We draw your attention to the fact that this decision could be challenged in a higher court and overturned

TULA REGIONAL COURT

CASSATION DEFINITION
dated September 15, 2011 in case No. 33-3103

Judicial board for civil affairs Tula Regional Court composed of:
presiding Bobkova S.A.,
judges Selishchev V.V., Polosukhina N.A.,
under Secretary S.U.
examined in open court a civil case on appeal Sh.L.M. on the decision of the Odoevsky District Court of the Tula Region dated July 12, 2011 in the case on the claim of Sh.L.M. to M.A.I., M.N.V., on recognition cesspool not complying with sanitary and building standards, on the transfer of this cesspool to another place.
After hearing the report of Judge Selishchev V.V., the panel of judges

installed:

Do you think you are Russian? Born in the USSR and think that you are Russian, Ukrainian, Belarusian? No. This is not true.

You are actually Russian, Ukrainian or Belarusian. But you think you are a Jew.

Game? Wrong word. The correct word is "imprinting".

A newborn associates himself with those facial features that he observes immediately after birth. This natural mechanism is characteristic of most living beings with vision.

Newborns in the USSR for the first few days saw their mother for a minimum of feeding time, and most of the time they saw the faces of the maternity hospital staff. By a strange coincidence, they were (and still are) mostly Jewish. Reception is wild in its essence and effectiveness.

All your childhood you wondered why you live surrounded by non-native people. Rare Jews on your path could do anything with you, because you were drawn to them, while others were repelled. Yes, even now they can.

You cannot fix this - imprinting is one-time and for life. It is difficult to understand, the instinct took shape when you were still very far from being able to formulate. From that moment, no words or details have been preserved. Only facial features remained in the depths of memory. Those traits that you consider your family.

System and Observer

Let us define a system as an object whose existence is not in doubt.

An observer of a system is an object that is not a part of the system it observes, that is, it determines its existence, including through factors independent of the system.

From the point of view of the system, the observer is a source of chaos - both control actions and the consequences of observational measurements that do not have a causal relationship with the system.

An internal observer is a potentially achievable object for the system in relation to which the inversion of the observation and control channels is possible.

An external observer is even an object potentially unattainable for the system, located beyond the event horizon of the system (spatial and temporal).

Hypothesis #1. All-seeing eye

Let's assume that our universe is a system and it has an external observer. Then observational measurements can take place, for example, with the help of "gravitational radiation" penetrating the universe from all sides from the outside. The capture cross section of "gravitational radiation" is proportional to the mass of the object, and the projection of the "shadow" from this capture onto another object is perceived as an attractive force. It will be proportional to the product of the masses of objects and inversely proportional to the distance between them, which determines the density of the "shadow".

The capture of "gravitational radiation" by an object increases its randomness and is perceived by us as a passage of time. An object that is opaque to "gravitational radiation", the capture cross section of which is larger than the geometric size, looks like a black hole inside the universe.

Hypothesis #2. Internal Observer

It is possible that our universe is watching itself. For example, using pairs of quantum entangled particles spaced apart in space as standards. Then the space between them is saturated with the probability of the existence of the process that generated these particles, which reaches its maximum density at the intersection of the trajectories of these particles. The existence of these particles also means the absence of a sufficiently large capture cross section on the trajectories of objects capable of absorbing these particles. The remaining assumptions remain the same as for the first hypothesis, except:

Time flow

External observation of an object approaching the event horizon of a black hole, if the “outside observer” is the determining factor of time in the universe, will slow down exactly twice - the shadow from the black hole will block exactly half of the possible trajectories of “gravitational radiation”. If the determining factor is the "internal observer", then the shadow will block the entire trajectory of interaction and the flow of time for an object falling into a black hole will completely stop for a view from the outside.

Also, the possibility of combining these hypotheses in one proportion or another is not excluded.

According to statistics, an average adult needs about two hundred and fifty liters of water per day. It is quite natural that this volume does not have to enter the body, it means that every day we wash ourselves, clean up, wash the dishes after ourselves, and wash our clothes. Of course, every summer resident, when planning a similar water consumption, must also consider the issue of a cesspool device. You probably already know the basic types sewer systems, however, so far only the simplest sewage system, a cesspool, can be built. Such a sewerage system collects sewage and used water in a special storage tank, which is located at some distance from the residential building, and as it fills up, it is cleared by the special service, whose employees are called "gold workers".

Beginning of work

You should begin your actions by choosing a place where you will arrange a cesspool or a biological wastewater treatment plant. It should be taken into account that no matter how tightly it is made, there is a possibility that some part of the water will seep into the soil adjacent to it. Be sure to find out what is the depth of groundwater in this place, how this value fluctuates seasonally. Keep in mind that if groundwater approaches the surface closer than 2 meters, then simple sedimentation tanks cannot be installed there. In addition, the treatment plant should not be in line with any water intake, for example, a well, which can provoke Wastewater into drinking water. If you have a water intake on your site, the cesspool should be located diagonally and at a considerable distance from the source (ideally at least 30 m).

How is the volume and depth of the cesspool calculated?

So, you have found a suitable place, and what should be optimal dimensions? For an average family, V = 1.5 m3 will be considered a normal volume, but it is not ideal. A cesspool implies periodic cleaning, that is, calling a sewage truck to the site, the work of which is paid in advance, is undesirable if it leaves half empty and appears on the site often. But not only the capacity of the machine must be guided by the size. Taking on the device of an effective suburban sewerage settlement rate you can take a 300-liter volume per person, meaning 2-time cesspool per year. Feel free to increase your "mathematics", of course, within reasonable limits, since buying an automatic washing machine will significantly speed up the filling of the cesspool.

Another factor determining the dimensions is, for example, the device of the absorbing pit. If the terrain allows, it is not necessary to ensure tightness, let part of the wastewater leave the tank and be absorbed by the soil, with not very large volumes this is harmless to both the earth and people.

Absorbing pits are usually made much smaller, since there is no function for the accumulation of sewer mass. However, it must be remembered that the soil can only cope with a small amount of runoff, and when large volumes seep, it first poisons itself, and then poisons the space around, including people. If we eliminate the harmful fecal component in sewage water, for example, by using a peat powder closet, then we get an environmentally friendly pit, and with it the possibility of composting and reusing waste.

Concrete rings for a cesspool device

The industry now produces reinforced concrete rings (read about septic tanks of them here), with a square or round section, with a special cover and a metal hatch. A pit breaks out, a couple of rings are placed on top of each other, which are covered with a concrete cover, all existing joints are sealed on both sides, a layer of waterproofing is applied from the outside and all this is covered with earth. Only a metal hatch remains on the surface itself, and the resulting structure is able to withstand even the weight of a large truck.

The removal of wastewater from the house through the sewer to the cesspool, as in the septic tank underground way, by gravity through the pipe. Plastic pipes for the installation of sewer systems of different lengths, with bends, turns, and adapters are abundant on the market. Do not forget to carefully prepare a sand cushion for pipes and maintain a general slope in this trench (about 3-5 degrees) to ensure proper gravity flow and all your efforts will result in many years of trouble-free operation of the system.

	What to do if the toilet is clogged? Nobody is immune from this. The conveniences that we have long been accustomed to while living in urban environments, sooner or later show their reverse side. Water does not leave, threateningly filling more than half the volume of the toilet? What to do if it gets clogged? You can call a plumber, or you can solve the problem yourself. Luckily, there are plenty of solutions to the problem.
	What you need to know about country houses from a bar? Are you at the stage of choosing building materials for your country house? Be sure to consider using a bar! This material is characterized by ease of use, aesthetic appearance, high environmental properties. It is affordable and, most importantly, you can assemble the log house yourself. Just take a look at the photo - this could be your cottage!
	Design options for interior stairs Stairs in the house can be a significant design element of interior design. Your attention is invited to more than ten options for the design of stairs: from simple to complex. Some of the ideas are suitable for implementation in small duplex apartments and summer cottages, others will be more appropriate in spacious cottages. Choose!

Judge Senkovenko E.The. Case No. 33-5230/2017

APPEALS DETERMINATION

The Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Rostov Regional Court, composed of the presiding Zinkina I.V.,

judges Senik Zh.Yu., Romanova P.G.

under the secretary Zhukova M.Yu.

examined in open court a civil case under the claim Shcherbakova T.A. to Iryupina T.S. , Gibadulina E.V. , third parties: Shcherbakov S.P. , Shcherbakov V.P. , Shcherbakova E.S. , Shcherbakova S.S. , on the prohibition of the operation of the drain pit, the obligation to dismantle the drain pit on appeal Shcherbakova T.A. against the decision of the Taganrog City Court Rostov region dated December 22, 2016.

After hearing the report of Judge Zinkina I.V., the panel of judges

installed:

Shcherbakova T.A. filed a lawsuit against Iryupina T.C., Gibadulina E.The. on the prohibition of the operation of the drain pit, the obligation to dismantle the drain pit.

In support of the stated requirements, the plaintiff indicated that she is the owner of 52/252 shares in the right to home ownership at ADDRESS INDEPENDENT. Iryupina T.S. moved a drain pit located on her site at ADDRESS ANIMAL to residential building Shcherbakova T.A., which entails for the plaintiff Negative consequences in the form of dampness and unpleasant odors in the house.

Referring to the violation by the defendants of her rights, the plaintiff in the final version of the claims asked the court to oblige Iryupina T.S., Gibadulina E.V. to prohibit the operation of the drain pit due to its inconsistency with SNiP and SanPin, to oblige the defendants to dismantle the drain pit by cleaning it from the waste available at the time of backfilling, to fill the drain pit with soil.

By the decision of the Taganrog City Court of the Rostov Region dated 22.12.2016, the claims of Shcherbakova T.A. left unsatisfied.

Disagreeing with such a decision of the court, Shcherbakova T.A. filed an appeal, which asks to cancel the judgment and a new decision to satisfy her claim in full.

In support of the complaint, the appellant points out that the drain pit is located at an unacceptable distance from her house - 5.9 square meters, is not airtight, ventilated and waterproof, and its cleaning, which should be done every six months, has never been carried out.

The appellant draws the attention of the panel of judges that a strong stench is spreading from this drain pit towards her house, and due to constant dampness, mold has appeared in the basement of the house. The drains of the drain pit entail the destruction of the foundation and the basement under the house, which can lead to its collapse, and also create an unfavorable sanitary and epidemiological situation.

Having considered the case file, the arguments of the appeal, after hearing Shcherbakov T.A. and her representative by proxy Zinchenko Zh.G., Shcherbakov S.P., representative Iryupina T.S. by order of Kropotina Oh.A., the panel of judges concludes that there are no grounds, provided for by Article. 330 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, to cancel the decision of the court of first instance.

In deciding, the court was guided by Article.Article. 10-12, 304-305 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, paragraph 45 of the Decree of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 10, the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation No. 22 dated April 29, 2010 “On some issues arising in judicial practice when resolving disputes related to the protection of property rights and other rights in rem" and proceeded from the lack of grounds for satisfying the stated requirements.

To this conclusion the court came, establishing that Shcherbakova T.A. is a co-owner of 55/252 shares in the right to a residential building at the ADDRESS IS IMPOSSIBLE. The defendants own a residential building and a land plot at ADDRESS NON-PERSONAL

The area where the households of the plaintiff and the defendants are located does not have central sewerage, in connection with which Iryupina T.S. drain pit is in operation.

Taking into account that evidence of a threat to the life and health of citizens while maintaining and further exploitation This drain pit was not presented by the plaintiff, and the arguments about the violation of her rights, the protection of which is possible only by prohibiting the use of the cesspool and its further dismantling, were not confirmed, the court, taking into account the fact that the non-compliance of the drain pit with sanitary standards in terms of the ventilation system is not irremovable found the stated claims unfounded and unsatisfactory.

The Judicial Board agrees with these conclusions of the Court.

In accordance with 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 connected with deprivation of possession.

According to the explanations set out in paragraph 45 of the Resolution of the Plenum Supreme Court Russian Federation N 10, Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation N 22 dated April 29, 2010 “On some issues arising in judicial practice in resolving disputes related to the protection of property rights and other property rights”, a claim for the elimination of violations of rights not related to deprivation of possession, subject to satisfaction if the plaintiff proves that he is the owner or the person in possession of the property on the grounds, prescribed by law or contract, and that the defendant's action, other than dispossession, violates his right to property or lawful possession. Such a claim is also subject to satisfaction in the event that the plaintiff proves that there is a real threat of violation of his property right or lawful possession by the defendant.

Refusing Shcherbakova T.A. in satisfaction of the stated claim, the court of first instance proceeded from the fact that there is sufficient evidence that this drain pit poses a threat to the life and health of the plaintiff, and also pollutes the soil or otherwise violates the rights and legitimate interests of the plaintiff, Shcherbakova T.A. not presented.

From the conclusion of the forensic examination dated November 11, 2016, conducted by the NSEO FULL NAME14 on the basis of the court ruling dated August 23, 2016, available in the case materials, it follows that the drain pit located at: ADDRESS IS IMPOSSIBLE does not comply with the requirements of SanPiN and SNiP. Unpleasant odors in the house letter "A" at ADDRESS IS IMPARATE are the result of the negative impact of the drain pit, while cracks in the house letter "A" are not the result of the negative impact of the drain pit.

To eliminate the identified violations, the expert suggested the following necessary actions: make a new drain pit at a distance of no closer than 8.0 m from the residential building of the household at the address: ADDRESS IS INDICATED; a new drain pit must be made in a sealed design with a sealed cover and exhaust ventilation. The expert determined the cost of work on the construction of a new pit at 33,800 rubles.

Having evaluated this expert opinion together with the explanations of the expert, given during the trial, in accordance with the requirements of Article. Art. 67, 196 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, and other evidence presented in the case, the court of first instance came to a reasonable conclusion that the plaintiff did not prove the arguments that the presence of a controversial drain pit and its operation by the defendant poses a threat to the life and health of Shcherbakova T.A., entails destruction her home.

Taking into account that the drain pit itself does not meet sanitary standards and entails negative consequences in the form of unpleasant odors, however, these consequences are eliminated by the methods set out in the expert's opinion, the court rightfully saw no grounds for prohibiting the operation of the drain pit and for imposing on Iryupina T.S. responsibility for the demolition of the facility.

The appellant's allegations that the drain pit is located at an unacceptable distance from her house - 5.9 sq.m, is not airtight, ventilated and waterproof, its cleaning, which should be done every six months, has never been carried out, the judicial board rejects, since these circumstances are not grounds for satisfying the stated claim.

The Appellant's allegation that the drains of the drain pit entail the destruction of the foundation and basement under the house, which can lead to its collapse, and also create an unfavorable sanitary and epidemiological situation, the judicial panel finds untenable, since such an assertion is not supported by relevant and admissible evidence.

Since other arguments affecting the legality and validity court order, the appeal does not contain, there are no grounds for canceling or changing the court's decision.

Guided by Article.Article. 328-330 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, judicial board

determined:

the decision of the Taganrog City Court of the Rostov Region dated December 22, 2016 to be left unchanged, the appeal of Shcherbakova T.A. - without satisfaction.

presiding

Aleksinsky City Court of the Tula Region, consisting of:

presiding Minacheva V.F.,

under the secretary Krivitskaya A.S.,

Having considered in open court a civil case No. 2-1394/11 on the claim of Inkina Irina Anatolyevna, Inkin Evgeny Pavlovich to Stepovoy Vasily Nikolaevich, administration municipality Aleksinsky district, the administration of the municipality city of Aleksin, Aleksinsky district, on the obligation to take certain actions,

installed:

Inkina I.A. and Inkin E.P. filed a lawsuit against V.N. possible placement cesspool serving the household of Stepovoy VN., located at the address: .., in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation, that is, at a distance of at least 8 meters from the boundaries of the household at the address: .., and issue a permit for its placement in the specified location, and oblige Stepovoy The.N. dismantle the cesspool, moving it to a place determined by the administrations.

In support of the stated requirements, they indicated that they are the owners of a residential building and a land plot located at: ...

Owners adjoining territory from the side of the street is the administration of the municipality Aleksinsky district.

In this adjacent territory, in the immediate vicinity of their household at a distance of 2m 50 cm from the borders of the house and 8m 40 cm from the wall of the house, there is a cesspool built by the defendant and serving directly the household of Stepovoy V.N.

They consider that by virtue of Art. 209 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation Stepovoy V.N. was not entitled to determine the procedure for using the adjoining territory, since he is not its owner.

The pit latrine was erected in violation of existing building codes in the immediate vicinity of their home, as a result of which the plaintiffs are experiencing inconvenience from the unpleasant smell emanating from the latrine. When the cesspool overflows, sewage flows onto their land, as it is located on a slope from the cesspool to the house. By constructing a cesspool, the defendant significantly violated their rights under Art. Articles 40, 41 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation.

The significance of the violation of urban planning and building norms and rules is due to the fact that the preservation of a cesspool in the immediate vicinity of their home and land creates a threat to life and health, violates the sanitary and epidemiological situation on the ground.

By the decision of the administration of the municipality, the city of Aleksin, Aleksinsky District, Stepovoy V.N. it was recommended to move the cesspool to an acceptable distance.

The location of the cesspool violates the parameters for the placement of this facility, established by subparagraphs 2.3.1 and 2.3.2 of clause 2.3 of SanPiN 42-128-4690-88 of the Sanitary Rules for the Maintenance of Territories of Populated Places, and, as a result, the rights and interests of the plaintiffs.

Since on a voluntary basis Stepovoy V.N. does not want to dismantle the disputed cesspool to transfer it to another location, to bring its location in accordance with the rules and regulations, they believe that in this case, the possible location of the cesspool should be determined by representatives of the administrations.

At the court session:

Plaintiff Inkin E.P. amended claims upheld on the grounds specified in the claim, asked to satisfy.

Claimant Inkina AND.A. did not appear at the hearing, in her statement she asked to consider the case in her absence with the participation of a representative of the lawyer Kartysheva H.A. Earlier at the hearing, the specified claims were upheld on the grounds set forth in the claim.

The representative of the plaintiffs on warrant lawyer Kartysheva H.A. amended claims supported in full on the grounds set forth in the claim, asked them to satisfy. At the same time, she explained that in 2010 the plaintiffs purchased a residential building with a land plot at the address: .., .., ... meters, the plaintiffs determined visually, without using technical means measurements. The cesspool is a mound. The problem is that in the summer, a very unpleasant smell comes from the cesspool and the liquid from it flows under the windows of the plaintiffs' house.

The plaintiffs applied to the sanitary epidemiological station to resolve the issue of the cesspool. The chief state sanitary doctor in..i..x.. replied with a letter that this issue could be resolved by the city administration. The plaintiffs applied for resolution of this issue to the administration in July 2011. A letter was sent from the administration to the defendants with a recommendation to move the cesspool to a distance of 15 m. To date, the cesspool is in its original place.

Paragraph 2.3 of the Sanitary Norms and Regulations No. 42-128-4690-88 fixed the provision on the collection of liquid waste. Subparagraph 2.3.2 explains that yard latrines should be removed from residential buildings, child care facilities, schools, playgrounds for children and public recreation at a distance of at least 20 meters and not more than 100 meters. On the territory of private households, the distance from yard latrines to households is determined by the homeowners themselves and can be reduced to 8-10 meters.

In a conflict situation, when the parties cannot agree and determine the location of the yard latrines, it is determined by representatives of the public, administrative commissions of local councils.

The administration of the Moscow Region, the city of Aleksin, Aleksinsky District, was supposed to go to the site and draw up an act on the presence of a cesspool and its location. If there are violations, determine the possible place for transferring the cesspool. But the administration did not take these actions. The plaintiffs cannot independently determine the place of the possible transfer of the cesspool.

This cesspool is not located on the plaintiffs' or defendants' land. The land plot on which the cesspool is located is located in municipal property- Administration of the Moscow Region Aleksinsky District.

The plaintiffs are sure that the distance from the cesspool to the windows of the house is less than 8 meters, the case file contains an act of the interdepartmental commission, which indicates that the distance is 5 meters to .., in ... Therefore, the SanPiN rules are violated, the administration does not determine the possible place of transfer cesspool. Plaintiffs on this moment cannot live in this house.

SanPin in clause 2.2. "collection of municipal solid waste" contains a provision on the temporary regime, this paragraph can be applied to the present situation by analogy.

He believes that it is possible to determine a place for transferring a cesspool.

He believes that, taking into account the requirements of the Order of the Ministry of Zemstroy of the Russian Federation “On approval of the Instruction on accounting housing stock in the Russian Federation "No. 37 of 08.04.1998, home ownership is understood as a residential building with outbuildings located on a separate land plot, that is, a cesspool should be located at a distance of more than 8 m from the land plot, and not a residential building. Taking into account the provisions this document, currently the cesspool of the defendant Stepovoy V.N. located less than 3 m.

It was also found that the cesspool is not airtight, which violates the norms for arranging the pit, that is, the sanitary and epidemiological conditions are violated. The cesspool must be located on the territory of the household of the defendant Stepovoy V.N.

defendant Stepovoy The.GN. and his representative by proxy Ivanova Oh.The. the claims were not accepted.

In his objections Stepova V.N. indicated that the household ... by .. was built in 1959. It was owned by the defendant's father, who died in 1999. The controversial cesspool was erected in 1984 during the construction of a permanent water supply in agreement with the WSS Department ... At the time of the construction of the cesspool, it was allowed to be moved outside the household, the project of water supply and sewerage was approved by the coordinating authorities. At the time of the construction of the cesspool, the boundaries of the land plot of the household ... by .. were different.

From 1999 to 2004, the owner of the property ... was the mother of the defendant, who accepted the inheritance after the death of her husband in the form that it is at the moment. Stepovoy V.N. has been the owner of the household ... to .. since 2007. Any reorganization existing system has not been carried out since its construction.

The plaintiffs purchased the property ... by ... in August 2010. With the appropriate boundary of the house and the surrounding area were familiarized before the acquisition.

In accordance with Art. 54 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the law has no retroactive effect.

By the decision of the administration of the municipal formation, the city of Aleksin, Aleksinsky district ... Housing and communal services dated 07/22/2011, sent to him, it was decided to take measures to transfer the cesspool to the indicated in normative documents distance. The decision refers to Art. 2.12 SNiP 2.07.01-89 "Urban planning", which became invalid from 20.05.2011. Analyzing SNiP 2.07.01-89 "Urban planning", he came to the conclusion that in the said document Art. 2.12 does not correspond to the actual content of the document referred to by the administration.

During the existence of the cesspool for more than 27 years, no comments were made on the violation of sanitary well-being. Not far from the cesspool there is a water distribution column, once a month MUP "VKH" .. conduct water samples for compliance with biological and sanitary indicators, the water is suitable for drinking. In addition, according to a letter from the administration of the municipality, the city of Aleksin, Aleksinsky district, No. ... dated July 25, 2011, it follows that the sewer pipe leading from ... distance from the sewer pipe. The cesspool is cleaned regularly. The cesspool consists of reinforced concrete rings with a diameter of 2 meters and a height of 1 meter 20 cm. It is designed for 8 cubic meters. The cesspool does not provide for a hard bottom, but crushed stone is poured on the bottom and therefore drains do not enter the land. Thinks there are no legal grounds to satisfy the claim.

while Ivanova Oh.The. explained that she objects to the dismantling of the cesspool. The pit was built on this site 27 years ago in 1984. At the time this pit was being built, no entry permission was required. It is not possible to build a cesspool on the territory of a household ..., since the distance between households is less than 8 m and a car entrance is needed to pump out waste from a cesspool, there is no place for this in the garden.

The distance from the cesspool must be measured to the wall of the residential building. The broad interpretation of Order No. 37 of 08/04/1998 of the Ministry of Land Construction of the Russian Federation, as presented by the plaintiffs' representative, that home ownership is understood to include a land plot, and it is necessary to make measurements from the plaintiffs' land plot, is considered illegal.

The representative of the defendant administration of the municipality Aleksinsky district by proxy Mukhashova Oh.C. claims were not recognized. At the same time, she explained that at the time of the construction of the cesspool, there was only one administration, there was no division into two. In 1984 a cesspool was built and an agreement was reached with the neighbors. The cesspool is located from .. in accordance with SanPiN 42-128-4690-88 at a distance of more than 8 meters. The rights of the plaintiffs are not violated, there are no grounds for satisfying the claims.

The representative of the defendant administration of the municipality city of Aleksin Aleksinsky district by proxy Khanin K.A. did not recognize the claims. At the same time, he explained that indeed, until 1984, there were no permits for the construction of cesspools and no demolition orders. The consent of the neighbors was for the construction of this cesspool.

At present, based on current rules and laws, a cesspool is illegal, but at that time permits were not required. Cesspools were built arbitrarily, if there were no objections from the neighbors. The city administration does not give permission for the construction of cesspools, but only gives permission for their commissioning. The cesspool is located from .. in accordance with SanPiN 42-128-4690-88 at a distance of more than 8 meters.

After listening to the persons involved in the case, interrogating a specialist, examining written evidence, court comes next.

By virtue of Art. 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, justice in civil cases is carried out on the basis of competitiveness and equality of the parties.

The court, while maintaining independence, objectivity and impartiality, manages the process, explains to the persons participating in the case their rights and obligations, warns about the consequences of committing or not committing procedural actions.

As seen from the case file and established by the court, Inkina AND.A. and Inkin E.P. are the owners of 1/2 for each household and a land plot with a total area of ​​828 sq.m, located at: .., which is confirmed by certificates of state registration rights from 05.08.2010 series... ..., ..., ..., ....

It follows from the defendant's explanations that the home ownership ... by .. was built in 1959. It was owned by the defendant's father, who died in 1999. The disputed cesspool was erected in 1984 during the construction of a permanent water supply in agreement with the WSS Department .., which is confirmed by a statement of commitment .. dated 12.10.1984 (case sheet 54).

The defendant is the owner of the household ... by ... and land plots with a total area of ​​642 sq.m from February 22, 2007, which is confirmed by certificates of state registration of rights (series ... No. ..., ...). Reconstruction of the existing water supply system, as well as the cesspool, has not been carried out since the construction.

As seen from situational plans As of March 30, 1999, of the layout drawing as of March 28, 2006, the boundaries of the plaintiffs' home ownership differed significantly from those currently existing.

The plaintiffs ask to dismantle the cesspool and move it to another place, determined by the administrations of the Aleksinsky district and the city of Aleksin, Aleksinsky district.

The court considers, these claims are not subject to satisfaction on the following grounds.

By virtue of part 3 of article 17 of the Constitution Russian Federation the exercise of human and civil rights and freedoms must not violate the rights and freedoms of other persons.

According to Article 304 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the owner may demand the elimination of any violations of his right, even if these violations were not connected with deprivation of possession.

Based on this norm, it follows that the condition for satisfying such requirements is a violation of the rights of the owner, in this case, the plaintiffs, and in itself, the discrepancy between the location of the structure and the existing standards cannot be recognized. sufficient reason for its demolition.

During the verification of the appeal of Inkin E.P. the administration of the municipality of Aleksin, Aleksinsky district, within its competence, established that the sewer pipe leading from .. to the cesspool is hermetic and does not pose a threat to the centralized water supply, since the water supply system runs at an acceptable distance from the sewer pipe. The cesspool is cleaned regularly (case sheet 13).

The above is confirmed by the act of the interdepartmental commission dated 01.12.2011, approved by the decision of the administration of the municipal formation of the city of Aleksin, Aleksinsky district ... dated 02.12.2011, that the cesspool is not equipped with an overflow system of sewage, sewage from the cesspool to the area adjacent to the house ... according to .. do not arrive (case sheet 50-51).

By the decision of the Aleksinsky City Court of the Tula Region dated 09/08/2011, it was established that the letter sent with the recommendation of the administration of the Moscow Region of the city of Aleksin of the Aleksinsky District to move the cesspool to an acceptable distance from the household ... by .. (plaintiffs) at least 15 meters, imposes on Stepovoy V.N. only the obligation to consider it allows, in case of disagreement with the submission, to provide a response on such disagreement. The letter does not contain any mandatory requirements in the part disputed by the applicant.

In accordance with the Sanitary rules and norms SanPiN 42-128-4690-88 "Sanitary rules for the maintenance of territories of populated areas" (hereinafter SanPiN 42-128-4690-88), approved by the USSR Ministry of Health on August 5, 1988 N 4690-88, for the collection liquid waste in non-sewered households, yard garbage dumps are arranged, which must have a waterproof cesspool and a ground part with a lid and a grate to separate solid fractions. For the convenience of cleaning the grate, the front wall of the garbage can should be removable or openable. If there are yard latrines, the cesspool may be shared (clause 2.З.1.). On the territory of private households, the distance from yard latrines to households is determined by the homeowners themselves and can be reduced to 8-10 meters. In conflict situations, the location of outdoor latrines is determined by representatives of the public, administrative commissions of local Councils (clause 2.3.2.).

The plaintiffs refused to conduct a judicial construction and technical expertise.

In addition, during the offsite court session, when inspecting the cesspool, measuring the compliance of the cesspool with the norms of SanPiN 42-128-4690-88, it was established. The distance from the corner of the plaintiffs' house to the cesspool is 8 m 40 cm. The plaintiffs do not live in the house, as its reconstruction is required. The cesspool is more than 3 m deep. Concrete rings are located at a depth of 2.5 m. The pit is covered with reinforced concrete reinforcement, which has a hatch that closes at ground level with a cast-iron lid. Sewage is located below 0.35 m from the ground.

At the court session, experts were interrogated... the head of the department for urban planning and architecture of the administration of the Moscow Region .. and... a specialist expert of the department of the Federal Service for Supervision of Consumer Rights Protection and Human Welfare for .. (Department of Rospotrebnadzor for ..).

He explained that the cesspool is located on the adjacent territory belonging to the administration of the municipality Aleksinsky district. Measurements of the conformity of the distance of the location of the cesspool from the household of the plaintiffs were made with a meter tape measure. When measured by air, a distance of about 5 meters from .. to the cesspool was established, which were indicated in the act of 12/01/2011. When measuring on the ground, it turned out more than 5 meters, but this was not recorded. He is not authorized to decide on the demolition or transfer of the cesspool.

She explained that according to SanPiN 42-128-4690-88, the cesspool should be a sealed cesspool with a tight-fitting lid with an entrance for specialized vehicles for pumping wastewater. According to SanPiN 42-128-4690-88, the cesspool should be located at a distance of 8-10 meters from the house. Measurements were made by a representative from the department of urban planning and architecture of the administration of the Moscow Region, the city of Aleksin, Aleksinsky district, with a meter tape measure from the cesspool to the corner ... The expiration date for the operation of the cesspool has not been established. Yard restroom and cesspool are equivalent concepts. In practice, the distance is measured from a residential building, and not from the boundaries of the land. The cesspool was inspected visually, only from above; it is not possible to say about the tightness of the cesspool, since at the time of the inspection it was closed. Whether sewage flows from the cesspool to the adjacent territory .. cannot answer, since these points were evaluated by the representative of the department of urban planning and architecture of the administration of the Moscow Region, proud Aleksin of the Aleksinsky district. In order for the drains not to go into the ground, a cesspool is being built, and it must be equipped with septic tanks, but septic tanks are not provided for private households.

Thus it is at the hearing found, that the cesspool of the defendant Stepovogo The.GN. complies with SanPiN 42-128-4690-88, that is, no evidence of a violation of the plaintiffs' rights has been presented. It is not connected to the central sewerage system, liquid waste is discharged and drained into a cesspool built over 27 years old and located on a land plot owned by the municipality. The cesspool is cleaned regularly.

In the event of the liquidation of the cesspool, the residents will be left without local sewage. Although the house has water supply, and in accordance with paragraph 4.3.5. Code of rules for design and construction 30-102-99 "Planning and development of territories of low-rise housing construction» the introduction of water supply into one-two-family houses is allowed if there is a connection to centralized system sewer or if there is a local sewer.

The administration of the municipality of Aleksinsky district does not insist on the transfer of the cesspool by Stepov V.N. from the land they own.

AT civil code Russian Federation there is no concept of households and other complexes of objects capital construction, while in Art. 135 defines "the main thing and belonging".

However, the land plot and the buildings located on it are independent objects of property rights and the provision of Art. Art. 134 - 135 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation.

The arguments of the plaintiffs' representative that the distance from the cesspool to the plaintiffs' home ownership can be at least 8 m, but the measurement must be made not from the windows of the residential building, but from the boundaries of the land plot, cannot be recognized by the court as valid.

In doing so, the court is guided by Art. 1 Instructions on accounting for the housing stock of the Russian Federation, approved by Order of the Ministry of Land Construction of Russia dated 04.08.1998 N 37, unit technical inventory is: home ownership; separate main building. Home ownership - a residential building (houses) and buildings and structures serving it (theirs), located on a separate land plot.

In this regard, when resolving the case, the court measured the location of the cesspool from the corner of the house to the specified object and established its actual location at a distance of 8 m 40 cm from the house.

Assessing the evidence examined at the hearing according to the rules of Art.Article. 59, 60, 67 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, court comes to the conclusion that the stated claims Inkinoy AND.A. and Inkina E.P. are not subject to satisfaction, which in turn, by virtue of Art. 98 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation entails a refusal to satisfy the claim for the recovery of court costs.

Guided by Article.Article. 194-199 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, court

decided:

In satisfying the claims of Inkina Irina Anatolyevna and Inkin Evgeny Pavlovich on the obligation of the administrations of the municipal formation of Aleksinsky district and the municipality of the city of Aleksin of Aleksinsky district to determine the possible location of the cesspool serving the household of Stepovoy Vasily Nikolaevich, located at: .., in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation, that is, at a distance of at least 8 meters from the boundaries of the household at the address: .., and issue a permit for its placement in the indicated place and the obligation of Stepovoy Vasily Nikolaevich to dismantle the cesspool, moving it to a place determined by the administrations, to refuse.

The decision can be appealed to the Judicial Chamber for Civil Cases of the Tula Regional Court through the Aleksinsky City Court of the Tula Region within 10 days from the date of the final decision by the court.