According to the legislation in force in the Russian Federation, the dead can only be buried in cemeteries with the permission of their administration and with the appropriate documentation. There may be cases in which permission from local authorities is required. Thus, unauthorized burial performed outside a cemetery, or in a cemetery without permission, or without the necessary documents is illegal.
For the most part, unauthorized burials occur in unguarded cemeteries that do not have a fence, that is, in rural areas or in not very large cities.
Options for unauthorized burials
A burial is considered illegal if it is carried out:
- with the destruction of gravestone burial structures;
- sub-burial, without permission, of a coffin in a grave site while preserving the grave structures;
- by subburying, without permission, a funeral urn;
- on someone else’s family plot, often an abandoned plot is chosen;
- in violation of the boundaries of other areas or in an area of the cemetery not intended for graves;
- outside the cemetery.
Allocation of free space
in Moscow cemeteries
If an illegal burial is discovered, they contact the cemetery administration, the police and the court.
An example of a statement of claim to the court:
To the Savelovsky District Court of Moscow
125047, Moscow, st. Butyrsky Val 7 building 1
Plaintiff: Ivanov Ivan Ivanovich
Address: 111558, Moscow, st. 14th Parkovaya, 8 apt. 42
Place of birth Moscow tel: _______
Passport of the Russian Federation _____ issued by the department of the Federal Migration Service of Russia for the city of Moscow in the district ______
Date of issue department code _______ Taxpayer Identification Number _______
Representative of the plaintiff by proxy: Sidorov Oleg Olegovich
Passport of the Russian Federation ______ issued by: police department ________ Department of Internal Affairs Moscow. region
Place of birth: Moscow. region ______ telephone ___________ Taxpayer Identification Number __________
Registered: Moscow. region, city _________
Email address mail: _________
Defendant: State Budgetary Institution "Ritual" of Moscow
125057, Moscow, st. Peschanaya 3
State duty: 300 rub. non-property claim. The claim price is 0 rub.
Responsibility
The measure of liability (criminal or administrative) is determined by the amount of damage caused to the burial, and by violations of current legislation during the implementation of a new burial. When desecrating or destroying burials and gravestone structures, Art. 244 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, according to which it is possible to award:
- fine up to 40 thousand rubles. or in the amount of three months’ salary;
- compulsory work up to 360 hours;
- correctional labor for up to 12 months;
- arrest up to 3 months
More severe punishments are also possible if there are aggravating circumstances (group of persons, prior conspiracy, and so on).
Bringing to administrative liability is carried out in accordance with local legislation. For example, in the Moscow region fines from 3 to 5 thousand rubles are imposed. for citizens, from 30 to 50 thousand rubles. for officials and from 500 to 700 thousand rubles. for legal entities.
If a subburial is discovered on someone else's property, the court may make a decision obliging the violator to exhume and rebury the remains. If the violator refuses to comply with this decision, the work will be carried out at his expense by a specialized service.
The Supreme Court prohibited placing a cemetery on private property without compensation to its owners
The Supreme Court supported the owners from whom the local administration actually confiscated for municipal needs for the purpose of burials a plot of land belonging to them as private property without providing compensation (Determination No. 4-КГ21-25-К1).
Sergei Stepennov and the Memorial Sofiino society own a land plot with an area of 29,000 square meters on the right of common shared ownership (1/2 share each). m, located in the rural settlement of Sofinskoye, Ramensky district, Moscow region. In accordance with the type of permitted use, the site is intended for agricultural production. Meanwhile, the territory of the land plot is actually occupied by a cemetery, the area of burials of which is 8,100 square meters. m, burials are carried out by the administration of the Ramensky urban district. At the same time, no decisions were made to confiscate the land from the owners for municipal needs and compensate for the losses caused to them.
In this regard, the owners filed a lawsuit against the Administration to recover the cost of the site and terminate the ownership rights to it, since in fact they were deprived of the right to use the territory belonging to them for its intended purpose. The plaintiffs asked the court to recover in their favor the market value of the land plot - 2.4 million rubles each. everyone - and transfer it to municipal ownership.
On February 27, 2021, the court of first instance satisfied the claims, since the Administration did not claim to seize the disputed property for municipal needs and did not compensate the owners for the losses caused. In addition, the court indicated: since there were no contractual legal relations between the plaintiffs and the defendant on the procedure for using the disputed site, then, accordingly, it is used by the Administration for municipal needs without permission.
However, the Moscow Regional Court overturned the decision of the first instance and refused to satisfy the claims. The appeal considered that the defendant was not to blame for the fact that the plaintiffs could not use the disputed land plot for its intended purpose. In addition, according to the appellate court, the plaintiffs incorrectly chose the method of protecting the violated right. Thus, the appeal considered that Sergei Stepennov and Memorial Sofiino should have submitted appropriate demands to the sellers of the disputed plot, who sold it to the plaintiffs with an encumbrance and restriction of the right to use. The very fact that the plaintiffs did not name the sellers of the disputed property as a defendant, but the Administration, in the opinion of the appellate instance, indicates their bad faith. The appeal also indicated that the use of the disputed plot for the needs of the cemetery took place long before the execution of the purchase and sale agreements, according to which it was transferred to the plaintiffs.
Sergey Stepennov and Memorial Sofiino tried to appeal the appeal decision in cassation, but on November 11, 2021, the First Cassation Court of General Jurisdiction upheld the appeal ruling.
In a cassation appeal to the Supreme Court, the owners asked to cancel the judicial acts of appeal and cassation. Having considered the case materials, the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court agreed with the arguments of the complaint and satisfied the demands of the cassation officers.
The court noted that according to Art. 304 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the owner may demand the elimination of any violations of his rights, even if these violations were not associated with deprivation of possession. The court notes that the ownership of the disputed land plot was registered in accordance with the procedure established by law and was not disputed by anyone. The title documents for the disputed property do not contain any indications of the presence of encumbrances or restrictions on its use.
The panel of judges, referring to the Order of the Ministry of Property Relations of the Moscow Region dated February 16, 2021 “On the delimitation of municipal property between the rural settlement of Sofinskoye of the Ramensky municipal district and the Ramensky municipal district of the Moscow region,” indicated that the cemetery located in the village of Sofyino was transferred into ownership Ramensky municipal district. The court also noted that this cemetery is included in the register of cemeteries, crematoria, walls of grief and other funeral facilities, and has the status of “open”.
The Supreme Court noted that in accordance with paragraph 2 of Art. 4 of the Law on Burial and Funeral Affairs, the decision to create burial places is made by the executive body of the constituent entity of the Russian Federation or the local government body in whose territories they are created. Depending on the affiliation, burial places can be state or municipal. “Thus, the location of a land plot with a cemetery located on it cannot be in private ownership, which follows from the provisions of this norm,” the definition notes.
The court emphasized that the use of the territory of the burial place is permitted after twenty years from the moment of its transfer, and in these cases this territory can only be used for green spaces.
The panel of judges, referring to paragraph 3 of Art. 49 of the Land Code of the Russian Federation, indicated that the seizure of land plots for state or municipal needs is carried out in exceptional cases on the grounds provided for by federal laws. At the same time, the Supreme Court explained that forced seizure of a plot is possible subject to preliminary and equivalent compensation.
Thus, the Supreme Court demonstrated that the absence of a decision by local government bodies to confiscate a land plot and failure to comply with the procedure for such confiscation for municipal needs do not in themselves deprive the owner of such a plot of the right to compensation for losses caused by the actual deprivation of property. According to the panel, this circumstance was not taken into account by the appellate court when deciding to reject the claim.
The Supreme Court did not agree with the conclusions of the appellate court about the improper method of protecting the right chosen by the plaintiffs, since there were no unlawful actions by the sellers of the land plot when selling it to Sergei Stepennov and the Memorial Sofiino society.
The Supreme Court also noted that the cassation court did not correct the violations committed by the appeal, limiting itself to a formal indication of the plaintiffs’ awareness of the existence of a cemetery on the disputed land plot for more than 20 years, as well as the absence of the defendant’s fault in the plaintiffs’ inability to use the land plot for its intended purpose. In this regard, he recalled that a general jurisdiction court of cassation does not have the right to establish or consider proven circumstances that were not established or were rejected by the court of first instance or appellate instance, to prejudge questions about the reliability or unreliability of this or that evidence, the superiority of some evidence over others, and determine what judicial decision should be made when re-examining cases, but must check the legality of judicial decisions adopted by the courts of first and appellate instances, establishing the correct application and interpretation of the rules.
Thus, the Court canceled the cassation ruling and sent the case for a new trial to the judicial panel for civil cases of the First Cassation Court of General Jurisdiction.
Lawyer of the Commonwealth of Land Lawyers Tatyana Grablina believes that the problem posed in the definition primarily lies in the oppression of the private interests of land owners by the administrative body. In her opinion, the meaning of the rules cited by the Supreme Court boils down to the fact that the local administration actually deprives the legal owners of land of the right to use their property in accordance with the permitted purpose.
Tatyana Grablina noted that there have already been cases similar to the one under consideration in judicial practice. For example, in one of them, by a resolution of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Moscow District in case No. A41-20317/11, losses in relation to the market value were compensated to the owner of a land plot, first bordering a cemetery, and then on the territory of which unauthorized burials were made. In addition, the lawyer noted that the relevance of the problem is due to the fact that the close location to the burial grounds leads to a danger to the life and health of people from an environmental point of view (appeal ruling of the Lipetsk Regional Court dated March 1, 2021 in case No. 33-268/ 2016).
The expert considers it significant that the Supreme Court emphasized that the cemetery is a special object, and responsibility for compliance with legislative and sanitary standards for its use lies with its owner - the state or municipality. “Referring the case for a new trial indicates that the actions of the local government were aimed at the illegal placement of burial sites on part of the territory of private property, which led to the impossibility of the intended use of the entire land plot and a violation of the rights of owners in general,” shared Tatyana Grablina.
Lawyer, managing partner of AVG Legal Alexey Gavrishev positively assessed the position of the Supreme Court in this situation, since, according to him, the definition enshrines in judicial practice the most important provision that the owner can demand elimination of violations of his rights, regardless of the presence or absence of deprivation ownership rights.
He added that the emergence of a large number of land disputes is due to the lack of order in the Rosreestr databases. Most often, disputes concern issues of land use, since land owners are often deprived of the opportunity to use their property for objective reasons. “This problem will remain relevant until the data from Rossrest are brought into compliance with current legislation,” emphasized Alexey Gavrishev.
Let's talk about responsibilities
In addition to rights, such a relative has responsibilities that are determined by special Regulations in the field of funeral business, namely:
- maintain the grave in proper condition and take care of the green spaces around the grave.
If simple rules for caring for a grave are not followed for a period of more than 20 years, the cemetery administration has the right to recognize the grave as abandoned and issue an appropriate act to this effect.
Responsibility for burials in the cemetery
Conditional registration is carried out by cemeteries, which is the basis for disputes between relatives.
It also became known that the regional department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs opened a criminal case under the article “Desecration of the bodies of the dead and their burial places,” which provides for up to five years in prison.
Photo: IZVESTIA/Vladimir Suvorov Moscow region authorities intend to stop the seizure of cemetery lands by Moscow residents with the help of new fines.
The judge of the Russian Federation, when considering a complaint against a decision in a case of an administrative offense, is not bound by the arguments of the complaint and checks the case in full.
court with state budgetary institution "ritual" for burial
As can already be seen, the procedure for re-registration (registration) of responsibility for burial is not the most transparent and understandable of all existing ones. However, in practice, most problems can be solved. To do this, you should consult only with professionals who have experience in resolving such cases.
Before filing a claim in court, it is necessary to clarify a number of issues, namely: the composition of the defendants (usually, this is the person recorded as responsible for the burial and cemetery - a legal entity of a unitary enterprise), the state fee (the statement of claim is not subject to assessment), the correct subject of the claim .
In Moscow, it is customary to file claims against the State Unitary Enterprise “Ritual” (GBU “Ritual”) in the Savelovsky District Court of Moscow. Contact us for help with your question and we will definitely help you!
How much does it cost to remove and cremate a deceased animal?
The cost of transportation and cremation services (general or individual) depends on the weight of the pet. In Moscow, on average, the cost of general cremation of cats, small dogs, hamsters, birds and chinchillas is about 1,500 rubles, a large dog weighing from 40 to 50 kg is about 5,000 rubles. Individual cremation will cost more: from 3.5 to 10 thousand rubles. With individual cremation, the owner can receive the ashes in an urn and bury them in a pet cemetery. You can legally bury your pet by contacting an organization that provides official funeral services for animals. There are similar ones in Moscow, St. Petersburg and other cities.
