The owner of the site will be able to plant livestock without unnecessary bureaucracy: the Constitutional Court ruled not in favor of officials

The Constitutional Court forbade the regulatory authorities to require additional agreements from the land owner on the type of use of the site. We are talking about the provisions of Article 8.8 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, providing for the imposition of a monetary fine in cases where the site is used not according to the rules - that is, not for its intended purpose.

A case from one's life

Antsinova Margarita from Chita was fined 10 thousand rubles. Her site has the status of only IZHS (individual housing construction). She got a bird and goats, but did not add new information to the USRN.

It was not possible to challenge the decision of the court, to avoid a fine for Antsinova, since the law states that “the choice any type of permitted use of the land must be formalized in accordance with the law okay. Therefore, the actual change by the owner (rightholder) of the permitted types of its use is impossible without notification in the Unified State Register of Real Estate. " It was necessary to document the choice of an additional type of permitted use, if, of course, this type is provided for in the local territorial zone ZH.

However, the owner of the "problem" site considered that if it was allowed to build economic structures, various erections specifically for keeping pets, then she does not have a separate permission required. Therefore, she applied to the Constitutional Court, the Constitutional Court. You can build a barn, but you can't have anyone in it?

Bureaucratic dispute

The judges noted that the current provisions can be interpreted in different ways, which leads to uncertainty in this matter. To prosecute the copyright holder for the "unauthorized" use of the site or not? A controversy erupted among the representatives involved in the discussion of the authorities.

The House of the Federal Assembly believes that the type of permitted use of land should depend on the provisions in the town planning regulations, and not at all on the information that is entered in the USRN. However, the presidential envoy is convinced that the owner is obliged to enter into the register how he is going to use his land. As a result of the disagreements that arose, the Constitutional Court considered that the case of Antsinova's personal subsidiary farm should be reviewed.

How did it end

The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation adopted a new decision. Now the rights holders of land plots are not obliged to inform the supervisory authority about their intention to bring birds or small livestock. Thus, the bureaucratic chains are cut off. The owner has the right to independently choose the type of use of his land without additional approvals from officials - if such is provided for in this territory.

On the one hand, people often leave cities for villages to live in peace and quiet. And they don't like the crows of roosters at all. Others have no idea why they should live on earth if they cannot lead a rural life, have chickens and geese.

Do you think the state should control who lives in our yards? Write in the comments!

Friends, there are already more than 40 thousand of us! Like, subscribe to the channel, share the publication - we are working, so that you receive useful and relevant information!

Read also:

• How to design a house: a stylish one-story building from Timoshkino. Photo review.
• Life hack: how to make chic decorative tiles from egg trays.

Watch the video - Modern two-storey compact cube-shaped house.