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
Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 01/09/2017 N 307-ES16-17868 in case N A56-57210/2015 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 246, 247, 1102 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and Articles 36, 44 Housing Code of the Russian Federation, taking into account the explanations of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated July 23, 2009 N “On some issues in the practice of considering disputes regarding the rights of owners of premises to the common property of the building,” the court refused to satisfy the stated requirements, recognizing as unproven the fact that on the side There is unjust enrichment of society. At the same time, the court reasonably proceeded from the fact that documents confirming the conversion of the disputed premises into an office and their registration by the Partnership were not presented; the issue of transferring the specified premises for rent at the general meeting of members of the Partnership was not considered; the amount of rental payments was not established; the direction of use of rental payments was not determined; The Partnership has not submitted any documents confirming the period of use by the Company of the disputed premises for its purposes.
Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated January 17, 2017 N 301-ES16-18763 in case N A17-4219/2015
In accepting the judicial acts contested by the defendant, the courts were guided by the provisions of Article 209, paragraph 1 of Article 247 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the rules of law governing similar relations, in particular Articles 249, 289 and 290 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, Part 1 of Article 36, Articles 44 - 48 Housing Code of the Russian Federation, as well as the explanations set out in paragraph 37 of the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 6, the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation No. 8 of 07/01/1996 “On some issues related to the application of part one of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation”, paragraph 2 of the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated July 23, 2009 N “On some issues in the practice of considering disputes regarding the rights of premises owners to the common property of a building.”
Determination of the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated January 17, 2017 N 117-KG16-10
The correct application of the provisions of Articles 247, 252, 304, 305 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation to controversial legal relations depended on the clarification of these circumstances. However, the court, in violation of Part 2 of Article 56 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, did not determine these circumstances as legally significant for the correct resolution of the dispute; they were not included in the subject of evidence in the case and did not receive a legal assessment by the court.
Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 02/06/2017 N 306-ES16-19765 in case N A12-3539/2013
Having re-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 135, 196, 208, 246, 247, 249, 289, 290, 301 - 304 of the Civil Code, the explanations set out in the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated 07/23/2009 N “On some issues in the practice of considering disputes about the rights of premises owners to the common property of a building” and the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated 04/29/2010 N/22 “On some issues arising in judicial practice when resolution of disputes related to the protection of property rights and other real rights”, and also taking into account the conclusions set out in the expert’s conclusion drawn up based on the results of the forensic examination, the appellate court, with whose conclusions the district court agreed, satisfied the requirements in the contested part, establishing that the disputed premises are classified as a single complex and are intended to serve the entire building of the river station, in connection with which I came to the conclusion that the registration of ownership of them by the defendant, the subsequent alienation to third parties in the absence of appropriate powers and the illegality of actions for unauthorized redevelopment, as well as repair obstacles in the plaintiff's access to them.
Determination of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated January 26, 2017 N 151-O
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ARTICLE 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, N.S. Bondar, G.A. Gadzhieva, Yu.M. Danilova, L.M. Zharkova, 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 February 14, 2017 N 310-ES16-20783 in case N A83-6373/2015
In such circumstances, based on the fact that the plaintiff did not provide other evidence, including any documents signed by the parties to the agreement on the distribution of residential premises, indicating the emergence of ownership of the requested object, the court, guided by Articles 316, 328, 387 of the Civil Code Ukraine, paragraph 1 of Article 209, paragraph 1 of Article 247, Article 301 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, refused to satisfy the requirements.
Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 03/07/2017 N 303-ES17-840 in case N A73-6003/2016
When accepting the appealed judicial acts, the courts, guided by the provisions of Articles 210, 247, 249, 689, 695, 1102 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the explanations set out in paragraph 41 of the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated June 23, 2015 N “On the application by the courts of certain provisions of section I of the first part of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation,” recognized the claim as justified.
Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated March 10, 2017 N 307-ES17-485 in case N A05-13732/2015
Taking into account the established circumstances, the courts did not see any basis for concluding that there was an error in the preparation of technical documentation in terms of indicating a single address of the object, in connection with which, guided by Article 36 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, Articles 246, 247, 290 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, paragraph 6 part 7 article 51 of the Town Planning Code of the Russian Federation, Rules for the assignment, change and cancellation of addresses, approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of November 19, 2014 N 1221, in the absence of evidence of the decision by the owners of the premises of an apartment building to divide it into two objects, as well as evidence of approval reconstruction or division of a capital construction project with all its right holders, refused to satisfy the stated requirements.
Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated March 21, 2017 N 306-ES17-1415 in case N A65-29885/2015
The cassation court, guided by Articles 287 and 288 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, Article 210, paragraph 1 of Article 247, Article 249, paragraph 1 of Article 290, Article 424 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, paragraph 1 of Article 36, Articles 37, 39, 44, 46, 154 , 155, 158, 161 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation dated 08/13/2006 N 491 “On approval of the Rules for the maintenance of common property in an apartment building”, the legal position of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation, given in the Resolution of the Presidium dated 11/09/2010 N 4910/10, overturned the decision of the court of first instance and the decision of the court of appeal, concluding that the courts did not examine the circumstances that were essential for the correct resolution of the dispute. The district court, pointing out that the case materials did not present the decision of the owners of the premises in the apartment building on the choice of the method of managing the common property in the form of the Cooperative they created and did not establish how the plaintiff provided actual services for the management and maintenance of the common property of the apartment building (land plot), how the amount of payment for the use of the land plot was determined, sent the case for a new trial, inviting the court to examine and evaluate the evidence presented by the parties in support of their claims and objections, to establish the circumstances essential to the case (based on the subject and grounds of the stated claim), to consider the question of the need and possibility of involving other owners of non-residential premises in a residential building in the case in the proper procedural status.
Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated April 4, 2017 N 301-ES17-2596 in case N A79-9307/2015
When accepting the appealed judicial acts, the courts, guided by the provisions of Articles 247, 290, 1102 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, Article 36 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, Article 44 of the Federal Law of 07/07/2003 N 126 “On Communications”, having examined and assessed in accordance with Article 71 of the APC The Russian Federation presented evidence in the case and came to the conclusion that there was no unjust enrichment on the part of the company.
Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 04/05/2017 N 36-PEK17 in case N A45-13856/2015
The applicant’s argument that, by virtue of Article 247 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, he has the right to use the disputed premises does not refute the conclusions of the trial court and the Judicial Collegium to the contrary. Transfer of the disputed premises for rent to a third party - individual entrepreneur Dobrovolsky A.V. - is not an obstacle to making a decision in this case. Verification of the legality of such a transfer was beyond the scope of the present dispute.
