Case No. 2-206/2013
SOLUTION
Name Russian Federation
Romodanovsky District Court of the Republic of Mordovia as part of the presiding judge Purtsakin V.V.,
with the participation in the case of the plaintiff Ledyaykina L.D., the representative of the plaintiff Koneshova E.Sh., the defendant Trubkina A.N., the representative of the defendant Trubkina E.B., acting on the basis of a power of attorney dated 04.06. "Romodanovsky district of the Republic of Moldova Ermakova S.I., acting on the basis of a power of attorney dated November 06, 2012,
under the secretary of the court session Yezhova E.G.,
Having considered in open court a civil case on the claim of Ledyaykina Lyubov Dmitrievna to Trubkin Alexander Nikolaevich on the recognition of the gazebo erected near the illegal one and on the obligation of Trubkin A.GN. remove the illegal gazebo,
installed:
Ledyaykina L.D. appealed to the Romodanovsky District Court of the Republic of Moldova with a claim against Trubkin A.N. on the recognition of the gazebo erected near the illegal one and on the obligation of Trubkin A.N. remove the illegal gazebo, in support of their claims indicated that Trubkin A.GN. near the residential building he erected a building in the form of a gazebo. This gazebo is located in front of the windows of her apartment at a distance of 2 m from the window and 1 m. 20 cm from the residential apartment building. Every evening, young people gather in this gazebo, laugh out loud, drink alcohol, smoke, disturb the peace of the inhabitants of the house, including her. Since Trubkin A.N. erected the said arbor without the appropriate permission for its construction; she applied with statements to various authorities with statements on taking measures to demolish this arbor or transfer it to another place. In order to resolve the current situation, Trubkin A.N. it was recommended to move the gazebo to the north side of the house on the ground common use. However, to date, the gazebo has not been moved. He believes that the specified gazebo does not comply with building codes and urban planning rules and violates her rights as the owner of a dwelling in a multi-apartment residential area. He asks to recognize the gazebo erected by A.N. Trubkin as illegal. near, and oblige Trubkin A.N. remove this thread.
At the hearing dated DD.MM.YYYY, the plaintiff Ledyaykina L.D. supported the claims in full, clarified and changed them, asked to recognize the playground, installed at a distance of 1 m. 20 cm from her window, not legal; oblige A.N. Trubkin, who lives at:
At the hearing from DD.MM.YYYY the plaintiff Ledyaykina L.D. changed and clarified the claims, asked to recognize the construction of a structure for recreation for adults and children, consisting of two benches, a table and arches for a canopy erected near the municipal district of the Republic of Moldova, as illegal; oblige Trubkin A.GN. to remove the illegally erected construction structure for recreation for adults and children, consisting of two benches, a table, racks and arches for a canopy from the window, owned by Ledyaykina L.D. according to the requirements of SNiP 2.07.01-89*. At the same time, she explained to the court that she lives on the first floor of a building located at the address: owned by her on the basis of common shared ownership. In the summer of 2012, Trubkin A.N., who lives next door to her, in the above house, built a gazebo near their house. This gazebo is located a short distance from the window of her apartment, where the bedroom is located. Every evening, young people gather in the gazebo, laugh out loud, drink beer, smoke, which disturb her peace. When it rains from the roof of the gazebo, water will fall to it through the window. He believes that the said gazebo was built in violation of the law and should be moved by A.N. Trubkin. from the windows of her apartment to another place.
The representative of the plaintiff Koneshova E.Sh. at the hearing the claims Ledyaykinoy L.D. supported in full, explained to the court that the said gazebo was erected with violations building codes and SNiP rules. The location of the gazebo, located near the first entrance, does not comply with the norms and rules of urban planning, since it is located at a distance of 1 m. 20 cm from the window of the apartment of Ledyaykina L.D. In the evening, young people gather in it to spend their leisure time, make noise, smoke, drink alcohol. The plaintiff is at an advanced age, so all this affects her state of health. He considers it necessary to recognize the construction of a structure for recreation for adults and children, consisting of two benches, a table of racks and arcs for a canopy erected by Trubkin A.N. near not legal; oblige Trubkin A.GN. to remove the illegally erected building - a structure for the recreation of adults and children, consisting of two benches, a table, racks and arches for a canopy from the window owned by Ledyaykina L.D.
defendant Trubkin A.GN at the hearing the claims Ledyaykinoy L.D. did not recognize, asked to refuse their satisfaction. He explained that the structure - a table, benches, racks and arches for a canopy erected by him near the residential entrance are still under construction, and are not a playground for adults, a playground for children or a gazebo. Therefore, their installation near the entrances of residential buildings at a distance of less than 10 m from them is not prohibited by building codes and regulations, to which the plaintiff refers. The location of these benches does not violate the rights and legally protected interests of other persons, does not pose a threat to the life and health of citizens. SNiP is not the normative document that obliges, when designing residential development, to place benches (benches), playgrounds for adults and children's games in the yard. SNiP oblige designers to comply with certain criteria when designing the placement of such sites in residential yards. The controversial table, benches, racks and arches for a canopy interfere only with Ledyaykina L.D., other residents do not mind their installation. The plaintiff claims that young people gather on the benches at the table every day and disturb her peace, drink, smoke. At the same time, it is not possible to sit on these benches, since they have not yet been completed.
The representative of the defendant - Trubkina E.B. plaintiff's claims are not recognized. She asked to be denied. She explained that these benches were built in order to improve the territory near the house. These benches interfere only with the plaintiff, the entire entrance of the house knows about this, so she asked the residents of the entrance to remove them many times, but did not raise the issue with all the owners of the premises in this house.
The representative of a third party is the head of the administration of the Romodanovsky urban settlement of the Romodanovsky municipal district of the Republic of Moldova Kolmakova T.V. at the hearing did not appear, submitted to the court a statement in which he asks to consider the case in their absence.
Court in accordance with Art. Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, considers it possible to consider the case in the absence of a representative of a third party.
The representative of a third party - LLC Romodanovsky district "Uyut" - Ermakova S.I. believed the claims should be satisfied, the court explained that the owners of the premises in the apartment building own the land plot on which the house is located with landscaping and landscaping elements, other intended for maintenance, operation and improvement of this house and located on the specified land plot objects, as well as any kind of use land plot apartment building, including the construction of a gazebo, are allowed only with the consent of the owners of the premises in this house, drawn up in accordance with housing legislation.
The representative of a third party - the administration of the Romodanovsky urban settlement of the Romodanovsky municipal district of the Republic of Moldova Pankratov G.M., explained to the court that he works as the head of the construction, architecture and housing and communal services department of the administration of the Romodanovsky municipal district of the Republic of Moldova. DD.MM.YYYY during the inspection of the unauthorized construction of the gazebo, together with the Deputy Prosecutor of the Romodanovsky district of the Republic of Moldova, with a site visit, it was established that the construction of the gazebo is carried out by citizens living on common lands on the northern side of the multi-apartment building indicated and 1 m. 20 cm from the residential wall, which does not infringe on the rights of Ledyaykina L.D. as the owner. In addition, the construction of the gazebo is not an unauthorized construction and object capital construction for which permission is required. This gazebo was created in order to improve the local area and is not an object of real estate.
After hearing the parties, representatives of third parties, having studied the written evidence in this case, the court finds that the claims should be satisfied on the following grounds.
In accordance with the article of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the protection of civil rights is carried out by restoring the situation that existed before the violation of the right, and suppressing actions that violate the right or create a threat of its violation.
According to the article of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, an unauthorized construction is a residential building, other building, structure or other immovable property created on a land plot not allocated for these purposes in the manner prescribed by law and other legal acts, or created without receiving required permits or with a significant violation of urban planning and building codes and regulations.
A person who has carried out unauthorized construction shall not acquire the right of ownership to it. It has no right to dispose of the building - to sell, donate, lease, make other transactions.
Unauthorized construction is subject to demolition by the person who carried it out or at his expense, except for the cases provided for by paragraph 3 of this article.
The right of ownership of an unauthorized structure cannot be recognized for the said person if the preservation of the structure violates the rights and legally protected interests of other persons or poses a threat to the life and health of citizens.
As can be seen from the certificates of state registration of the right issued by DD.MM.YYYY by the Office of the Federal Registration Service for the Republic of Moldova, a technical passport with inventory number No., Ledyaykina L.D. the apartment is owned by the right of common shared ownership, with total area 43.3 sq.m., located at:). From the minutes of the general meeting of owners of residential premises of entrance No. dated DD.MM.YYYY, it follows that at the meeting, with a single vote by the owners of residential premises of entrance No., a decision was made to place a bench near entrance No. (case sheet 40).
From the message of the administration of the Romodanovsky urban settlement dated DD.MM.YYYY, it follows that the administration of the Romodanovsky urban settlement, having considered the collective appeal of the residents, does not object to the placement of a place for residents to relax on the south side of the house with the installation of a table, a bench and a canopy from the rain (l.d .35).
Thus it is at the hearing found that in the period from summer to October 2012 year Trubkin A.GN. erected a structure for recreation for adults and children, consisting of two benches, a table of four racks and arcs for a canopy in the form of a gazebo, erected near. This structure is not an unauthorized construction and an object of capital construction, for which it is necessary to obtain a permit, since it was created in order to improve the adjacent territory and is not an object of real estate. The specified structure was erected near the window of the residential apartment of the plaintiff Ledyaykina L.D. owned by the right of common share ownership Ledyaykinoy L.D. in violation of the requirements of SNiP 2.07.01-89*. The building is located at a short distance from the window of the plaintiff's apartment, where the bedroom is located. Every evening, young people gather in the gazebo, laugh out loud, drink beer, smoke, and therefore violate her right to rest. When precipitation falls during rain from the roof of the gazebo, water will fall from the roof of the named structure into the plaintiff's window and create additional problems in the form of noise and excessive moisture.
In the case, the court appointed and conducted a judicial construction and technical expertise (case files 67-73).
According to the conclusion of the expert No. dated DD.MM.YYYY, the structure under study is located on the site, which is directly adjacent to residential building. This site is limited on one side by a wall of a residential building, on both sides by a picket fence, on the fourth side there is a footpath to the entrance. Distance from the investigated structure: to a residential building - 1.2 m; to the window located on the first floor - 2.72 m; before front door to the entrance of a residential building - 9.0 m. The structure under study, which performs a certain function, determines the purpose of the site on which it is installed. Given that the structure under study will be used for temporary stay and recreation of people, the site on which this structure is located will also be intended for temporary stay and recreation of people.
According to the requirement of clause 2.13 of SNiP 2.07.01-89 * "Urban planning. Planning and development of urban and rural settlements", which, on the basis of the order of the Government of the Russian Federation of June 21, 2010 No. 1047-r, is included in the list of national standards and sets of rules, as a result of which, on a mandatory basis, compliance with the requirements of the Federal Law " Technical regulation on the safety of buildings and structures.
The actual distance from the structure under study to the window is 2.72 m, and the site on which this structure is located is adjacent to the wall of a residential building, which violates the requirements of the current building codes and rules of SNiP 2.07.01-89 * "Urban planning. Planning and development of urban and rural settlements" included in the List normative documents mandatory application.
The location (distance from the residential building to the structure) of the recreation facility for adults and children (a structure consisting of two benches, a table, racks and arches for a canopy), located near the residential window of the first entrance, does not meet the requirements of the current building codes and rules SNiP DD.MM. YYYY-89* "Urban planning. Planning and development of urban and rural settlements", included in the List of normative documents of mandatory application.
At the hearing, the plaintiff Ledyaykina L.D. and her representative Koneshova E.Sh. agreed with the conclusions of the expert on the violation during the erection and construction of the disputed structure of the requirements of the current building codes and rules SNiP 2.07.01-89 * "Urban planning. Planning and development of urban and rural settlements", included in the List of regulatory documents of mandatory application.
defendant Trubkin A.GN did not agree with the conclusions of the expert’s opinion, explained that when drawing up this conclusion, the expert indicated as a normative source - the explanatory dictionary of the Russian language (edited by T.F. Efremova), along with other explanatory dictionaries, the specified dictionary cannot be used as normative documentation when making a peer review decision, since it is not a legal document. The building under study (a canopy from the rain, 2 benches, a table) is located in the adjacent territory in the front garden and can be installed according to the general meeting and by a majority vote of the residents. The front garden and garden of the plaintiff are limited by the picket fence. The disputed structure being erected with a picket fence is not fenced off and is freely accessible. The landscaping elements being erected (a rain canopy, 2 benches, a table) can be an element of a recreation area and be installed separately, regardless of the recreation areas. Benches, tables, awnings that are separate from the recreation areas cannot be called a recreation and games area. In the case under study, benches, a table and a canopy from the rain are installed independently of any rest areas.
In addition, there is no regulatory documentation in the expert opinion that legally determines the name of the building. When making an expert opinion, the current regulations in the field of improvement were not used. According to the order No. of DD.MM.YYYY of the Ministry regional development Russian Federation "On the approval of guidelines for the development of norms and rules for the improvement of the territory municipalities on the results of the meeting of the Council under the President of the Russian Federation for the development of local self-government from DD.MM.YYYY", minimum size playgrounds with the installation of a table with benches for board games 12-15 sq.m., the minimum size of the recreation and games area is 15-20 sq.m. In this case, the area of benches with a table is 2.56 sq.m. (1.6m. x 1.6m.). Therefore, clause 2.13 of SNiP 2.07.01-89 is not applicable in this case. There are no SNiP for free-standing recreational areas for improvement elements.
The arguments of the defendant Trubkina A.GN that the structure built by him in the form of benches, a table of racks and arches for a canopy does not violate the rights of the plaintiff is not consistent, the court rejects them, since the named structure erected by Trubkin A.N. does not meet the requirements of paragraph 2.13 of SNiP 2.07.01 -89* and violates the plaintiff's rights.
In accordance with Art. Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation defendant Trubkin A.GN did not provide the court with reliable evidence refuting the arguments and claims of the plaintiff.
The court believes that the plaintiff's claims are subject to satisfaction, since, according to the above expert opinion, during the erection and construction of a structure for recreation for adults and children, consisting of two benches, a table, racks and arches for a canopy located near the residential window of the first entrance, the requirements of the existing building codes and regulations SNiP DD.MM.YYYY-89* "Urban planning. Planning and development of urban and rural settlements", included in the List of regulatory documents of mandatory application. The location (distance from the residential building to the structure) of the indicated recreation facility for adults and children, located near the residential window of the first entrance, does not meet the requirements of the current building codes and regulations SNiP 2.07.01-89 * "Urban planning. Planning and development of urban and rural settlements", included in the List of regulatory documents of mandatory application.
The court has no reason not to trust the said conclusion, since the conclusions set out in it were made by an organization that has the appropriate permit to carry out the named works and are scientifically substantiated, therefore the court considers it to comply with the requirements of relevance, admissibility and reliability established by Art. . This conclusion of the judicial construction and technical expertise No. dated DD.MM.YYYY (case sheets 67-73) is accepted by the court as a basis as reliable, since there is no doubt and the participants in the court session agreed with its conclusions, with the exception of the defendant A. Trubkin. N.
At the same time, the court takes into account that persons resting in the aforementioned building at a table near the plaintiff's window create noise in the immediate vicinity of the plaintiff's window, which will undoubtedly violate her right to rest and comfortable accommodation in the plaintiff's own residential apartment, in connection with which the court finds the claims justified and subject to satisfaction.
Based on the foregoing, assessing the sufficiency and interconnection of the evidence presented by the parties in their entirety, resolving the case on the basis of the evidence presented, within the limits of the claims made by the plaintiff and on the grounds indicated by him, guided by the articles of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, the court
I decided:
Claims of Ledyaikina Lyubov Dmitrievna to Trubkin Alexander Nikolaevich for recognition of the construction - facilities for recreation for adults and children consisting of two benches, a table of racks and arches for a canopy erected near it as illegal and for the obligation of Trubkin A.N. to remove the illegally erected building - a structure for the recreation of adults and children, consisting of two benches, a table, racks and arches for a canopy from the window owned by Ledyaykina L.D. according to the requirements of SNiP 2.07.01-89*, satisfy.
Recognize the construction of a structure for recreation for adults and children, consisting of two benches, a table of racks and arches for a canopy erected near the municipal district of the Republic of Moldova, as illegal.
Oblige Trubkin A.N. to remove the illegally erected building - a structure for the recreation of adults and children, consisting of two benches, a table, racks and arches for a canopy from the window owned by Ledyaykina L.D. according to the requirements of SNiP 2.07.01-89*.
The decision may be appealed within one month from the date of its adoption in the final form in the appeal procedure. Supreme Court Republic of Mordovia, through the Romodanovsky District Court of the Republic of Mordovia.
Judge The.The. Purtsakin
Court:
Romodanovsky District Court (Republic of Mordovia)I live in a house at the address: Irkutsk, Postysheva Boulevard, 4. We settled in this house back in 1966, then benches were installed near each entrance. For several decades, these benches stood, but then they were cut down (someone complained to the FSW about drunken gatherings at night). But the old people now cannot even take a walk, because they have nowhere to sit and relax. We turned to our management company "Southern Administration of Housing and Communal Systems" with a request to install benches. However, our request was denied, citing the fact that the installation of a bench requires the consent of the majority of residents of apartments in entrance No. 2, and the four signatures attached to the application are not enough to complete the work. Is the consent of all tenants really necessary? After all, we are not talking about the construction of fences, garages and car parks - we are talking about benches! Is there a law under which it is possible to oblige the Criminal Code to install benches near the entrances? And who should pay for the installation - really tenants at their own expense? Yuri Nikolaevich Seredkin, Irkutsk.
Pavel, General Director of Gorod Segodnya Legal Company LLC, answers
Khokhlachev:
Indeed, in order to put new benches near the house, you
must obtain the consent of all tenants. In accordance with articles 244, 249
of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and articles 36, 37, 39 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation to bear the costs
the owner of the property is obliged to maintain the common property in a residential building. share
mandatory expenses for the maintenance of common property in an apartment building
(according to paragraph 2 of article 39 of the Housing Code), the burden of which is borne by the owner
premises in such a house, is determined by the share in the common ownership of the common
property in the home of the named owner. That is, for the installation of benches in the end
all residents of the house will pay, and not just those who need it.
In accordance with paragraph 2 of Art. 162 of the Housing Code Management Company on
to the assignment of the owners of premises in an apartment building (or management bodies
association of homeowners, management bodies of a housing cooperative or
management bodies of another specialized consumer cooperative) in
within the agreed period for a fee is obliged to provide services and perform
work on the proper maintenance and repair of common property in the house.
It should be noted that the common property also includes objects,
intended for maintenance, operation and improvement
apartment building. This includes transformer substations, heating points,
intended for servicing one apartment building, collective
parking lots, garages, children's and sports grounds located within the boundaries
land on which the apartment building is located. And, of course,
benches. In addition, in accordance with the requirements of the legislation of the Russian Federation, the general
the property of the house must be safe for the life and health of citizens, must
preserve the property of individuals or legal entities, state,
municipal and other property, the rights and legitimate interests of
owners of premises, as well as other persons.
During the landscaping of the courtyard area, an outdoor bench was placed for rest by the window of our apartment on the 1st floor of the building. During the day, smokers replace each other, it is impossible to open the window; in the evening and until two o'clock in the morning youth noise, din, mat. I applied to the management company with a request to move or move this bench to another place, but my request was ignored. What to do? Maybe go to court?
As far as I understand, the bench is on the territory adjoining plot your apartment building. In this case, the issue of its transfer should be decided not in court, but at a general meeting of owners.
At this meeting, you need to specifically determine where the bench will stand under the windows or in the back of the yard. Try to convince the neighbors in advance of the need to move it, tell about all the problems that you experience daily, so that at the meeting the indifference of the residents would not be a surprise for you. If a decision is made to move the bench, you can contact the management company to have it moved to a new location.
At least 2/3 of the votes of all those present must be collected in your support. I draw your attention: it is the votes of the owners, and not the residents of your house, that are taken into account. The number of votes of each owner is proportional to the area of his apartment.
- § Art. 46 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation
Without the minutes of the general meeting, the management company cannot move the bench, because. such a transfer would be unauthorized.
By and large, your problem lies not in the bench itself, but in the behavior of people who make noise or smoke under the windows of the house.
Meanwhile, smoking on the territory of the apartment building is prohibited. The only exception is if at the general meeting the owners chose a special smoking area on the territory of the adjacent plot. But I don't think that this zone was defined directly next to the windows. It is possible that this decision was not made at all.
- § Art. 12 federal law dated February 23, 2013 No. 15FZ “On protecting the health of citizens from exposure ...”
Drinking alcohol in the yards apartment buildings also prohibited by law.
- § P. 3 Art. 16 of the Federal Law of November 22, 1995, J No. 171FZ “On State Regulation of Production and ...”
Noise at night under the windows of a high-rise building, even without drinking alcohol and smoking, is also illegal. But this ban is set by regional authorities. Unfortunately, you didn't specify your region. Therefore, we cannot quote your regional norm. For clarification, you need to contact the local administration.
WHAT TO DO?
So, in any case, you are not obliged to endure all the atrocities under your windows. The presence of a shop near the house does not affect this in any way. So you can safely call the police on duty. Of course, next time can get together already new company. But after several night calls to the police, the local youth will understand that it is impossible to make noise in your yard with impunity. As for smoking, of course, waiting for the police until the smoker has put out the cigarette is quite difficult. But in the fight against smoking near the house, a district police officer can help you. Submit a statement describing the fact of constant offenses, ask to take action against smoker neighbors. Perhaps a conversation with the district police officer will be enough for the next time the neighbor walks away with a cigarette from the entrance.
We draw your attention to the fact that this decision could be challenged in a higher court and canceled
MOSCOW REGIONAL COURT
Judge Orfanova L.A.
Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Moscow Regional Court
consisting of: presiding Guseva E.V.,
judges Kirshchina I.P., Burtseva L.N.,
with secretary B.,
having considered at the meeting on January 24, 2012, the cassation complaint of the Municipal Unitary Enterprise "Single Customer Service" against the decision of the Klimovsky City Court of the Moscow Region dated November 16, 2011 in the case on the suit of K. against the Municipal Unitary Enterprise "Single Customer Service" about the dismantling of the bench and the ballot box,
Having heard the report of Judge E.V. Guseva,
explanations of the representative of MUP "SEZ" - D., K.,
installed:
K. filed a lawsuit against MUE "SEZ" on the obligation to dismantle the bench and the urn installed at the entrance N<адрес>
She motivated her demands by the fact that she is the owner of apartment 12 in the said residential building; the installation of a bench and a trash can at entrance no. 1, where she lives, was carried out by the defendant at the request of one of the tenants of the house, without the consent of the other apartment owners; the use of the bench by unauthorized persons violates the peace of citizens living in entrance No. 1; the defendant refused her to dismantle the bench and urn.
A representative of the Municipal Unitary Enterprise "Single Customer Service" objected to the claim.
The court made a decision obliging the Municipal Unitary Enterprise "Single Customer Service" to dismantle the bench located at the first entrance of the above residential building, and denied the rest of the claim.
In the cassation complaint MUE "SEZ" asks to cancel the said court decision.
Having studied the case materials, having discussed the arguments of the cassation appeal, the Judicial Board finds no grounds to cancel the decision.
As follows from the case file and established by the court, the plaintiff is the owner of the apartment<адрес>, registered in the specified apartment at the place of residence. The Respondent is the managing organization for the management of the specified apartment building, according to the management agreement dated 05/21/2010, the Respondent denied the plaintiff the dismantling of the bench and urn due to the lack of a relevant decision of the general meeting by the owner of the premises in the apartment building.
Satisfying the claims regarding the dismantling of the bench, the trial court, taking into account the provisions of Art. 161 of the LCD of the Russian Federation, having analyzed the Rules and Regulations with sufficient completeness technical operation of the housing stock, came to a reasonable conclusion that the possibility of installing benches directly at the entrances of residential buildings is not provided for by the said Rules.
Obliging the defendant to dismantle the bench, the court correctly proceeded from the fact that the defendant, as a managing organization, is obliged to maintain common property in accordance with the requirements of the law and, therefore, eliminate those violations that were committed before the conclusion of the management contract.
Meanwhile, refusing the rest of the claim, the court correctly proceeded from the fact that the installation of a trash can at each entrance of a residential building is regulated
Law of the Moscow Region dated November 29, 2005 N 249\\2005-03 "On Ensuring Cleanliness and Order in the Territory of the Moscow Region", in connection with which, as correctly stated by the court, the claims in this part are not based on law and cannot be satisfied are subject to.
The conclusions of the court are based on the materials of the case and do not contradict the requirements of the law. Agreeing with the above conclusions, the Judicial Board finds no grounds for canceling the challenged judicial act.
The arguments of the cassation appeal do not contain any circumstances that would not be the subject of the court's investigation or would refute the conclusions of the court decision, cannot be grounds for canceling the court decision.
Guided by Art. 361 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, Judicial Board
Needed and even very
Most of the readers in the first column of the questionnaire wrote that there were no benches in their yard. This is approximately 2/3 of the respondents and is quite consistent with the trend that exists in the city: for two or three entrances without shops, we have one entrance with shops. Residents of the house number 60 on the street. III International wrote that there was a shop, but only one neighbor from the first floor interfered, who simply took it and broke it. But more on that later.
So, in the questionnaires, the Kolchugins wrote: “Shops are needed because elderly people, disabled people live in houses”, “needed because people of age have to sit on concrete” (we are talking about house No. 13 on Friendship Street), “We need , and it is also desirable to install benches near shops and in the park at the "airfield", at least a couple. The Andreev family wrote: “Need! I am a pensioner, my wife is a group I disabled person, my son is a group II disabled person, there is nowhere to sit.” The arguments are convincing.
In fact, just imagine yourself in the place of people who find it difficult to move around, but want to go outside, breathe fresh air to chat with neighbors. And at the entrance, at best, the columns left from the bench are waiting for them. The option to take a stool for the disabled with you is not suitable.
Imagine young mothers who still cannot leave their children alone to ride on a swing or mess around in the sandbox. Where can they sit? But a bench, if representatives of the older generation are sitting on it, can become a real school of life.
And life, and tears, and love ...
In general, a bench at the entrance is an indicator of the life of society. Previously, people felt the need to communicate, neighbors were considered almost relatives, the doors to apartments were not locked. And the shop at the entrance was an additional living space for all the neighbors. Here, grandmothers collectively nursed their grandchildren, women shared recipes, children played ring, hali-halo or edible-inedible ... And it was mostly women's territory, because men at that time "slaughtered a goat" on the tables, which were also in almost every yard. The warm, worn-out boards of such shops etched themselves into our memory with every notch, every carnation: first we swaddled our dolls on them, then sat with friends on warm summer evenings, and then read books or newspapers on them while our children snuffled in strollers. It never occurred to anyone to break benches because the people sitting on them interfere with someone. Gradually, the need for communication began to weaken. The developing television industry began to lure people to blue screens, children were captured social networks and computer games, and victims of the crazy nineties began to drink alcohol more and more often on domino tables ...
Today, those benches and tables no longer exist. But no matter how technology and the entertainment industry develop, today's Internet users are still aging and turning into grandparents who want to go outside and sit on a bench. They will want to tell young people about their lives, teach them to reason and pass a verdict on some family situation, even at the risk of being branded as local prosecutors.
And we are against
Against the background of a harmonious chorus in support of the shops, a voice against was sharply sounded. Our reader called - a resident of the so-called House of Veterans. The woman said that at her 68 years old she does not sit on a bench - her legs walk, there is a garden, which means there is no time to sit. According to her, only evil comes from older people sitting on a bench. They sit the same, examine everyone, discuss, it comes to scandals. “Everyone is over 85, and they are healthier than the young,” she described those who sit on the benches. And she said that this is the opinion of many residents of the house. The reader herself came here to live from Krasnodar, and so, according to her, the shops at the entrances were destroyed, there are special green areas where you can sit. Benches should be in squares, pedestrian areas, at bus stops, but not at the entrances. “At the House of Veterans - cut off all the shops!” — such was the verdict of the reader.
Another argument against which residents sometimes express is drunken companies attacking shops almost from the very morning and leaving garbage behind. For this reason, they say, and have to cut benches. But take a walk around the city - there are houses, at the entrances of which there are not only one, but two benches. And no one is trying to cut them off. Do you think drunk companies bypass these yards? Hardly. It's just that the residents of these houses have learned to defend their rights, they strictly monitor the order at the entrances and, in which case, they immediately call the police.
Alternative
And yet there are yards, especially chosen by idly staggering drunkards. No matter what you do, they are drawn here like a magnet. And the victims of the unequal struggle with such companies are the shops, and therefore the elderly. In the courtyard of house number 9 on Lenin Street, they came up with Alternative option- temporary shop There are two posts, but the board appears on them only when older people go out for a walk. Here is what one of the residents of the house wrote to us, a veteran of the Great Patriotic War, veteran of labor, invalid of the II group, excellent student of public education Zoya Alexandrovna Troshina: “Dear comrades! One smart person said: “Youth passes without saying goodbye, old age, without saying hello, will come ...” The logic of life is such that a person grows old, diseases appear by the age of 65, 70, 80. Of course, a shop for veterans of the Great Patriotic War, veterans of labor, disabled people is a great blessing, because. walking, standing is very difficult. There are up to 30 cars in the courtyards of houses, there are no shops near the shops, there are only children's swings on the playgrounds, on which the elderly rest, but the weight of a child and an adult is incommensurable, therefore the swing breaks; mothers with prams also have nowhere to rest. In our city, as E.A. Karpov, 20 thousand cars for 45 thousand inhabitants. Of course, motorists do not need benches, they leave for work in the morning. We have a bench in the courtyard of house number 9, but it is not dug into the ground. And we are all very grateful to the head of the district S.A. Tikhomirov and deputy M.E. Yakovlev for this gift for Victory Day. This is a real masculine, filial act. Benches should be placed at shops, playgrounds, in courtyards big houses. And people themselves will tell you where to put a bench - near the entrance or in the yard under the canopy of trees. When the commemorative medals were presented in front of a full hall of veterans, everyone said: it's bad that there are no shops in the city. At this meeting were Yu.V. Vinogradov, E.N. Savinova. Benches are needed, and this is not only a blessing. This is a necessity!
I am writing to you on behalf of the residents of houses No. 9, 11-a, 11, with whom I spoke, but this is far from all: N.P. Fadeeva, V.F. Domnina, D.A. Tikhonov, A.K. Barsukova, V.L. Barsukov, A. Borisova, L. Zvereva and other residents of neighboring houses.
Another resident of the city saw this problem in an even broader light: “I want to speak about benches in the yards, but touch on a slightly different issue. Our city is green, both old and young walk along the sidewalks, but there is nothing to sit and relax on. Walk the whole center - there are shady corners, but you can’t sit. We put a lot of benches near the fountain, look - on a hot day there is nowhere to hide from the sun. You can put benches and make paths in the corner behind the monument near the Eternal Flame, so that you can sit there on a hot day ... You can put benches along the sidewalks. Why are there no benches near the houses in the center? How do people communicate, because not everyone has summer cottages, and old people do not sit at home all the time.
Previously, houses had not only benches, but also tables, and old people and young people sat and played board games, and now young people are hiding in the courtyards of kindergartens, from where they are also chased by the guards. Where are the children to go? Go to bars, cafes? We need money, but not everyone has it.
Here is such a problem. Our house has benches at each entrance, and in the evenings old people, young people, and mothers with strollers walk, and of course, everyone communicates. But how else - to live and not know your neighbors? And who will come to the rescue in difficult times? Of course, neighbor.
A resident of the house number 23 on the street. Dobrovolsky
Instead of a resume
“At all times, the front gardens of private houses, in the yards and at the entrances of apartment buildings there were benches where old people and neighbors rested and talked. Every spring, the workers of the organizations that own the houses repaired and painted benches in public gardens, in yards and at entrances. AT Soviet time about improvement adjoining territories cared. The (socialist) system worked.
Everyone is now the owner. And this means that whoever is stronger, bolder and richer is right. I live in house number 60 on the street. 3rd International. At the entrances of houses No. 60, 62 and 64 there is not a single bench (but there were). There used to be benches and tables in the small park near house No. 64, where pensioners “knocked” dominoes. Cars are parked there now. Often I see an elderly blind woman on the porch of the 1st entrance of house No. 62. She will go out for a walk, but there is nowhere to sit. He will stand for a few minutes holding on to the railing and go back to the entrance. It seems that there are no old people and disabled people in our city. Then on what basis did the government decide that life expectancy has increased?
T.A. and I About two years ago Samorodskaya wrote to your newspaper and to The Voice of Kolchugin about the epidemic of liquidation of shops at the entrances and in the yards. Your newspaper printed our letter and even placed a photograph of my grandmother with a stool in her hands at the entrance. The “Voice of Kolchugin” was also published, but they added the “opinion of the editors” that it is up to the owners to decide whether or not to have shops. Positively, the owners will never decide this, because. there are always fewer elderly and disabled people.
The issue of the availability of benches in the yards and at the entrances, as well as the availability of ramps, SHOULD BE UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE ADMINISTRATION. Benches are needed not only for rest, but in order to put the bag when you are looking for the key to the intercom. In such cases, you have to put the bag on the ground.
P.S. 1. I asked Muscovites-dacha residents if they had benches at the entrances. There are answers.
- The fight against the disturbers of silence and drunkards has turned into a fight against the disabled and the elderly, i.e. by least resistance. And we all want to live like civilized countries. Yes, we will never be compared with them in such an attitude towards the disabled and the elderly.
L. Puzanova