time of consideration of the case expired .

At the hearing, Pill S.M. The arguments of the complaint supported in full.

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

By the decision of the Judge of the Kola District Court of the Murmansk region of November 28, 2013, the Resolution of the head of the land control department of Rosselkhoznadzor in the Murmansk region of October 15, 2013 on the administrative offense provided for in Part 2 of Art. 8.6 Administrative Code of the Russian Federation against Paveen S.M. Left unchanged, complaint pill S.M. - without satisfaction.

In the complaint filed in the Murmansk Regional Court, the Brewen S.M., leading the arguments of the complaint that the basis for appeal to the court asks the decision on the case of an administrative offense and the decision of the judge adopted on the complaint against the decision on the case of an administrative offense to cancel, production In the case of an administrative offense, discontinue the absence of an administrative offense in the absence of the composition.

Recalling the absence of guilt in committing an administrative offense, it believes that legal grounds for attracting it (piven S.M.) to administrative responsibility, absent.

Brewen S.M. At the hearing did not appear, was notified of the consideration of the case in accordance with Article 25.15 of the Code of the Russian Federation on administrative offenses. This is evidenced by the received judicial notice.

After checking the materials of the case, after hearing a representative of the land control department of Rosselkhoznadzor in the Murmansk region by proxy Smirnova I.Yu., who asked the decision of the judge and the decision not to change, examining the arguments of the complaint, come to the conclusion about the lack of grounds for its satisfaction.

In accordance with Art. 24.1 of the Code of the Russian Federation on administrative offenses, administrative offenses should be made in comprehensive, full, objective to find out all the circumstances of the case, resolving it in accordance with the law.

According to Art. 26.11 The Code of the Russian Federation on the administrative offenses of the judge, members of the collegial body, an official carrying out the proceedings on an administrative offense, assesses evidence in their inner conviction, based on a comprehensive, full and objective study of all the circumstances of the case in their aggregate. No evidence may have a predetermined force.

The specified requirements of the Law of the District Court when considering the case of an administrative offense were observed.

In accordance with part 2 of Article 8.6 The Code of the Russian Federation on administrative offenses the destruction of the fertile soil layer, and equal to the damage of land as a result of violation of the rules of treatment of pesticides and agrochemicals or other people's health and ambient The substances and waste of production and consumption - entails the imposition of an administrative fine on citizens in the amount of one thousand five hundred and two thousand rubles.

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

According to the objective side, the act in the form of such actions, as a saturation on top of it of another soil, bay with concrete, asphalt, alternatively during the workpiece and troll, and the like. The destruction of the fertile soil layer can be a consequence of mechanical effects, such as the demolition of the fertile layer during construction, road laying; failure to comply with land reclamation activities, craps of heavy transport, etc.

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

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

In accordance with Part 1 of Art. The 12 Land Code of the Russian Federation Earth in the Russian Federation is protected as the basis of the life and activities of peoples living in the relevant territory. The use of land should be carried out by methods that ensure the preservation of environmental systems, the ability of the Earth to be a means of production in agriculture and forestry, the basis of the implementation of economic and other activities.

According to Art. 77 of the Land Code of the Russian Federation Lands of agricultural purposes are recognized by the land beyond the boundaries of the settlement and presented for the needs of agriculture, as well as intended for these purposes.

In accordance with Art. 12 of the Land Code of the Russian Federation in relationships from Part 1 of Art. 9 Constitution of the Russian Federation Legal regulation of land protection, as which the component of the life and activities of peoples living in the relevant territory, is one of the main tasks of land legislation.

Land protection objectives are: preventing degradation, pollution, litter, lands, other negative (harmful) impacts economic activity; Ensuring improvement and restoration of land undergoing degradation of pollution, litter, violation, other negative (harmful) impacts of economic activities.

Provisions of Art. 42 Land Code of the Russian Federation establishes the list of responsibilities of owners of land plots and persons who are not owners of land plots, on the use of land plots, including: the obligation to use land plots in accordance with their targeted appointment and affiliation to this or that category of land and permitted use ways that should not harm the environment, including land as a natural object; abide by the use of land plots the requirements of urban planning regulations, construction, environmental, sanitary and hygienic, fire and other rules, standards; Do not allow pollution, litter, degradation and deterioration of soil fertility on the lands of relevant categories.

According to Article 4 of the Federal Law of January 10, 2002 N 7-FZ "On Environmental Protection" of the soil: the objects of environmental protection against pollution, depletion, degradation, damage, destruction and other negative impact of economic and other activities.

In accordance with Art. 3 of the Federal Law of January 10, 2002 N 7-FZ "On Environmental Protection" among the basic principles of economic activity that affects the environment includes protection, reproduction and rational use natural resources as the necessary conditions for ensuring a favorable environment and environmental safety; the presumption of the environmental hazard of the planned economic and other activities; The obligation to assess the environmental impact in making decisions on the implementation of economic and other activities.

By virtue of Part 1 of Art. 34 of this federal law Accommodation, design, construction, reconstruction, commissioning, operation, conservation and liquidation of buildings, buildings, structures and other objects providing direct or indirect negative environmental impacts are carried out in accordance with environmental requirements . At the same time, measures should be provided for environmental protection, the restoration of the natural environment, rational use and reproduction of natural resources, and environmental safety.

In paragraph 5, "the main provisions on land reclamation, the removal, movement and rational use of the fertile soil layer", approved by the Order of the Ministry of Earth and Roskomzem from 12/22/1995 N 525/67, is indicated that the land of reclamation, among others, land disturbed in the development Mineral deposits open or underground method, as well as peat extraction, pipeline laying, underground method, as well as peat production, pipeline laying, construction, recruitment, logging, geological exploration, test, operational, design and other works related to impairment Soil cover.

In accordance with paragraph 19 of Annex N 6 to "the main provisions on land reclamation, removal, movement and rational use of the fertile soil layer" The fertile soil layer is the upper humulated part of the soil profile, which is favorable for the growth of plants with chemical, physical and agrochemical properties.

In paragraph 4 of the annex to the "Instructions for the organization and implementation of state control over the use and protection of land by the Ministry of Environment of Russia", approved by the Order of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia of 25.05.1994 N 160 (as amended at the time of the administrative offense), it is indicated that damage and The destruction of the fertile layer of the soil is a partial or full destruction of it as a result of intentional or careless actions, as well as due to failure to prevent measures negative consequencescaused by anthropogenic and natural factors characterized by the loss of the fertile layer of the soil or the deterioration of its physical biological properties, as well as a decrease in the natural and economic value of land.

The overlap of the surface layer of the soil prevents the soil to ensure organic substancessufficient moisture and air permeability. Soil seal As a result of installation on the surface of multi-table objects, it reduces its porosity, which prevents the development of the root system of plants and reduces their moisture supply. Also, the soil seal contributes to an increase in surface drain and flushing the fineness, that is, leads to an increase in erosion processes.

In accordance with paragraph 3.1.1 of the Order of the Ministry of Association of Russia of January 30, 2012 N 96 "On approval of the administrative regulations of the execution Federal Service According to the veterinary and phytosanitary supervision of the state function on the implementation of state land supervision in relation to agricultural land and land plots of agricultural use as part of lands settlements"Legal facts that are grounds for conducting inspections of compliance with the requirements of land legislation in the established field, along with others, the receipt of appeals and statements of citizens, legal entities, individual entrepreneurs, information from government bodies, organs local governmentsFrom the media about the following facts: causing harm to life, health care, harm animals, plants, environment, state security, as well as occurrence emergency situations Natural and man-made character.

The provisions of the material law of the judge correctly applied when considering this case.

In accordance with paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Article 28.1 The Code of Administrative Offenses of the Code of Administrative Offenses, reports and statements of individuals and legal entities, as well as reports in the media, containing data indicating the 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 materials, on July 12, 2013, a citizen of the "..." of July 11, 2013 was received on the management of Rosselkhoznadzor in the Murmansk Region.

According to the information set out in the application, in the area of \u200b\u200bthe * km of a / d ... - ..., on the land plot of agricultural purposes in an individual - Paveen S.M. Pavilion is installed with the name "***", * container, as well as garbage and waste production.

September 4, 2013 in order to verify the facts of violation of the land legislation of the Russian Federation by state inspectors of the department of land control department of Rosselkhoznadzor Bershak V.S., Borzova A.A. Departure to the land plot with cadastral number *, based on the results of the inspection certificate land plot from 04.09.2013 and the scheme for the placement of the modular structure, the sea container and *** objects in the form of kungs, photo-photo from 09/04/2013

So, according to the inspection act, on the land plot with cadastral numbers * about the distance * of the meter from turning from the main road, the following objects are located: a trading pavilion, a marine container, * object in the form of kung (on the attached scheme - T.1, vol. 2 , T.3, T.4). The above objects, namely, the structure of the modular type (an area of \u200b\u200b* sq.m) and a sea container (an area of \u200b\u200b* sq.m) are installed on the surface of the fertile layer of the soil, on the total area of \u200b\u200b* sq.m.

Thus, the area of \u200b\u200boverlapping the surface of the fertile soil layer as a result of the placement of the trading pavilion and the sea container on the territory of the land plot of agricultural purposes with the cadastral number * is * sq.m.

Location fixation ( geographical coordinates), the trading pavilion and the sea container, as well as the measurement of the area produced by *** Navigator * (serial number *, inv. n *).

In accordance with Part 1 of Art. 26.7 of the Code of the Russian Federation Documents are recognized as evidence if the information set forth or certified by organizations, their associations, officials and citizens, are important for the proceedings on the case of an administrative offense.

According to the cadastral statement of the federal land plot budget institution "Cadastral Chamber"According to the Murmansk region of 14.08.2013. N *, the land plot with the cadastral number * is part of the single land use of the land plot with the cadastral number *, assigned to the land category - land of agricultural purposes, and is free from the rights of third parties, which is also confirmed by the letter of the administration of the Kola district of the Murmansk region of 08.22.2013 N *

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

As follows from the written explanations "...", work on the installation of objects (shopping pavilion, marine container), was conducted in 2010, (the installation process saw personally, "..."), the leadership of the specified works was carried out personally piven S.M.

According to the written explanations, the piven S.M., who was previously clarified the provisions of Art. 51 Constitution of the Russian Federation, Art. 25.1 of the Code of the Russian Federation on administrative offenses, the latter confirmed that it uses the land plot with the cadastral number * since 2010, as well as that it was, he installed the objects belonging to him on the territory of this land plot (shopping pavilion, marine container).

In accordance with Ch.ch. 1, 2 tbsp. 26.2 Code of the Russian Federation on administrative offenses of evidence in the case of an administrative offense are any factual data, on the basis of which the judge, a body, an official in the production of which is the case, establish the presence or absence of an administrative offense event, the guilt of the person involved in administrative responsibility, and Also other circumstances that are important for the right permission of the case.

These data are established by the Administrative Offenses Protocol, other protocols provided for this CodeThe explanations of the person in respect of which the proceedings on the administrative offense, the testimony of the victim, witnesses, the conclusions of the expert, other documents, as well as the testimony of special technical means, real evidence.

Wines Brewen S.M. The administrative offense is confirmed by the submitted materials submitted, including: the Administrative Offenses Protocol of September 23, 2013 N *; a statement "..." about the presence of * containers on the land plot of agricultural land; An act of inspection of a land plot dated 09/04/2013 from which it follows that in the area * km of the road ... - ... During the inspection of the land plot (parts of the land plot) with the cadastral number * identified the fact of destroying the fertile layer of the soil on the square * sq. The territory of the specified land plot referred to the category of agricultural land and not submitted to any legal or individuals, as a result of unauthorized overlap of the soil surface by installing objects (modular structure, sea container) Citizen Pivane S.M. on the aligned base of the layer of land, the phototable location of the trading module and kungs was recorded; accommodation scheme; information provided by the administration of the Kola district of the Murmansk region of 08.22.2013 N * that the land plot with the cadastral number * is within the boundaries of the municipal formation G.P. ... Kola district of the Murmansk region, enters the land plot of single land use with the cadastral number *, free from the rights of third parties; Cadastral extract on the land plot of 14.08.2013 N * from which it follows that the plot with the cadastral number * is included in the single land use with a plot with the cadastral number *, which refers to the category of agricultural land, there are no information about the registration of rights to the land plot. With a written explanation "...", written explanation of the piven S.M., who were evaluated by the judge according to the rules of Art. 26.11 Codex of the Russian Federation on administrative offenses.

In accordance with Parts 1, 2 of Article 2.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, an illegal, guilty effect (inaction) of a physical or legal person for which is recognized as an administrative offense. Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses or the laws of constituent entities of the Russian Federation establishes legal liability.

Establishing that actions (inaction) Paveen S.M. Specify the violations of the requirements of the land legislation of the Russian Federation, the judge came to the reasonable conclusion about the legality of attracting the piven S.M. to administrative responsibility.

At the same time, the judge proceeded from the fact that the destruction of the fertile soil layer of the land plot of agricultural purposes with the cadastral number * on the square * sq.m. It happened as a result of overlapping the surface of the fertile layer of soil by objects (shopping pavilion, sea container), installed brewing S.M. In violation of land legislation, in particular, the provisions of Art. 3 of the Federal Law of January 10, 2002 N 7-FZ "On Environment", Art. 12, 42 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 is given a corresponding assessment according to the rules of Art. 26.11 Codex of the Russian Federation on administrative offenses.

Conclusions of the judge of the guilt of the piven S.M. In the commission of an administrative offense, provided for in Part 2 of Article 8.6 of the Code of Administrative Offenses, fully comply with the actual circumstances of the case and are based on evidence, with sufficient fullness and correctly given in the decision.

The decision in the case of an administrative offense was issued by an authorized officer, which, by virtue of Article 23.15 of the Codex 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 Code of the Russian Federation on administrative offenses.

Administrative penalty is determined within the sanction of Part 2 of Art. 8.6 Code of the Russian Federation on administrative offenses.

The case of an administrative offense is discussed within the limits of limitation of attracting administrative responsibility in accordance with the provisions of Art. 4.5 Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses.

According to part 2 of the specified norm, under the proper administrative offense, the deadlines provided for by part 1 of the title article begin to be calculated from the date of the detection of an administrative offense.

In the sense of this norm, the day of the detection of a personal administrative offense is considered a day when an official authorized to draw up a protocol on an administrative offense, revealed the fact of its commit.

From the case file, it is seen that this offense was detected by a job officer during the inspection of September 4, 2013.

Circumstances, which, by virtue of Art. 24.5 Code of the Russian Federation on administrative offenses could entail the termination of the proceedings.

The arguments of the complaint were the subject of verification when considering the case of the judge of the district court and essentially reduced the revaluation of the evidence already evaluated judge, legal grounds for which there is no one.

Links to the unprovelessness of guilt in committing an administrative offense are untenable, and refuted by the submitted materials of the case, including the Administrative Offencing Protocol. The procedural document is compiled by an authorized officer - the State inspector of the Land Control Department of the Rosselkhoznadzor in the Murmansk Region, which, on the basis of the order of Rosselkhoznadzor, from 02.05.2012 No. 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 complaints are essentially reduced to disagreement Paveen S.M. With the involvement of administrative responsibility, the wrong interpretation of the norms of material law and their application to controversial relations, and cannot be taken into account.

Significant violations of the norms of procedural law during the proceedings in the case of an administrative offense, which make it possible to consider the decisions as illegal and unreasonable, not established, and there is no reasonable grounds for their cancellation or change.

Guided by Articles 30.6 - 30.9 Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses, Judge

the decision of the Judge of the Kola District Court of the Murmansk region of November 28, 2013 should be left unchanged, the complaint of the piven S.M. - without satisfaction.

Murmansk Regional Court

During the monitoring of the state of agricultural land and land plots of agricultural use, a violation of land legislation was revealed in the development of a career and carrying out overwhelmed works, the fertile layer of soil on the area 0.80 G. And also when the bulldozer is pushed by the underlying clay layers, the fertile layer of soil on the square is produced 0.20 g . total area damage the fertile layer is 1 g . By this fact Inspector of the Department of Land Supervision of the Management of Rosselkhoznadzor in the Republic of Ingushetia Arapiev I.I. conducted an administrative investigation against LLC "CAPITAL" A protocol on the administrative offense in the amount 40 thousand rubles And according to the method of calculating the size of harm, soils as an object of environmental protection, approved by the Order of the Ministry of Industry of Russia No. 238 of 08.07. 2010 was calculated damage. The statement of claim for compensation for the harm caused by the soils as an object of environmental protection, and other materials of the case will soon be transferred to the Arbitration Court of Nazran.

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 \u200b\u200bDamage 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 object of protection of The Environment of Ministry of Russia No. 238 from 088. 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 als Objekt der Schutz der Umwelt durch Auftrag des Ministeriums der Russischen Föderation № 238 vom 08.07 zugelassen. 2010 berechnet den Schaden. Die Klageschrift für Schäden, die dem Boden als Thema Umweltschutz und andere Materialien des Falles wird bald zum Court of Arbitration Nazran übertragen werden.

AUFSICHT DES LANDES.

Do you think you are Russian? Born in the USSR and think that you are Russian, Ukrainian, Belarus? Not. This is not true.

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

Game? Incorrect word. The correct word "Imprinting".

The newborn associates itself with the features of the face that watches immediately after birth. This natural mechanism is peculiar to most living beings with vision.

The newborns in the USSR several first days have seen the mother at least the feeding time, and most of the time saw the faces of the personnel of the hospital. By a strange coincidence, they were (and remain so far) for the most part Jewish. Reception wild in its essence and efficiency.

All childhood you wondered why you live surrounded by nonsense people. Rare Jews on your way could do anything with you, because you stretched to them, and others repel. And now they can.

Fix it. You will not be able to - Imprint disposable and for life. It is difficult to understand this, instinct took shape when it was still very far to the ability to formulate. From the moment the words nor the details have been preserved. Only features left in the depths of memory. Thoves that you consider your relatives.

3 comments

System and observer

We define the system as an object, the existence of which is no doubt.

The system observer is an object that is not part of the system observed by him, that is, defining its existence, among other things, the factors independent of the system.

The observer from the point of view of the system is a source of chaos - both the control effects and the consequences of observational measurements that have no causal relationship with the system.

The internal observer is a potentially achievable object for which inversion of observation channels and control exposure is possible.

An external observer is even a potentially unattainable object behind the system, which is beyond the horizon of the event event (spatial and temporary).

Hypothesis number 1. All-seeing eye

Suppose our universe is a system and it has an external observer. Then observation measurements can occur for example using the "gravitational radiation" permeating the universe from all sides. The cross section of the capture of "gravitational radiation" is proportional to the mass of the object, and the projection of the "shadow" from this capture to another object is perceived as the force of attraction. It will be proportional to the mass of the masses of objects and is inversely proportional to the distance between them, which determines the density of the "shadow".

The capture of the "gravitational radiation" object increases its chaoticity and is perceived by us as a flow of time. Object is an opaque for "gravitational radiation", the cross section of the capture of which is greater than the geometric size, inside the universe looks like a black hole.

Hypothesis number 2. Inner observer

It is possible that our universe observes itself. For example, with the help of pairs of quantum intricate particles separated in space as standards. Then the space between them is saturated with the likelihood of the existence of these particles of the process that reaches the maximum density at the intersection of the trajectories of these particles. The existence of these particles also means the absence of objects on the trajectories sufficiently great sections of the capture capable of absorbing these particles. The remaining assumptions remain the same as for the first hypothesis, except:

Time flow

A third-party observation of an object approaching the horizon of the black hole event, if the defining factor of time in the universe is the "external observer", will slow down exactly two times - the shadow of the black hole will block exactly half the possible trajectories of "gravitational radiation". If the defining factor is the "internal observer", the shade will block the entire interaction path and the flow of the object falling into the black hole completely stops for view from the side.

The possibility of a combination of these hypotheses in one or another proportion is also not excluded.