ST 247 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
1. Production of prohibited types of hazardous waste, transportation, storage, burial, use or other handling of radioactive, bacteriological, chemical substances and waste in violation of established rules, if these acts created a threat of causing significant harm to human health or the environment, is punishable by a fine in the amount up to two hundred thousand rubles or in the amount of wages or other income of the convicted person for a period of up to eighteen months, or by restriction of freedom for a term of up to two years, or by forced labor for a term of up to two years, or by imprisonment for the same term.
2. The same acts that resulted in pollution, poisoning or contamination of the environment, causing harm to human health or mass death of animals, as well as those committed in an environmental disaster zone or in an environmental emergency zone, are punishable by a fine in the amount of one hundred thousand to three hundred thousand rubles. or in the amount of wages or other income of the convicted person for a period of one to two years, or forced labor for a term of up to five years, or imprisonment for the same period.
3. Acts provided for in parts one or two of this article, which through negligence resulted in the death of a person or mass illness of people, are punishable by imprisonment for a term of up to eight years.
Commentary to Art. 247 Criminal Code
1. Hazardous substances are substances that, when exposed to living organisms, can lead to their death. Hazardous waste - waste that contains harmful substances that have hazardous properties (toxicity, explosion hazard, fire hazard, high reactivity) or contain pathogens of infectious diseases, or which may pose an immediate or potential danger to the natural environment and human health independently or upon coming into contact with other substances.
2. The objective side of the crime is expressed in the production, transportation, storage, burial, use or other handling of the specified substances and wastes in violation of the established rules.
3. The crime is considered completed from the moment of commission of any of the listed acts that created a real threat of causing significant harm to human health (of any severity) or the environment.
4. Creating a threat of causing significant harm to human health or the environment implies the occurrence of such a situation or such circumstances that would have entailed harmful consequences provided for by law if they had not been interrupted in a timely manner by measures taken or other circumstances independent of the will of the harm-cauter. A threat presupposes the presence of a specific danger of real harm to human health or the environment.
5. A special subject of a crime is a person responsible for compliance with the rules for handling environmentally hazardous substances and waste.
6. Ecological disaster zones (Part 2) are areas of Russian territory where, as a result of economic or other activities, deep irreversible changes in the natural environment have occurred, resulting in a significant deterioration in public health, disruption of natural balance, destruction of natural ecological systems, degradation of flora and fauna.
7. To establish a sign of a mass disease of people (Part 3), relevant specialists or experts are involved, for example, representatives of federal executive authorities authorized to exercise supervision in the field of protecting consumer rights and human well-being.
Zones of environmental emergency are areas of Russian territory where, as a result of economic and other activities, sustainable negative changes occur in the natural environment that threaten public health, the state of natural ecological systems, and genetic funds of plants and animals.
Second commentary to Art. 247 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation
1. The concepts of radioactive, chemical and bacteriological substances, hazardous waste and their types are defined by law.
2. Production - industrial actions purposefully carried out within the framework of a selected technological process in such a way that they lead to the emergence of prohibited types of hazardous waste as a main or by-product that is not destroyed or rendered harmless. Transportation - movement from places of production, collection, warehousing, storage to the place of processing, burial or destruction. Storage - placing waste in storage tanks for subsequent reuse or removal for disposal. Burial - permanent placement in specially equipped places, containers. Use involves the use (exploitation of their properties) by any enterprises, institutions, organizations, as well as individual citizens. Other management of hazardous substances and waste is characterized by complex, multi-stage activities that cover neutralization, disposal, storage and collection.
3. Significant harm to human health is expressed in the infliction of grave or moderate harm to the health of at least one person, and significant harm to the environment is expressed in its pollution, poisoning or contamination, a change in the radioactive background to values posing a danger to humans, etc.
4. The subjective side involves an intentional form of guilt.
5. The subject of the crime is a special one: a person who is entrusted with the obligation to comply with the rules for handling environmentally hazardous substances and waste.
6. Part 2 of the commented article establishes liability for the same acts that entail pollution, poisoning or contamination of the natural environment, causing harm to human health or mass death of animals, as well as those committed in an environmental disaster zone or in an environmental emergency zone.
7. Mass death of animals - the simultaneous death of one or several species of animals over a large area.
8. Zones of environmental disaster and zones of environmental emergency are certain areas of the territory declared as such by authorities.
9. Liability under Part 3 of Art. 247 of the Criminal Code is punishable for acts provided for in its Part. 1 and 2, which through negligence resulted in the death of a person or mass illness of people.
Article 247. Possession and use of property in shared ownership
Cassation ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Administrative Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 02.13.2019 N 24-KG18-15 Based on Part 2 of Article 36 of the RF Housing Code, Article 247 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, ownership and use of property in shared ownership, as well as the disposal of it property, is carried out by agreement of all its participants. According to clause 2 of part 2 of Article 44 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, the competence of the general meeting of owners of premises in an apartment building includes making decisions on the limits of use of the land plot on which the apartment building is located, in particular introducing restrictions on its use, as well as concluding an agreement on the establishment easement, an agreement on the implementation of a public easement in relation to a land plot related to the common property in an apartment building.
Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated March 1, 2019 N 309-ES19-412 in case N A60-11608/2017
When accepting the appealed judicial acts, the courts of the first and appellate instances, guided by the provisions of articles , , 181.2, 181.4, 181.5, 244, 246, 247 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, articles 44, 45, 46, 48 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, taking into account the results of the examinations and Experts' explanations established the presence of signs of unity of buildings located at the following addresses: Ekaterinburg, st. Tkachey, 23, 25, and, consequently, the presence of common property of the owners of the premises located in these buildings.
Determination of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated March 26, 2019 N 705-O
ARTICLES 244 AND 247 OF THE CIVIL CODE OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, composed of Chairman V.D. Zorkin, judges K.V. Aranovsky, A.I. Boytsova, N.S. Bondar, G.A. Gadzhieva, Yu.M. Danilova, S.M. Kazantseva, S.D. Knyazeva, A.N. Kokotova, L.O. Krasavchikova, S.P. Mavrina, N.V. Melnikova, Yu.D. Rudkina, O.S. Khokhryakova, V.G. Yaroslavtseva,
Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated April 15, 2019 No. 305-KG18-25899 in case No. A40-1196/2018
The courts of appeal and cassation instances, having examined and assessed the evidence presented in the case materials according to the rules of Article 71 of the Code, guided by Articles 198, 200, 201 of the Code, Article 247 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, Article 44 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, the Procedure for installing fences in local areas in in the city of Moscow, approved by Decree of the Moscow Government dated July 2, 2013 N 428-PP (hereinafter referred to as the Procedure for Installing Fences), came to the conclusion that the contested decision does not comply with current legislation and violates the rights and legitimate interests of the applicant.
Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated March 22, 2019 N 301-ES19-1299 in case N A43-11444/2017
Having examined and assessed the presented evidence according to the rules of Article 71 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, guided by Articles 210, 247, 249, 296, 395, 1102, 1107 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the explanations contained in the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated July 23, 2009 N “O” some issues of the practice of considering disputes about the rights of premises owners to the common property of the building" (hereinafter referred to as Resolution No. 64), the courts satisfied the claims in part, recognizing the legitimacy of the demand for compensation for payment for accepted work, based on the fact that the basis for concluding the contract was the decision of the owners building, the contract was concluded on the basis of technical specifications jointly developed by all owners of the building; the defendants did not incur the obligatory costs of repairing the roof, while they enjoy the repaired property.
Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated May 31, 2019 N 308-ES19-1617 in case N A32-38178/2017
When accepting the appealed judicial acts, the courts, guided by the provisions of Articles 244, 247 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as the Civil Code of the Russian Federation), Articles 44 - 48 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation dated May 6, 2011 N 354 “On the provision of utility services to owners and users of premises in apartment buildings and residential buildings", Rules for the maintenance of common property in an apartment building, approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated 08/13/2006 N 491, Rules for the technical operation of consumer power installations, approved by order of the Ministry of Energy of the Russian Federation dated 01/13/2003 N 6, Rules technical operation of thermal power plants approved by Order of the Ministry of Energy of Russia dated March 24, 2003 N 115, having examined and assessed the evidence presented in the case in accordance with Article 71 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, they did not see any grounds for satisfying the claim.
Determination of the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated May 21, 2019 N 4-КГ19-5
Canceling the decision of the court of first instance and making a new decision in the case on partial satisfaction of the claim (on the transfer of the disputed apartment for use to S.V. Zobova with the recovery from her in favor of R. Kurchuk of monthly compensation for the use of property falling to the share of the plaintiff), the appellate court authorities, guided by the provisions of paragraph 2 of Art. 247 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation proceeded from the fact that the plaintiff does not have the opportunity to use the disputed apartment, since the apartment is one-room, the parties are not members of the same family, Zobova S.V. suffers from a disease that prevents her from living in the same residential premises, the defendant, while living in the apartment, uses the entire apartment, including the part that falls to the plaintiff. At the same time, the amount of monthly compensation (RUB 11,500) was determined by the court of appeal based on the expert opinion of LLC “Center for Expertise and Assessment “Alliance” dated March 2, 2018.
Determination of the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated June 11, 2019 N 4-КГ19-18
The appellate court did not agree with the conclusion of the first instance court that there were no grounds for collecting compensation from the defendant for the use of shares in the right of common shared ownership, pointing out that since the plaintiff, being the owner of 2/3 shares in the right to the apartment, is deprived of the objective opportunity to live in it , insofar as in accordance with paragraph 2 of Art. 247 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, she has the right to receive compensation for the defendant’s use of the plaintiff’s share of the apartment.
Determination of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated June 25, 2019 N 1598-O
1. Citizen A.M. Brovkin, who was denied by a decision of a court of general jurisdiction, in particular, the invalidation of the part of the agreement establishing the size of shares in the right of common ownership of a land plot and the procedure for ownership, use and disposal of common property, the recovery of compensation for the cost of the part of the applicant’s share in the common shared property attributable to on the part of the land plot actually used by the co-owner, challenges the constitutionality of paragraph 2 of Article 247 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, according to which a participant in shared ownership has the right to be provided for his possession and use of a part of the common property commensurate with his share, and if this is not possible, he has the right to demand from other participants, who own and use property falling on his share, receive appropriate compensation.
Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated July 12, 2019 N 307-ES19-10180 in case N A42-6115/2018
In accepting the appealed judicial acts, the courts of first and appellate instances, guided by the provisions of Article 247 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, Article 46 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, did not establish legal grounds for the Center’s obligation to provide the requested information. The district court upheld the findings of the courts of first and appellate instances.
Determination of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated July 18, 2019 N 1969-O
RIGHTS BY ARTICLES 247 AND 248 OF THE CIVIL CODE OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, composed of Chairman V.D. Zorkin, judges K.V. Aranovsky, A.I. Boytsova, N.S. Bondar, G.A. Gadzhieva, Yu.M. Danilova, L.M. Zharkova, S.M. Kazantseva, S.D. Knyazeva, A.N. Kokotova, L.O. Krasavchikova, N.V. Melnikova, Yu.D. Rudkina, V.G. Yaroslavtseva,
