Objects of social and cultural life in a modern city. Social facilities

Lecture "Social and cultural infrastructure of the center and outskirts."

The sphere of public services for the urban population as a system of various buildings and structures existed even in the slave-owning society. The entire complex or set of services corresponding to the real possibilities of the urban economy and the working population is provided to residents through the sphere of social culture. consumer services. The system and networks of such public services adopted in the city, as well as the existing urban planning structures (functional, planning and architectural-spatial) and their features in a certain and significant way affect the types and architecture of individual and mass public buildings of social and cultural services.

A city, especially such a large city as Moscow, for normal modern life, needs to have various individual and mass objects of social, cultural, household, and public services for the population, which include buildings and structures of various purposes: educational institutions(preschool educational institutions, schools, colleges, colleges, universities, etc.); health care(clinics, hospitals) and social security, recreation and leisure(clubs, houses of culture); physical education and sports(sports clubs, sports and recreation complexes, swimming pools); cultural and educational(libraries, museums, exhibition halls, galleries) and entertainment establishments(theaters, cinemas, concert halls); trade enterprises(shops for industrial and food products, supermarkets), Catering(cafes, canteens, restaurants), consumer services(workshops, ateliers, households, baths, laundries); public utilities(thermal points, transformer substations, etc.).

The system of social and cultural services for the population in our city has its own history and dynamics of development in time and space of the urban structure, in the purpose and typology of objects, as space-planning solutions and the required number of types of such buildings and structures. In Moscow, since pre-revolutionary times, there have been various networks of such objects, which are interconnected in a certain way depending on their location in the urban structure, from total number residents in the city and in the surrounding (served) territory, as well as on the size of this territory.

It is customary to classify buildings and structures of social and cultural services for the population as according to their functional purpose (buildings for upbringing, education and training; buildings of cultural, educational and entertainment institutions, etc.), and by the frequency of demand and the needs of the population for them: everyday (local), periodic (district) and episodic (citywide).

All together, these institutions and enterprises create a huge citywide network of objects of the social, cultural, household infrastructure of the city, which was in Moscow, but began to be massively formed only in the 20s and 30s of the last century from the existing individual buildings of such institutions and enterprises, and also in the form of other capital urban facilities adapted for the specified purposes.

In the central part of Moscow, many of these institutions, establishments and enterprises are still located in buildings adapted, but not intended for these purposes, buildings of former tenement houses, mansions and other urban facilities. It is enough to walk along the streets and lanes in the center of the capital to be convinced of this. In almost a hundred post-revolutionary years and even the change in the socio-economic system, nothing in this area has changed for the better. Capital buildings, once built for one purpose, have been used for many decades for other functions. And it would be absurd to say that this is how it should be in the future.

Almost twenty years after the transition to new socio-economic relations, one should note a change in a number of public services in the center of Moscow, with a clear lack of some of the most important of them. Such distortions in the public services of the center became especially noticeable due to the increase in the population of the capital (from 8.0 million to almost 14.0 million people) and due to the arrivals from the suburbs (from 2.0 to 4.0 million people). ). A huge mass of these people must be served, given that they are distributed in the structure of the city during the day far from evenly. The inflow in the morning and outflow in the evening from 4.0 to 5.0 million people are experienced only by the center of Moscow.

To date, in the center of the capital there is a clear overabundance of city-wide cultural, entertainment and educational institutions, chic cafes and restaurants, shops of expensive and very expensive industrial goods, but at the same time, enterprises selling everyday food products, as well as inexpensive manufactured goods, have completely disappeared from the center. Repeated attempts by the leadership of the capital to change this abnormal situation have not yet led to positive results - everything remains as it is.

Residents of the center of Moscow (there are about 700 thousand of them left), as well as visitors, are forced to use a limited range of rather expensive products in dubious tonars on wheels and in the collapse of private trade. To ordinary people Those living in the center quite often have to resort to the services of wholesale markets, Sunday trade fairs, if they take place within reasonable walking or transport accessibility. At the same time, one gets the impression that the entire trade and household network of the city center is constantly in a fever and it is not known when and which trade or food establishment will be closed and what, more expensive and inaccessible, residents will receive in return. The city's leadership is well aware of this, but does not take any measures to regulate these business processes.

Thus, an alarming situation is developing in the central part of Moscow - a certain, poor layer of Moscow residents is gradually being washed out of its center. Expensive residential buildings behind a fence and with security have already appeared here. It is not far from the manifestations of the Moscow variant of segregation among the population, which is stratified not only by wealth-prosperity, but also by places of residence corresponding to this wealth-prosperity. If things go on like this, then the center of the capital of a democratic and socially oriented state may well become inaccessible not only to ordinary Muscovites, but also to millions of Russians.

In addition to the central part with its developed city-wide functions and infrastructure, Moscow also has huge residential formations (districts, microdistricts, quarters) in terms of area and population, where there should be a sufficient number of certain buildings of social, cultural and consumer services for the population (infrastructure social and cultural life). These include clinics and hospitals, secondary schools, kindergartens and nurseries, cultural centers, clubs and cinemas, sports and recreation centers, shops retail, catering establishments, household service workshops, etc.

The urban network of objects of social, cultural and household infrastructure of residential areas of Moscow began to take shape on a large scale and seriously after the October Revolution of 1917, when in the 20s and 30s many modern views and types of various public buildings, structures, and their mass construction began on the outskirts of urban development at that time, in residential areas and quarters near large industrial enterprises and industries.

Later, standard projects appeared for the mass construction of social and cultural buildings and structures. However, subsequently, the practice of standard design and construction. As well as a rigid stepped maintenance system of the 50s - 80s, along with the advantages, they revealed a number of disadvantages (limited urban maneuverability of buildings, the monotony of their architectural and planning solutions, the scarcity of the nomenclature, the fragmentation and uneconomical objects of mass construction, their inconsistency with the increasing vital the needs of the urban population and new regulatory requirements).

A chronic problem in the development of residential areas of our city has long been the outpacing construction of multi-storey housing in comparison with the development of social, educational, cultural, household, medical, etc. infrastructure for servicing the population of these new quarters of "sleeping" residential formations. All this has caused and continues to cause justified dissatisfaction among many residents, and is now having a detrimental effect on the younger generation, deprived of the possibility of normal cultural and harmonious physical development in their places of residence.

The volumes of commissioned housing to a large extent outstripped before and are now ahead of the construction of social, cultural and household services for the population, which in many respects ensure the comfort of living. Multiple (from 3 to 5 times!) lag in the volume of construction of preschool and school educational institutions, objects of culture, physical education and sports, health care institutions will be very difficult to overcome.

Currently, Moscow lacks pre-school, school educational and medical institutions, as in capacity, bandwidth, and in quantity, since many of the buildings that existed before were sold due to “reforms” and the demographic decline in the early 90s, given away for other purposes, simply were not built and their number greatly decreased or remained the same.

The problem also lies in the fact that filling in the missing and building new facilities for preschool and school education, health care, physical education and sports are very difficult to implement in the conditions of the already established, dense urban development. All plots that were once free from development are already occupied by new residential or non-residential facilities, and the former landscaped and landscaped plots with existing buildings of schools, kindergartens and nurseries in the early 90s were given to the needs of various CJSCs, LLCs and OJSCs or sold into private hands. It is not always possible to return these buildings and their plots to their former owners for a number of reasons. At the same time, there is a catastrophic lack of free territories suitable for building new modern mass public buildings in the city, and the sites available after the demolition of dilapidated buildings are not always suitable for their placement.

The main problems in the development of objects in the sphere of culture and education are: reduction of free time of the population and reorientation of leisure activities in the sphere of housing; decrease in attendance at traditional cultural sites; lack of leisure centers for families with children; low cultural potential of the population on the outskirts of the city, etc. Now no more than a tenth of Muscovites spend their leisure time outside the home, and by the beginning of the 90s, such citizens accounted for a quarter of the total population of the city of Moscow.

Not less than a difficult situation It has also developed with mass healthcare facilities, which, in addition to the construction of new, modern buildings, require a thorough reconstruction and technological re-equipment of existing facilities. The capital-labor ratio of polyclinics and hospitals is 52% of the standard; many buildings are outdated both physically and typologically and technologically. For example, hospitals built according to old standard designs have only two-thirds of the city's hospital bed capacity. At the same time, the construction of new mass buildings of healthcare institutions is associated with the same problems as with preschool educational institutions and schools.

The range of trade, public catering and consumer services enterprises is not always sufficient to fully meet the needs of the population in the long-standing and relatively new "sleeping" residential areas of Moscow. There are not enough convenience stores: household goods, bakeries and confectioneries, grocery stores with a wide selection of products.

For several years now, the city leadership has been trying to solve this problem, which is urgent for a rapidly and uncontrollably growing city, through the active and large-scale construction of new preschool and school education facilities, health care facilities, buildings for sports and recreation centers, etc. in new residential areas, in the existing existing development on places of demolition of dilapidated buildings, as well as in reserve territories and sections of the city. However, the efforts made so far are not enough, and the above disproportion between housing and the infrastructure serving it still persists.

The totality of social infrastructure facilities can be divided into 6 blocks, taking into account the direction. We list them with indication of the institutions and enterprises that are part of them.

1 block. Objects of upbringing and education.

1.1. nursery/kindergarten, nursery, kindergarten,

1.2. schools, special schools, boarding schools, lyceums, gymnasiums,

1.3.PTU, medical schools, trade schools,

1.4. secondary specialized educational institutions,

technical schools, colleges,

1.5. higher educational institutions: institutes, universities, academies.

2 block. Cultural objects.

2.1. museums, exhibitions,

2.2. city ​​and departmental libraries,

2.3. theaters, cinemas, palaces, clubs, cultural centers,

2.4. places of worship: temples, mosques, churches, synagogues.

3 block. Objects of sports and physical culture

3.1. sports palaces, stadiums, sports grounds,

3.2 sports youth schools

4 block. Objects of medicine and healthcare

4.1 hospitals, maternity hospitals, polyclinics, outpatient clinics,

4.2 pharmacies,

4.3 dispensaries.

5 block. Enterprises and objects of trade

5.1.shops,

5.2 restaurants,

5.3 cafes, snack bars, bars,

5.5 dining rooms.

6 block. Consumer service facilities

6.1.laundries,

6.2.dry cleaning,

6.3 repair shops,

6.4. atelier,

6.5 baths, saunas,

6.6.service and funeral services, cemeteries.

As a rule, when assessing a territory in terms of the level of development of social infrastructure, the presence of the most significant and, first of all, necessary facilities is taken into account - these are schools, kindergartens, nurseries, social services, shops and clinics.

Evaluation scales are calculated in points for the convenience of evaluation. More about them in the next section.

Evaluation scales for taking into account the level of development of social infrastructure.

For cities with a population of up to 50 thousand people, the rating scale has a simpler form than the rating scale with a city population of up to 300,000. But there are unifying principles underlying the construction of these scales. This is the presence of a social and cultural facility, the distance to it of the assessed site, as well as the contribution (weight) of the social and cultural facility to the assessment for this factor. The contribution of each of the estimated indicators is determined by an expert, taking into account the social significance. Table 2 presents the rating scale for a city with a population of up to 50,000 people. The evaluation criterion is the distance to the objects of social and cultural life, there are 5 of them. In addition, the contribution (weight) of the presence of each of the 5 objects is presented in %. The point scale from 1 to 10 points is distributed in proportion to the distance of the assessed site from the social and cultural facility. The distance is presented in meters.

Evaluation scale for a city with a population of up to 50 thousand people.

TABLE #2

Let's look at an example of how to use the rating scale.

Example: the assessed site - cadastral quarter No. 4 - is located

500m from the school

100m from the shop

2100m from the clinic,

700m from the kindergarten,

500m from dry cleaning.

It is necessary to get the price of cadastral quarter No. 4 in points:

S = = = 7.15 points. (the contribution in the calculation can be expressed in parts).

To assess urban areas by the level of development of social and cultural life in cities with a population of 300-500 thousand people, the concept of the center and sub-center of the city is introduced. The administrative center is taken as the city center, the geometric centers of districts or microdistricts are taken as sub-centers.

When evaluating such cities, the rating scale has a more complex form, because The scoring of the site consists of 2 components:

1st - the presence of one or another social and cultural facility within a radius of 500m from the assessed site (in accordance with SNiP),

2nd - remoteness from the center, sub-center or a single object of social and cultural life (school, kindergarten, shop).

Let's look at an example of how to calculate the price of a plot in points using the rating scale presented in Table 3 on page 83.

Example: It is necessary to evaluate 2 cadastral quarters: No. 7, No. 14. The cadastral quarter is located 500m away from the center, within a radius of 500m there is a school and a children's institution. Cadastral quarter No. 14 is located 700 meters from the sub-center of the city, there is only a school.

Let's calculate the price in points of these quarters:

S =10b 0.5+10b 0.5=10 points;

S =7b 0.4+10b 0.3=5.8 points.

A. B. Feoktistova, Head of Complex Projects Department, Zh. A. Mankulova, Leading Legal Counsel of Mikhailov & Partners CG

One of the items on the agenda of the meeting of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation (SAC RF) on the consideration of judicial practice, held on June 22, 2006, was the draft Information Letter "On the privatization of the property of specialized unitary enterprises providing utility services to the population." This letter contains recommendations on the issues of privatization of social, cultural and municipal facilities of specialized unitary enterprises that provide public services to the population as their main activity. Its full text is posted on the official website of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation.

The developers - specialists of the department for analysis and generalization of the judicial practice of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation - proposed two versions of the letter for consideration by the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation. At the same time, the first option contains a “hard” conclusion about the existence of a legislative ban on the privatization of social and cultural facilities listed in paragraph 1 of Art. 30 of the Law "On Privatization of State and Municipal Enterprises", as part of the property complex of a specialized unitary enterprise. The second version of the draft Information Letter of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation can be described as "flexible", because he allows polar interpretations on the issue of the possibility of privatization of social and cultural facilities during the corporatization of a specialized unitary enterprise.

Actually paragraph 1 of Art. 30 of the Law "On privatization ...", which is an inexhaustible source of discussion, states that social and cultural facilities (health, culture and sports) and household purposes can be privatized as part of the property complex of a unitary enterprise, with the exception of used for its intended purpose:

• facilities that meet the needs of bodies social protection the population, including orphanages, orphanages, nursing homes, boarding schools, hospitals and sanatoriums for the disabled, children and the elderly;
• healthcare, education, cultural facilities intended to serve the residents of the respective settlement;
• children's health-improving complexes (dachas, camps);
• housing stock and objects of its infrastructure;

As it clearly follows from the Law "On Privatization ...", the decisive criteria in determining the legal fate of social and cultural facilities is the fact of their use for the purpose specified in the Law and intended to serve the population.

However, the legislator limited himself to this, because. Until now, there is no normative definition of “objects ... intended to serve the residents of the corresponding settlement”, as well as an established procedure for classifying social and cultural facilities to this group. This, no doubt, contributes to the broadest interpretation of the prohibition established by paragraph 1 of Art. 30 of the Law "On privatization ...", which mainly creates uncertainty when deciding on the privatization of social and cultural facilities as part of the property complex of any unitary enterprise, regardless of its specialization or its combination of public service activities with other activities. At the same time, speaking of the specialization of unitary enterprises, we mean enterprises established by the owner solely to carry out activities to serve the population in the housing and communal, heat and power sectors, where the use of housing stock and its infrastructure or energy facilities is inevitable. And the combination of public service activities with other types of activities occurs, for example, in many energy-intensive enterprises, when they "side" release heat and electricity to the population.

So, with a literal interpretation of the Law "On Privatization ...", social and cultural facilities used for the intended purpose of objects intended to serve the residents of the corresponding settlement cannot be privatized as part of the property complex of a unitary enterprise, i.e. when implementing privatization by transforming a unitary enterprise into an open joint stock company.

The Law "On Privatization ..." prescribes that social and cultural facilities that are not included in the property complex of a unitary enterprise subject to privatization on the grounds specified in paragraph 1 of Art. 30 are transferred to municipal ownership.

It should be noted that Art. 30 of the Law "On privatization ..." provides for the possibility of changing the designation of objects in agreement with the relevant local authorities. But in this case, it is not clear whether a formal change in the purpose of an object during its actual use according to the purpose specified in the Law “On Privatization ...” can have any significance for privatization?

In accordance with paragraph 3 of Art. 30 of the Law "On privatization ..." it is allowed to privatize objects, allowed for privatization, separately from the property complex. But, alas, it does not clearly follow from the Law "On Privatization ..." which objects allowed to privatization in the context of paragraph 3 of Art. 30 of the Law "On privatization ...", taking into account the prohibition established by paragraph 1 of Art. 30 of the Privatization Law. This gives the right to the existence of an opinion on the existence of a general ban on the privatization of social and cultural facilities, regardless of whether they are privatized as part of the property complex of a unitary enterprise or in another way provided for in Art. 13 of the Law "On privatization ...".

Since the current legislation does not allow unconditional identification of socially significant objects, including electric and heat power facilities and housing and communal services, the privatization of which is prohibited both as part of the property complex of a state unitary enterprise, and separately from it, there are risks of invalidating the privatization of such objects, such as inappropriate Art. 30 of the Law "On privatization ...".

It should be noted that the state's approach to the privatization of social and cultural facilities has undergone an evolution, which can be traced by reviewing the main regulations governing this area of ​​legal relations.

The first mention of socially significant objects in the privatization legislation is found in the Law of the RSFSR "On the privatization of state and municipal enterprises in the RSFSR" dated 03.07.91 No. 1531-1. In paragraph 5 of Art. 2 given normative act it was stipulated that “the privatization of the housing stock, as well as socio-cultural institutions, is regulated by other legislative acts Russian Federation and republics within the Russian Federation.

Later, p. 1 sect. II of the Basic Provisions of the Program for the Privatization of State and Municipal Enterprises in the Russian Federation for 1992, approved by Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of December 29, 1991 No. 341 “On Accelerating the Privatization of State and Municipal Enterprises”, it was established that the privatization of social and cultural facilities is not allowed legislative acts regulating their privatization.

The possibility of privatization of enterprises and associations of the fuel and energy complex (with the exception of construction organizations and construction industry enterprises), including electric power enterprises, was enshrined in clause 2.2.7 of the State Program for the Privatization of State and Municipal Enterprises in the Russian Federation for 1992, approved by the Decree of the Supreme Council of the Russian Federation dated 11.06.92 No. 2980-1. An indispensable condition for such privatization was the adoption of a decision by the Government of the Russian Federation or a decision by the government of a republic within the Russian Federation.

Clause 5 of the “Regulations on the commercialization of state enterprises with simultaneous transformation into open joint-stock companies”, approved by Decree of the President of the Russian Federation dated July 1, 1992 No. 721 “On organizational measures for the transformation of state enterprises, voluntary associations of state enterprises into joint-stock companies”, establishes that society created as a result of transformation state enterprise, objects of social and cultural, municipal and household purposes and other objects for which the current legislation of the Russian Federation provides for a restriction or a special privatization regime has been transferred, the procedure for the further use of which is determined by the privatization plan.

However, a month later, with reference to special conditions operation of the unified systems of the Russian electric power industry, as well as the exceptional importance of the fuel and energy complex for the life of the population, Presidential Decree “On the Features of the Transformation of State Enterprises, Associations, Organizations of the Fuel and Energy Complex into Joint Stock Companies” dated August 14, 1992 No. 922, it was decided that the transformation of enterprises , associations, organizations that are part of the fuel and energy complex, into joint-stock companies and their privatization is carried out in the manner prescribed by special decrees of the President. By the same decree State Committee The Russian Federation for the management of state property, until the adoption of the relevant decrees of the President of the Russian Federation, was ordered not to transform state enterprises, associations, organizations into joint-stock companies in accordance with Decree of the President of the Russian Federation dated 01.07.92 No. 721.

The next document in terms of adoption, which regulated the general issues of privatization of social and cultural facilities, was Decree of the President of the Russian Federation dated January 10, 1993 No. 8 “On the use of social, cultural and communal facilities of privatized enterprises”. This document was the first to introduce social conditions during privatization. The decree “in order to preserve the functional purpose and establish the procedure for the privatization of social infrastructure objects” allowed to include in the privatized property of a state enterprise objects of social and cultural purpose (health, education, culture and sports) and household purposes (baths, laundries , hairdressers and other objects) with the obligatory preservation of their profile. However, as was established by the Decree, if these objects are not included in the privatized property, which should be reflected in the privatization plan, they will be privatized separately.

In addition, the Decree established a list of objects not to be included in the privatized property, which, among others, included:

• buildings, structures, residential and non-residential premises, including built-in and attached premises (with the exception of those located within the territory of the enterprise), used by trade, public catering, consumer services, for the needs of organizations and institutions of social protection of the population, orphanages, orphanages, nursing homes, boarding schools, hospitals and sanatoriums for the disabled, children and the elderly;
• health-improving children's dachas, camps;
• transport facilities and energy supply this region;
• healthcare facilities and institutions serving residents of the region;
• the housing stock and the housing maintenance and repair and construction subdivisions of enterprises and organizations serving it.

The decree for these objects established that:

1. Prior to the procedure for delimitation of property, they belong to federal (state) property.

2. The indicated objects (except for health-improving children's camps and dachas) are under the jurisdiction of the administration at the location of the object.

3. Health-improving children's camps and dachas are under the jurisdiction of the local administration at the location of the privatized enterprise.

Paragraph 3 of the Decree of the President reads: "In order to ensure the normal functioning of social, cultural and municipal facilities, an agreement on the joint use and financing of these facilities can be concluded between a privatized enterprise and the local administration on a voluntary basis."

In accordance with paragraph 5 of Decree No. 8, the Government of the Russian Federation adopted Decree No. 1325 on December 23, 1993 “On financing social, cultural and household facilities transferred to the jurisdiction local authorities executive power during the privatization of enterprises”, which established that the objects of social, cultural and domestic purposes transferred to the jurisdiction of local executive authorities, which were on the balance sheet of the privatized enterprise, which belonged to federal property, are financed at the expense of the budgets of the republics within the Russian Federation, territories, regions, autonomous formations, cities of Moscow and St. Petersburg.

By Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of December 24, 1993 No. 2284, the State Program for the Privatization of State and Municipal Enterprises in the Russian Federation was approved and put into effect on January 1, 1994, and by Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of July 22, 1994 No. 1535, the Basic Provisions of the State Program of Privatization of State and Municipal Enterprises were approved in the Russian Federation after 01.07.94. But in these acts, the legislator refrained from resolving the issues of privatization of social and cultural facilities.

basis further development federal legislation on privatization became Part 1 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation dated November 30, 1994 No. 51-FZ.

According to Art. 217 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, property in state or municipal ownership may be transferred by its owner to the ownership of citizens and legal entities in the manner prescribed by laws on the privatization of state and municipal property. The same art. 217 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation establishes that when privatizing state and municipal property, the provisions stipulated by the Civil Code of the Russian Federation regulating the procedure for acquiring and terminating property rights are applied, unless otherwise provided by laws on privatization.

In development of the provisions of Art. 217 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, Federal Law No. 123-FZ of July 21, 1997 "On the privatization of state property and on the basics of the privatization of municipal property in the Russian Federation" was adopted, which was the "predecessor" current law"About privatization...".

Article 4 of the Federal Law of July 21, 1997 No. 123-FZ assumed the presence federal law on the State Program for the Privatization of State Property in the Russian Federation, which should establish priorities in the implementation of the privatization of state property in the Russian Federation, restrictions on its implementation, the procedure for the alienation of state property into the ownership of individuals and legal entities, as well as the basics for the privatization of municipal property in the Russian Federation .

The draft of the current Federal Law "On the privatization of state and municipal property" was submitted to the State Duma on the basis of the order of the Government of the Russian Federation of March 15, 2001 No. 336-r. The bill, as noted in the explanatory note to it, was prepared in order to implement new approaches to the privatization of state property, defined in the Concept of state property management and privatization, approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of 09.09.99 No. 1024, and taking into account practical application legislation on privatization in the Russian Federation for a 10-year period.

The explanatory note to the draft law also stated that the privatization legislation in force at that time assumed the existence of two laws - the law on privatization and the law on the State Privatization Program. In fact, they regulated the same relations, which led to the emergence of numerous contradictions and conflicts. The elimination of this duality was also one of the main prerequisites for the adoption of the new law.

The main principle embodied in the proposed bill, the explanatory note called the openness and transparency of privatization procedures, the ultimate goal of which is the creation of effective private owners, the replenishment of the federal budget and the effective management of property that the state retains in order to comply with its strategic interests.

In general, according to the authors of the bill, the adoption of the new law should have made it possible to finally determine the place for the privatization of state and municipal property as one of the elements of managing this property, introduce it into a single field of Russian legislation, and bring this process in line with international standards.

The law was adopted by the State Duma by Resolution No. 2178-III of the State Duma dated November 30, 2001 and approved by the Federation Council by Resolution No. 382-SF of December 5, 2001. The President of the Russian Federation signed it on December 21, 2001 under No. 178-FZ.

As can be seen from the retrospective review of the privatization legislation and the features of Art. 30 of the current Law "On Privatization ...", more than 15 years of history of privatization of state property and the development of the legislative framework for privatization have not yet led to the emergence of a normative act that definitely reflects the principled position of the state on the issue of the possibility and procedure for the privatization of social and cultural facilities.

At the same time, I would like to note that the previous legislation designated objects that were not subject to privatization, mainly by listing their categories. As noted above, the new Law "On privatization ..." of 2001 firmly links the ability of social and cultural facilities to be privatized with the fact of their use for a specific purpose.

Under these circumstances, in the absence of an unequivocal official position on this issue, the opinion of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation may become the only available reference point for the authorities of those regions where the corporatization of unitary enterprises of housing and communal services is currently taking place or is planned. And the list of such regions is not small. According to media reports, these processes are taking place in Tatarstan, Leningrad, Novosibirsk, Voronezh and Rostov regions, Yamal-Nenets autonomous region, Stavropol Territory, as well as in St. Petersburg and Moscow.

Based on the foregoing, the draft Information Letter containing recommendations to arbitration courts for resolving "disputes related to the privatization of property of specialized unitary enterprises" is of great interest. And therefore, on the merits of the draft Information Letter, we consider it useful to note the following.

The common preamble for the two options defines "specialized unitary enterprises". These, according to the draft Information Letter, include unitary enterprises that provide public services to the population as their main activity. The subject of the letter is the fate of privatization all objects of social and cultural life, and as part of the property complex any an enterprise providing public services as the main activity. This will allow such enterprises to privatize any social and cultural facilities, even if they are not directly related to their core activities. For example, enterprises providing water supply to the population should privatize energy facilities, and DEZu - a children's health camp.

When considering option 1 of the draft letter, the following draws attention. As noted above, this option indicates that "privatization of such an object carried out in any way as part of the property complex of a specialized unitary enterprise is contrary to the law." In our opinion, the wording “by any means” allows such an interpretation of the provisions of the draft Information Letter of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation, which excludes the possibility of privatization of social and cultural facilities not only as part of the property complex, but also by any stipulated by Art. 13 of the Law "On privatization ..." in ways. For example, by making a contribution to authorized capital open joint stock company after the withdrawal from the property complex of the unitary enterprise to the treasury.

Well, we can certainly say that this option unequivocally prohibits the privatization of social and cultural facilities named in Art. 30 of the Law "On privatization ...", as part of the property complex. Even for specialized unitary enterprises, for which such facilities are production assets used in the main activity of serving the population.

However, it should be noted that according to the information we have, there is a belief that the current wording of Art. 30 of the Law "On Privatization ..." the idea was laid down to exempt privatized unitary enterprises from exclusively non-core objects by withdrawing them from the privatized property complex into municipal property. This allows the private owner to be relieved of functions unusual for him in the maintenance of social infrastructure facilities. For specialized enterprises, the establishment of such restrictions is meaningless, since their entire property complex is “core”, its facilities are included in a single production cycle. Their exclusion from the property complex of the enterprise during privatization due to the prohibition, the existence of which follows from the first version of the draft letter, can lead to negative, and in some cases, irreversible consequences for production as a whole.

If the first version of the draft letter contains clear conclusions on the possibility of privatization of social and cultural facilities, then the second version is replete with vague wording and shifted semantic accents that do not contribute to an unambiguous interpretation of its content. We see at least two options for reading it. Let's call the first one "optimistic", according to which it is allowed to privatize social and cultural facilities as part of the property complex of specialized unitary enterprises during their corporatization. However, a number of questions do arise.

Firstly, according to the penultimate paragraph “In the meaning of these norms of the law, the restriction they have introduced on the privatization of these objects concerns only the privatization individual objects of socio-cultural and communal purposes included in the property complex of a unitary enterprise, and does not apply to cases of corporatization of a unitary enterprise in the relevant field of activity". However, it is not entirely clear:

1) What is meant by "separate objects of socio-cultural and domestic purposes"?

Given this wording, it is possible to interpret the provisions of the Information Letter in such a way that individual social and cultural facilities cannot be privatized as part of the property complex, which, however, does not exclude the presence of other social and cultural facilities in this property complex, to which this restriction does not apply. In the latter case, it also becomes unclear what grounds can or should be taken into account when making a decision on the possibility (impossibility) of privatization.

We believe that it is more expedient to reflect the problem of privatization of social and cultural facilities from the standpoint of the use of social and cultural facilities in the implementation by a unitary enterprise of the main types of activities for the purposes corresponding to their intended purpose.

2) What is meant by “relevant field of activity”?

We believe that this wording needs clarification, because it is not clear which area of ​​activity of a unitary enterprise is “relevant” for the purposes of exempting it from shareholding restrictions.

Secondly, the draft Information Letter states that “Socio-cultural and public utility facilities not included in the property complex of a unitary enterprise subject to privatization<…>are subject to transfer to municipal ownership in the manner prescribed by law. At the same time, the draft Information Letter leaves unresolved the question of the further legal fate of these objects, namely, can they be privatized separately?

Finally, in the last paragraph of the second version of the draft Information Letter of the SAC, it is stated: “In this regard, the privatization of the property complex through corporatization of a specialized unitary enterprise, which includes specified objects, in and of itself is not against the law.

The draft Information Letter of the SAC refers to the “specified objects” as follows:

• facilities that meet the needs of social protection authorities;
• objects of health care, education, culture, children's health complexes (dachas, camps), housing stock and objects of its infrastructure;
• transport and energy facilities intended to serve the residents of the respective settlement.

Thus, from this paragraph, as well as from the preamble of the letter, it follows that specialized enterprises providing public services to the population can, among other things, privatize without restriction not only the objects involved in their main activity, but also all other socially significant objects.

It is difficult for us to assess whether the "ambiguities" listed above are accidental. It is quite probable that - yes. If not, they provide the basis for a "pessimistic" reading. So, in the last paragraph, in relation to the conclusion about the possibility of privatization of the property complex through the corporatization of a specialized unitary enterprise, the phrase "in itself does not contradict the law" is used. The presence in this phrase of the phrase “by itself” suggests that the privatization of the property complex of a specialized unitary enterprise is allowed, but not in any way, but, for example, after the exclusion of all social and cultural facilities from it. The possibility of such an interpretation is due to the existing judicial practice, in which the owner's decisions on the inclusion of a unitary enterprise in the forecast plan (program) of privatization were invalidated if they were specialized. In particular, the same Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation, considering the case at first instance, in its Decision No. 16642/05 dated March 16, 06, recognized the State Unitary Utility Enterprise of Electric and Thermal Networks of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Agricultural Sciences as not subject to privatization due to the fact that all of its the property and the enterprise itself are energy facilities intended to serve the residents of the respective settlement.

Based on the fact that Art. 30 of the Law "On Privatization ..." does not contain restrictions on the privatization of the property complex of a unitary enterprise, depending on its "specialization", the recommendations of the letter may well be aimed at preventing such conclusions.

As you can see, the draft Information Letter so far raises more questions than it answers. Nevertheless, we recognize the adoption of such a letter as certainly timely. In general, we believe that the problem caused by the peculiarities of regulating the privatization of social and cultural facilities deserves serious attention. However, not all issues can be considered in the format of one article, and we hope to offer readers our vision in future publications. possible ways her decisions.

Feoktistova Alexandra Borisovna. Headed consulting projects for complex servicing of large industrial enterprises, supervised and took part in consulting projects of Stroymekhanizatsiya-6 OJSC, ALMOSS LLC, PFC BIN CJSC, GlavUpDK, CMT, TZK-Vnukovo CJSC, Avtocard CJSC, etc. Head of the Department of Complex Projects of the Consulting group "Mikhailov and Partners", heads the project of the Department of Property of Moscow on reforming the fuel and energy complex of Moscow, where CG "Mikhailov and Partners" acts as a legal consultant.

Mankulova Zhanna Aikovna. Leading specialist in the field of legal consulting of the Mikhailov & Partners Consulting Group, provides support for the project to reform the Moscow fuel and energy complex.

We invite you to take part in the work of our magazine! Send proposals for cooperation, on the subject of materials, your articles and comments to. We also invite you to take part in events organized by the magazine (conferences, round tables, discussions).

I am building an individual residential building after the demolition of the old one on a plot of 1200 m2, which is leased for 49 years for the operation of a residential building and personal subsidiary farming.

In November 2009, according to my application for the construction of a house, a town planning plan was approved land plot and in February 2010, a permit was issued for the construction of an individual residential building with the parameters indicated by me schematically.

The requirements for the purpose, parameters and placement of the capital construction object on the site indicate ...

"the maximum number of floors (ground) - 3"

maximum plot size (34.6 x 33.4) 0.1200 ha

other indicators:

if the number of floors exceeds more than 3 (including technical ones), it is required to develop project documentation and conduct a state examination in the manner prescribed by law.

the maximum coefficient of use of the territory for individual residential buildings is 0.9 (ratio total area residential building, taking into account the number of storeys, to the area of ​​the land plot);

construction of an individual residential building to replace the existing and linear engineering infrastructure facilities in accordance with SNiP 2.07.01-89 * Appendix 1, SP 30-102-99 and other regulatory documents.

In the drawing of the town-planning plan of the site, the place of the permissible location of the building is indicated.

At present, according to the cadastral passport dated 10/20/2010 and the technical passport, an unfinished construction object of individual residential construction has been built on my site, the purpose is residential, the building area is 869.6 m2, the number of floors of the above-ground part is 2, the number of floors of the underground is 1, readiness - 30%.

In fact, there is a building on the site with 1 underground floor protruding 1.3 meters above the ground on one side, and 0.40 meters above the ground on the other (the height of the underground floor is about 3 meters) and two above-ground floors and the third floor begun. The construction of the floor was stopped by me when the regional administration sent a complaint to the Prosecutor's Office and the department of the state construction supervision of the region about exceeding the number of storeys, violation of building parameters and the need for an examination of the construction project.

After that, I received the conclusion of the state construction supervision of the region, which indicated that during the audit it was established that the individual residential building on my site is an unfinished object with an area of ​​​​869.6 m2 - a residential two-story house with the number of underground floors - 1, and ground - 2. In addition In addition, it is indicated that according to paragraph 1 of Part 2 of Art. 49 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, state expertise is not carried out in relation to projects of houses with no more than three floors, intended for one family and beyond ... which in paragraph 14 of Art. 1 deg. The Code of the Russian Federation gives a definition of reconstruction, in which the concepts of "number of floors and number of storeys" are identical, and Appendix B to SNiP 31-01-2003 states that when determining the number of storeys of a building in the number of above-ground floors, the basement is included if the upper floor is above the average planning ground marks at least 2 meters (for me it is approximately 0.8 m.)

On this basis, the case administrative offense was terminated.

If it matters, then the main types of permitted use in the approved urban plan include:

separately standing houses for one family;

block houses for several families;

household the buildings

gardens, schools, clubs, pharmacies, clinics, baths, commercial and household facilities with an area of ​​​​not more than 150 m2

In the auxiliary types of permitted use (apparently by mistake) it is indicated:

apartment buildings;

ateliers, hairdressers and other objects of commercial and household purposes with an area exceeding the permitted "by right";

filling stations;

physical culture and health complexes

The city administration is currently suing statement of claim"on recognizing the construction as unauthorized and the obligation to demolish the unauthorized construction." It states that the audit of the Department of Architectural and Construction Supervision "... established that, in violation of the planning scheme for organizing the land plot, a brick building is being erected that does not meet the established parameters .." and that construction is carried out in violation of the requirements established by the urban planning plan and building permit. In addition, it states:

1. Administration in accordance with paragraph 5 of part 3 of Art. 8 of the Town Planning Code has the right to bring a claim for demolition.

2.By virtue of Part 1 of Art. 222 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, an unauthorized building is a building created on a land plot not allocated for these purposes, either without obtaining a permit or with a significant violation of urban planning norms and rules.

The lawsuit does not specifically indicate the violations, as earlier in the complaint to the prosecutor's office.

The object built by me is located within the boundaries of the land plot and the place of permissible placement of the building, only on one side, where the border with the public land (free from development) I receded not by 3 meters, but by 0.7 meters, on three other sides retreat from 4 to 6 meters.

There are no disagreements from the neighbors, no rights have been violated, the object does not pose any danger (the lawsuit states that it was built without permission and poses a danger, on the basis of which it is not clear).

A huge request to explain what I should do and whether the administration can achieve the demolition of the building in whole or in part.

I tried to get advice on the spot, but it doesn’t work out very well, they say that they can’t demolish it and there was no similar situation in the city.

Thanks in advance.

Mark Popov.

We are residents of a dormitory in St. Petersburg, which was in 1994, as an administrative building, illegally transferred through the KUGI and the Property Fund of St. Petersburg to the ownership of City Repair and Construction Trust No. ), we ask lawyers who deal with the problem of private hostels or have dealt with such a problem to give us advice on three issues that are especially relevant for us today:

1) is it legal to require the KUGI of St. Petersburg to file a vindication claim on the basis of Art. 304, 301 and 302, taking into account part 4 of Art. 208 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, if it was not a dormitory building, but some non-existent administrative and amenity building that was transferred to the authorized capital of JSC "GRST-5"?

2) how can the Department of the Federal Registration Service of St. Petersburg be forced to make changes to the USRR entry, in which the premises occupied by us are illegally registered with the indication: "appointment - non-residential"?

The FRS requires a court decision, and the court did not satisfy any statement under Ch. 25 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, nor a statement of claim on the obligation of the Federal Registration Service to make a change to the USRR entry. The certificate below provides evidence that there was no transfer of the residential building of the hostel to the non-residential fund.

At the same time, Art. 31 of the Law of the Russian Federation "On State Registration of Rights ..." states that the bodies of the registration service are responsible for the accuracy of information about the objects, the rights to which are registered. In this regard, the third question:

3) what acts established the procedure for holding the registration service body liable for non-compliance with the requirements of Art. 31 of the Law of the Russian Federation "On state registration of rights ..."?

There are currently 41 private dormitories in St. Petersburg (transferred to the authorized capital at the time of privatization of enterprises). But our hostel (the court does not recognize the building as a hostel) on the street. Polyarnikov, d. 9, lit. And in St. Petersburg it turned out to be especially plight, because registering it floor by floor as non-residential premises makes it difficult for residents to fight for the right to use the premises. In fact, we are deprived of housing by such registration. Violated Art. 40 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. Judge Nevsky District Court Martynov A.GN in one of the decisions he wrote that the building in which we live was a hostel only before its privatization in 1994.

Explanatory note.

Our dormitory was, according to deliberately false documents of the administration of the privatized enterprise, without the established procedure, transferred to a non-residential fund. The KUGI Privatization Commission, which included two representatives of the enterprise administration (as it was supposed to), without verifying the information according to the PIB inventory, in 1994 signed a false one in part of the building on the street. Polyarnikov, d. 9 The act of assessing the cost of buildings and structures, in which the hostel building was called administrative and amenity, i.e. there are supposedly no people. Five months later, the KUGI of St. Petersburg drew up a Notice of the transfer of the rights of the founder, in which the dormitory building was called an administrative and amenity building.

The tenants did not know anything: after all, none of the officials of the KUGI or the district administration informed them that the building was being transferred to the ownership of the enterprise where they worked. Everything remained as before: the commandant, payments for the hostel, indicating all types of services, all types of relations as in pre-perestroika times. Illegal privatizers waited until the statute of limitations expired and filed lawsuits in 2003 against all tenants in court for eviction without providing housing.

Then only the tenants became alarmed and began to apply to all authorities with complaints and statements. And the Nevsky District Court, meanwhile, continued the eviction without providing another dwelling, relying on Art. 304 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, although the Civil Code regulates real relations, and not housing and legal relations of citizens.

In 1999, the inventory service of the district, at the request of illegal owners, divided the five-story building floor by floor into separate real estate objects and made false plans for secondary real estate objects indicating: “appointment - non-residential”.

Two floors and a basement, according to acts agreed by the KUGI, were registered with the Registration Service Department as objects having a non-residential purpose in 2000. And the other three floors, the illegal owners decided to pass through the arbitration court of St. Petersburg by filing an application to establish a legal fact - their property rights. They succeeded. Neither the KUGI, nor even the tenants, were involved in the case as interested persons. False documents were presented to the court.

In 2003, after our numerous appeals, the KUGI filed a lawsuit with an arbitration court to invalidate the state registration and recognize state ownership of the entire building. But since Art. 167 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation (three years of limitation), the case was lost due to missing the statute of limitations. For unknown reasons, the KUGI did not file a lawsuit on the application of the consequences of the invalidity of a void transaction (the statute of limitations at that time was 10 years).

And today the building is registered floor by floor in the Federal Registration Service as non-residential. And it was resold several times: for 50,000 rubles for one floor with 15 rooms and for 90,000 thousand rubles for another floor. Apparently to their friendly firms, since in reality the same GRST-5 OJSC manages. And then the 10-year term was reduced to 3 years.

We also sued for 5 years in different district courts: we filed an application under Chapter 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, demanding to invalidate the registration of the floors of the building inhabited by us as non-residential. But we were refused, because. the court found a dispute about the right. The Court of Cassation confirmed this position. Various lawsuits were filed in the Nevsky District Court: on the application of the consequences of the invalidity of a void transaction, the recognition of a residential purpose, the invalidation of registration due to the nullity of the transaction and the violation of the registration procedure by the Federal Registration Service, the illegality of the registration of other purchasers, the obligation of OJSC GRST-5 to provide us with residential premises in own.

But they could not achieve a positive result through the Nevsky District Court. Nor could we achieve that the premises occupied by us would be recognized as having a permanent residential purpose. In 2003, they tried in the arbitration court to challenge, together with the KUGI, the invalidity of the state registration of a dwelling as non-residential. But they were not allowed to the case, although Art. 42 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation allowed this. For unknown reasons, the KUGI was against our participation in the case. Against our participation in the case was also the State Institution "Directorate for the maintenance of dormitories", involved as a third party. As a result, it was not possible to present evidence to the arbitration court of the deliberate falsity of the documents on the privatization of the hostel.

The noise raised by us led to the fact that the City Prosecutor's Office gave a directive: do not evict them to the street. And the claims of merchants about our eviction to the street began to be dissatisfied. But by that time, decisions on eviction had already been made for 20 tenants. Most of these people were evicted by absentee decisions: they lived in the city with their families and did not even know about the lawsuits.

Meanwhile, in 2005, one of the tenants of the hostel succeeded in 2005 through the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation to cancel the decision of the Arbitration Court of St. Petersburg, which in 2002 satisfied the application of illegal owners (JSC City Repair and Construction Trust No. our hostel premises. It was on the basis of this decision that in 2002 the state registration of the property rights of JSC "GRST-5" for non-residential premises inhabited on the 3rd and 5th floors of the building was carried out. The specified cancellation of the decision of the arbitration court was one of the arguments in our claims for the invalidation of the state registration. But both courts ignored this argument. During the new consideration in the Arbitration Court of St. Petersburg, the merchants of their JSC "GRST-5" used a clever move: they filed an application to leave their original application without consideration. And the Arbitration Court of St. Petersburg granted this application. Thus, the path of struggle through the arbitration court was interrupted. After that, the KUGI filed a lawsuit to review the decision due to newly discovered circumstances. But since the previous claim of the KUGI was rejected on the grounds that the limitation period was missed, and the case was allegedly not considered on the merits, the new claim of the KUGI was dismissed. We, too, were denied involvement in the case.

In the Nevsky District Court, we presented numerous documentary evidence that, in accordance with the established procedure, the residential hostel was not transferred to the non-residential fund. Numerous documents of the KUGI, the City Prosecutor's Office, the State Unitary Enterprise GUION, the Housing Committee and the Governor of St. Petersburg himself were presented about this, stating that the residential status of the disputed building and its individual parts did not change. But the Nevsky District Court and the City Court refused to recognize his residential purpose. In the texts of the decisions, our arguments were not assessed as it should be according to the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation. Even the defendant GUP GUION recognized our claim for an unchanged residential purpose of the premises, but the court was not embarrassed and he calmly violated clause 3 of article 173 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, which established that “when the defendant recognizes the claim and accepts it, the court decides on satisfaction of the claims filed by the court.

This is our Nevsky District Court. This is our City Court. We don't understand how this could happen, but it did. Why? You can make assumptions.

The privatization transaction of a residential building was contrary to the law and is therefore void in accordance with Art. 168 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. This was recognized by the Court of Cassation of the Arbitration Court of St. Petersburg and Leningrad Region in the reasoning part. And according to paragraph 2 of Art. 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation "Bindingness of judicial decisions", court decisions that have entered into force are binding on all law enforcement officers. And this applies not only to the substantive part of court decisions, but to the motivational part. Such a decision of the FAS SZO dated May 26, 2004 was presented as evidence to the court of first instance, but the district court and the city court ignored such iron-clad evidence on a claim to invalidate the state registration of the rights of JSC "GRST-5" and subsequent registrations.

We file supervisory appeals, but there is little hope for positive court rulings: both courts compose court rulings in such a way that our evidence is not evaluated, they are simply not mentioned, and their arbitrary interpretations and conclusions are given. And the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, overwhelmed with complaints from all over Russia, having read the court decisions of the city courts, with a very high probability will not want to claim the cases themselves and will draw up its own rulings based on the available texts of the court. And they, in our opinion, are unjust.

We cannot use the experience of the city of Perm, since we failed to achieve recognition of the residential status of our hostel.

In such a situation, it was logical to demand from the city authorities comfortable residential premises: after all, our premises are registered as non-residential and, therefore, our premises are obviously unsuitable for habitation. And the Housing Code of the Russian Federation contains subparagraph 1 of subparagraph 2 of Art. 57, according to which, if the residential premises are recognized as unfit for habitation and it is impossible to reconstruct them into residential ones. And we demanded.

Believing that since the premises we occupied remained registered with the FRS as non-residential, and therefore unsuitable for habitation, we hoped that the legal requirement for the provision of comfortable residential premises could be satisfied. After all, we were deprived of residential premises due to the fault of the authority - the KUGI: it was the KUGI that drew up a false Notice of the transfer of the rights of the founder, to whom our house, as an administrative building, was given into private hands.

But it was not there. Officials pointed out that an act of the MVK on the unsuitability of the living quarters was needed. But your rooms are not residential, because. registered as non-residential and therefore such an act cannot be drawn up: for non-residential premises it is impossible to draw up an act on the unsuitability for habitation of residential premises.

The Department for Appeals and Complaints of the Administration of the Governor of St. Petersburg, in response to the residents' appeal to the Governor V.I. Like this.

We ask lawyers and those who simply have experience in fighting for the rights of dormitory residents to express their opinion on the issues raised at the beginning of this text, as well as any other advice on how to resolve our situation in a legal way.

Residents of the hostel on the street. Polyarnikov, d. 9, lit. A in ST. PETERSBURG

e-mail: [email protected]

I worked in one of the divisions of Trust No. 6 Gorkovgesstroy - "Otdelstroy" from 07/29/1976 as a painter with ranks from 1st to 3rd. During the period of work, the name "Otdelstroy" has changed several times. Last modified It was 08/01/1992 on the basis of the organization order No. 138 dated 08/14/1992. The above order "Otdelstroy" was renamed into the SF "Otdelstroy" JSC "Nizhegorodgesstroy". AT work book all relevant records have been made.

The entire period of work in this organization, and this is until the day the painter was dismissed in the specified position, I was busy painting the premises of newly built housing, institutions, sewage treatment plants, schools, kindergartens, etc., as well as carrying out overhaul objects located in the city of Balakhna, the city of Zavolzhye, the city of Gorodets, the city of Chkalovsk and other regions of the USSR. When performing work in the preparation of objects for painting and the painting itself, such materials were used as: solvents of brand 646, turpentine, technical acetone 1/s and 2/s white spirits, coal solvent, white spirit, nefras, kerosene fraction and other materials, and also combined drying oil, bituminous varnish, MA-15 paints, PF-115 enamel, nitro-paints, putties, adhesives related to materials of the 3rd hazard class, which is confirmed by certificates of the SF "Otdelstroy" JSC "Nizhegorodgesstroy". My work experience as a painter, employed in work with the use of harmful substances of at least the 3rd hazard class, is 13 years 3 months. 25 days

Jobs by profession painters employed in jobs with the use of hazardous substances of at least the 3rd hazard class are included in the list No. 2 of industries, professions, positions and indicators with harmful conditions labor section XXXIII position 23200000-1345, are counted in the length of service, giving the right to early assignment of an old-age labor pension to women employed in work with harmful working conditions.

In accordance with paragraph 1 of Art. 27 of the Federal Law "On labor pensions in the Russian Federation", an old-age labor pension is assigned to women upon reaching the age of 45 years, if they have worked for at least 7 years and six months. work in hazardous conditions and have at least 15 years of insurance experience. In the event that these persons have worked at the above jobs for at least half of the period established above and have the required length of insurance experience, a labor pension is assigned to them with a decrease in the age established by Art. 7 of the Federal Law "On labor pensions in the Russian Federation", for one year for each full year of such work for women.

In accordance with the ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of March 6, 2003 No. 107-O, the provisions of paragraphs. 2 p. 1 art. 27 of the above Law are subject to application in accordance with their constitutional and legal meaning.

I applied to the commission, by appointment, for the payment of pensions to the "GU UPF RF of the Balakhna region with official letter on the appointment of a labor pension with the attached documents. My application was answered with a refusal to grant me a pension. From the answer of the GU UPF RF of the Balakhna region, it is not clear what date the meeting of the commission was, and I consider the motives for refusing to grant a pension untenable.

The certificates issued to me even before the liquidation of the SF "Otdelstroy" confirm my work with harmful working conditions.

The refusal to grant me a pension is also not justified due to the fact that in the period before 01/01/1992 I had already worked out the necessary work experience with harmful working conditions.

From the prescriptions of paragraphs 2, paragraph 1 and paragraph 3 of Art. 27 of the above law, as well as other articles of this federal law, it does not follow that the right of citizens of this category to the early appointment of an old-age labor pension can be made dependent on the exact correspondence of the name of the profession according to the employment contract, the name of the professions according to list No. 2 of industries, professions and indicators with harmful working conditions.

The interpretation of these norms allowing not to include the time of performing the specified work in the special experience on the grounds that these works, by their nature and conditions, are not recognized as difficult due to the absence of a direct indication of this in the entry in the work book, would not only contradict their actual meaning and intended purpose, but would also create inequality in the exercise of the right to early appointment of a labor pension, which is unacceptable from the point of view of the requirements of Parts 1 and 2 of Art. 19 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, and would also lead to an unlawful restriction of the right of citizens to social security in accordance with Part 1 of Art. 39 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation.

Many employees who worked at the above enterprise, according to my profession, were registered for early retirement. But the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation refused me an early pension. Based on the fact that I was issued a certificate confirming my work in 1996, and the SF "Otdelstoy" allegedly ceased to exist in 1994. But there is no such data in the archive. The PF also motivates by the fact that this certificate is not valid, but all previous employees left on such certificates. In addition, the PF says that now there are other requirements. Which ones are not explained. Are they right? And what are the other requirements that the PF refers to?

What should I do? I am put in an unfavorable position in the exercise of the right to early appointment of a labor pension. Tell me please. Thanks in advance.

Hello! Please help me to solve the following issue:

in connection with litigation with RAO Gazprom regarding the privatization of an apartment owned by RAO Gazprom since 2003. The construction of the house was carried out from 1992 to 1994 by the construction organization Smu-28, which is now liquidated. The house is 16-apartment wooden beam. Smu-28 built housing for its employees, who were in the queue for improving their living conditions. State-issued warrants were issued for apartments (Appendix No. 4 of the Approximate Accounting Rules .....) The warrants were issued by the district administration.

RAO Gazprom was formed on March 31, 1993 - Order No. 2 of RAO Gazprom "On the transformation of the state gas concern Gazprom into RAO Gazprom. At that time, our house was at the stage of construction in progress. But Gazprom strangely included it in its authorized capital. Decree of the President of the Russian Federation No. 8 dated 01/10/1993 "On the use of objects socio-cultural and domestic purposes of privatized enterprises" it was forbidden to include housing stock in the property of privatized enterprises. In violation of the Decree of the President of the Russian Federation No. 8 dated 10.01. remained in Gazprom.In connection with my appeal to the court, the judge asks me to prove that the house was built at the expense of public funds.Help me figure out how I can prove this?How can I prove that my house was subject to transfer to municipal ownership?