ST 269 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation Lost force. — Federal Law of April 23, 2018 N 114-FZ. .
1. Violation of safety rules during the construction, operation or repair of main pipelines, if this act negligently resulted in the infliction of serious harm to human health, is punishable by restriction of freedom for a term of up to three years, or by forced labor for a term of up to two years with deprivation of the right to hold certain positions. or engage in certain activities for a term of up to three years or without it, or arrest for a term of up to six months, or imprisonment for a term of up to two years with deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities for a term of up to three years or without it.
2. The same act, which through negligence resulted in the death of a person, is punishable by forced labor for a term of up to five years or imprisonment for the same term.
3. An act provided for in the first part of this article, which through negligence resulted in the death of two or more persons, is punishable by forced labor for a term of up to five years or imprisonment for a term of up to seven years.
Commentary to Art. 269 Criminal Code
1. The subject of the crime is main gas, oil and product pipelines. Main pipelines can transport oil, natural gas, petroleum products, petroleum and artificial hydrocarbon gases, liquefied hydrocarbon gases, unstable gasoline, liquid ammonia, etc. Main pipelines include the pipeline itself (from the point of exit of commercial products prepared for transport to places of processing and shipment of oil, consumption of petroleum products or their transshipment to another type of transport and sale of gas, including liquefied gas, to consumers) with shut-off valves; pipeline protection structures; signal signs for the location of pipelines; repair and maintenance points; tank farms; wastewater treatment plants; compressor and gas distribution stations; underground storage stations for gas, oil and petroleum products, etc. Other auxiliary pipelines, which are branches from the main pipeline, intended to deliver a specific product to consumers, are not the subject of this crime.
2. The objective side of the crime is expressed in the form of action or inaction. Violation of safety rules during the construction of main pipelines is a complete or partial failure to comply with established standards for the design, construction, strength and tightness testing of main pipelines; may be expressed in the use of steel pipes of the wrong class, etc. Violation of safety rules during the operation of main pipelines is a complete or partial failure to comply with the procedures established by the regulations for the safe use (in accordance with the operational characteristics) of main pipelines; may manifest itself in exceeding the maximum permissible pressure in the main pipeline, etc. Violation of safety rules when repairing main pipelines is a failure to comply with the procedure for carrying out work (operations) to eliminate malfunctions and restore full functionality of main pipelines in accordance with operational characteristics; may be expressed in poor-quality welding work during the repair of main pipelines, etc. A mandatory feature of the crime in question is the occurrence of socially dangerous consequences due to negligence: grave harm to human health (Part 1), death of a person (Part 2), death of two or more persons ( part 3). In this case, it is necessary to establish a cause-and-effect relationship between actions and socially dangerous consequences that occur.
3. The crime is recognized as completed from the moment the socially dangerous consequences specified in the law occur. If there are no consequences, the actions are qualified under Art. 11.20 Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation.
4. Special subject: a person who has reached the age of 16 and is directly involved in the construction, operation or repair of main pipelines or is responsible for the specified work.
Attention!
The criminal law of the Russian Federation provides for criminal liability for hooliganism, which is understood as a gross violation of public order, expressing clear disrespect for society.
A person’s obvious disrespect for society is expressed in a deliberate violation of generally accepted norms and rules of behavior, dictated by the desire of the perpetrator to oppose himself to others, to demonstrate a disdainful attitude towards them.
In accordance with Article 213 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), these actions of a person are qualified as hooliganism, provided that they are committed with the use of weapons or objects used as weapons, or for political, ideological, racial, national or religious reasons. hatred or hostility, as well as on any public transport.
Any material objects, as well as animals that can cause harm to human health, can be recognized as objects used as weapons. This category also includes unloaded weapons that are not suitable for shooting (for example, educational, decorative, toy).
The legislator identifies as a separate group the commission of hooligan acts associated with resistance to a government official or other person protecting public order or suppressing violations in this area. In this case, criminal liability occurs in the form of imprisonment for up to 7 years.
Hooliganism, liability for which is provided for in Article 213 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, should be distinguished from crimes committed by persons with hooligan motives.
Criminal acts committed out of hooligan motives include intentional actions directed against a person’s person or his property, committed without any reason.
Insults, beatings, causing harm to a person’s health, committed in the family, against relatives or acquaintances out of personal hostility towards them, do not constitute hooliganism and are qualified under articles of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, providing for liability for crimes against the person.
The most serious type of crime in question is hooliganism with the use of explosives or explosive devices, the commission of which carries a maximum penalty of 8 years in prison.
In accordance with Article 20 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, persons who have reached the age of sixteen at the time of committing the crime are subject to criminal liability under Part 1 of Article 213 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, and for hooliganism under aggravating circumstances - fourteen years.
Second commentary to Art. 269 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation
1. The subject of the crime is the main pipeline - a set of technical means for transporting oil, petroleum products, natural, petroleum and artificial hydrocarbon gases from the areas of their extraction, production or storage to places of consumption.
2. The construction of a main pipeline includes its construction, design, as well as strength testing and leak testing in accordance with the working design. Operation of a pipeline means using it for its intended purpose. Repair involves eliminating faults in the main pipeline. It is divided into current, capital and emergency recovery.
The crime is considered completed from the moment the criminal consequence occurs in the form of grievous bodily harm (see Art. 111 of the Criminal Code).
3. From the subjective side, the crime involves a careless form of guilt.
4. The subject of the crime is a person who has reached the age of 16 years.
5. Qualifying signs: the occurrence of human death (Part 2); the death of two or more persons (Part 3 of Article 269 of the Criminal Code).
Article 269. Possession and use of land on the right of permanent (indefinite) use
The appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Administrative Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 08/07/2019 N 83-APA19-17 Believes that the disputed provision has legal uncertainty in application, contradicts Articles 39.33, 40 of the Land Code of the Russian Federation, Article 269 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, which allows MAUK "City Association of Culture and Recreation Parks" independently use land plots that are in permanent (perpetual) use, carry out activities in the park to organize food outlets, cafes, restaurants, bars and build retail facilities on land plots for these purposes. He believes that land legislation does not provide for the possibility of re-providing for the placement of NTO land plots that have already been transferred to citizens or individuals, and therefore they cannot be included in the NTO placement scheme.
Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated March 4, 2019 N 309-ES19-1112 in case N A50-36109/2017
Resolving the dispute, guided by the provisions of Articles 209, 269 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, Article 20 of the Land Code of the Russian Federation, the district court came to the conclusion that by determining the procedure for executing the contract by transferring into the ownership of investors a land plot owned by the Russian Federation and transferred to a state institution act for permanent (indefinite) use, the courts did not investigate and verify the issue of compliance of this procedure with the requirements of land legislation, and also did not find out whether the subject of the investment agreement is the land plot itself and whether the agreement provides for the possibility of disposing of it.
Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated April 11, 2019 N 310-ES19-3315 in case N A84-929/2018
Having assessed the evidence presented in the case materials according to the rules of Article 71 of the Arbitration Procedural Code of the Russian Federation, having established that the disputed non-residential premises are the property of the Russian Federation, they were transferred to the operational management of the institution; being a party to case No. A84-1991/2016, the company knew that there were no legal grounds for its use of the plaintiff’s real estate due to the termination of the lease agreement dated 01.01.2010 No. 1/10 “A”, the court’s recognition of the additional agreement dated 03.03.2014 on the extension the validity period of the contract was invalid, recognizing as proven the fact of the company's ownership of property in the period from December 19, 2016 to August 4, 2017, the court, having checked the plaintiff's calculation and changing it in terms of collecting interest, guided by paragraph 1 of Article 269, paragraph 1 of Article 299, Articles 395, 1102 , paragraph 2 of Article 1107 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, taking into account the explanations given in paragraph 26 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated October 8, 1998 N / 14 “On the practice of applying the provisions of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation on interest for use other people’s money,” partially satisfied the requirements.
Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated July 8, 2019 N 308-ES19-9722 in case N A20-4305/2017
In resolving demands regarding the invalidation of lease agreements and the application of the consequences of their invalidity, the courts were guided by the norms of the Land Code of the RSFSR, Article 37 of the RSFSR Law of December 25, 1990 N 445-I “On Enterprises and Entrepreneurial Activities”, Articles , , , 167, 168, 268 , 269 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, part 9 of article 3 of Law N 137-FZ, paragraph 3 of Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of December 27, 1991 N 323 “On urgent measures to implement land reform in the RSFSR”, Recommendations of the Ministry of Agriculture of the Russian Federation on the reorganization of collective farms and state farms dated January 14, 1992, by Decree of the Government of the Kabardino-Balkarian Republic dated April 5, 1993 N 59 “On the reorganization of collective farms, state farms, and other agricultural enterprises of the agro-industrial complex” and proceeded from the fact that from the moment of the creation of LLC “People’s Enterprise “Shedzhem”, as legal entity, this company, by virtue of the provisions on universal legal succession during the transformation of legal entities, has acquired the right of permanent (indefinite) use of disputed land plots, and, accordingly, the right to re-register it as a lease, in accordance with the procedure defined by the Federal Law of October 25 .2001 “On the implementation of the Land Code of the Russian Federation” and the Land Code of the Russian Federation. In addition, the courts came to the conclusion that the entrepreneur had not proven that the disputed transactions violated his rights and legitimate interests, as well as how the plaintiff’s legitimate interest would be restored if his chosen method of protection was implemented.
Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 02/06/2017 N 306-ES16-16728 in case N A55-24400/2015
Having established the fact that the defendant used the disputed land plot without proper grounds, the legality of calculating the stated claims, guided by the provisions of paragraphs 1, 2 of Article 269, paragraph 4 of Article 216, Articles 305, 395, paragraph 1 of Article 1102, Article 1105 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, paragraph 1 of Article 65 of the Land Code of the Russian Federation, Methodology for determining the amount of rent, the procedure, conditions and terms for its payment for land plots owned by the Samara Region and provided for purposes not related to construction, approved by the Decree of the Government of the Samara Region dated September 26, 2007 N 205, by resolutions of the Government of the Samara Region dated December 10, 2008 N 473 and dated November 13, 2013 N 610 “On approval of the results of the state cadastral valuation of land plots as part of the lands of settlements of the Samara Region”, the courts came to the conclusion that there were grounds to satisfy the claims in in full.
Determination of the Judicial Collegium for Economic Disputes of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 04/06/2017 N 305-ES16-16728 in case N A55-24400/2015
To substantiate the arguments of the cassation appeal, the entrepreneur pointed out the arbitrary, unfounded calculation by the courts of the amount of unjust enrichment, as well as the fact that the collection of funds in favor of a person who is a payer of land tax, who is not authorized to dispose of state land and is not its owner, is a violation paragraph 3 of Article 269, 1102 and 1105 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation.
Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated April 21, 2017 No. 307-KG17-3143 in case No. A26-16/2016
Having assessed the evidence presented in the case materials according to the rules of Article 71 of the Arbitration Procedural Code of the Russian Federation, having established that the land plot with cadastral number 10:13:0000000:11664 is located on forest lands in block 129 of section 18 of the Medvezhyegorsk district forestry and is the property of the Russian Federation, the transfer of this plot from the category of forest fund lands to another category of land in the manner prescribed by law was not carried out and the right of federal ownership to this plot was not terminated, the court, guided by parts 1, 4 of article 198 of the Arbitration Procedural Code of the Russian Federation, articles , , , 125, 195 , 195, 269, 301 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, paragraph 2 of Article 9, Article 9.1, paragraph 2 of Article 10, paragraph 2 of Article 11, paragraph 1 of Article 25, Articles 39.1, 39.2, paragraph 1 of Article 61 of the Land Code of the Russian Federation, part 1 of Article 8 , Article 83 of the Forest Code of the Russian Federation as well as the explanations contained in paragraph 7 of the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated March 23, 2012 N 15 “On some issues of the participation of the prosecutor in the arbitration process”, paragraph 9 of the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 10.02. 2009 N 2 “On the practice of courts considering cases challenging decisions, actions (inaction) of state authorities, local governments, officials, state and municipal employees”, the legal position formulated in the rulings of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated November 18, 2004 N 367 -O, dated 22.11.2012 N 2149-O, dated 02.12.2013 N 1908-O, subparagraph 60 of paragraph 2 of Article 26.3 of the Federal Law of 06.10.1999 N 184-FZ “On the general principles of organizing legislative (representative) and executive bodies of the state authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation", paragraph 1 of Article 2 of the Federal Law of July 21, 1997 N 122-FZ "On state registration of rights to real estate and transactions with it", came to the conclusion that the district administration and the settlement administration did not have the authority to dispose of disputed land plot, in connection with which the stated requirements were satisfied.
Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated April 28, 2017 N 305-KG17-877 in case N A40-8068/2016
It follows from paragraph 1 of Article 269 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as the Civil Code of the Russian Federation) that a person to whom a land plot is granted for permanent (indefinite) use exercises ownership and use of this plot within the limits established by law, other legal acts and the act of granting plot for use.
Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated June 2, 2017 N 309-KG17-5637 in case N A47-1340/2016
Having assessed the evidence presented in the case materials according to the rules of Article 71 of the Arbitration Procedural Code of the Russian Federation, the court found that the land plot with cadastral number 56:44:0106002:13 belongs on the right of common shared ownership to private individuals and a public entity - a subject of the Russian Federation - Orenburg Region ; at the same time, the specified land plot is not divided into separate parts, the specified shares of the Orenburg region are not allocated in kind, do not have separate characteristics (with the definition of a specific area and coordinate characteristic turning points that allow determining the position of this part on the entire land plot) and, guided by subparagraph 1 paragraph 1 of article 39.1, paragraphs 1 - 3 of article 39.9, paragraphs 3, 4, 11 of article 39.20 of the Land Code of the Russian Federation, articles 216, 268, 269 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, recognized that the provision for permanent (indefinite) use of a share in the right of common shared ownership of the land plot does not comply with the law, and therefore the management did not have legal grounds for state registration of the right of permanent (perpetual) use.
Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated April 10, 2017 N 304-ES17-2410 in case N A45-2203/2016
Having examined and assessed the evidence presented in the case and the arguments given by the persons participating in the case in accordance with the rules of Articles 67, 68, 71 of the Arbitration Procedural Code of the Russian Federation, guided by paragraph 10 of Article 3 of the Federal Law of October 25, 2001 N 137-FZ “On the Enactment of the Land Code of the Russian Federation", paragraph 3 of Article 1 of the Federal Law dated July 24, 2002 N 101-FZ "On the turnover of agricultural land", Article 2 of the Federal Law dated July 21, 1997 N 122-FZ "On state registration of rights to real estate and transactions with him", Articles 20, 77, 78 of the Land Code of the Russian Federation, Articles 22 - 34 of the Land Code of the Russian Federation, in force at the time of adoption of the contested resolution, Articles 268, 269 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the courts came to a reasonable conclusion that the contested resolution of the administration of Novosibirsk district of the Novosibirsk region dated January 21, 2015 N 92-apa on the provision to the MKU "Land Bureau" for permanent (indefinite) use of a land plot with cadastral number 54:19:164801:188 complies with current legislation and does not violate the rights of the partnership.
Determination of the Judicial Collegium for Economic Disputes of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated June 13, 2017 in case No. 305-KG17-877, A40-8068/2016
In refusing to satisfy the application, the courts were guided by paragraph 4 of Article 20, paragraph 6 of Article 27 of the Land Code of the Russian Federation, paragraph 1 of Article 269 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as the Civil Code of the Russian Federation), paragraph 3 of Article 1 of the Federal Law of July 24, 2002 N 101-FZ “On turnover of agricultural land" (hereinafter referred to as Law No. 101-FZ) and proceeded from the impossibility in this case of maintaining the intended use of agricultural land plots, therefore they considered that under such circumstances the Department did not have legal grounds for providing the Enterprise with a lease of the disputed land plots .
