Military prosecutor's office of the Mulino garrison. The focus is on the call
I was summoned for questioning “as a witness” under the pretext of interrogation on the issue of the mutilation of the same Sorokin and Gudulin. Adj. a copy of the summons. 
Miliukov sent the case materials to the Volodarsky district prosecutor's office. Adj. a copy of the decision on the direction of the case under jurisdiction. 
District Prosecutor Samarin Yu.A. returned the case materials to the garrison prosecutor's office, in cover letter dated 03/11/98, writing that there are no grounds for initiating a criminal case, there is nothing to charge me with and that the dismissal is closely related to the injury of the soldiers. Adj. copy. 
On March 16, 1998, Miliukov again sent the case materials to Samarin, threatening him that if he does not prosecute me, he will complain to the deputy. Prosecutor General- Chief Military Prosecutor Demin. Adj. copy. 
He sent the documents to the prosecutor of the Nizhny Novgorod region. Fedotov A.I., again in a covering letter dated March 19, 1998, indicating that the criminal case against me had been initiated illegally, etc., and he, in turn, sent them to the prosecutor's office of the Moscow Military District. Adj. a copy of the letter addressed to Fedotov. 
By a resolution of the prosecutor's office of the Moscow Military District dated May 18, 1998, the decision to initiate a criminal case was canceled and the case was sent to the prosecutor's office of the Mulinsky garrison to issue a decision to terminate the criminal case against me. Adj. copy. 
By a resolution of the Mulino prosecutor's office dated May 18, 1998, the decision of the same prosecutor's office to initiate a criminal case was canceled. Adj. copy. 
Realizing that they had screwed up this criminal case, they simply hid it. I have repeatedly demanded that the prosecutor's office issue a resolution to terminate the criminal case against me, to which I received refusals. When I filed another statement about the issuance of this resolution, I received a reply from the prosecutor’s office that no criminal case had been initiated against me at all.
After filing a corresponding complaint to the prosecutor's office of the Moscow Military District, from there on April 11, 2003, signed by the first deputy. I received a reply from MVO Prosecutor Morozov that the garrison prosecutor’s office had not opened any criminal case against me. Adj. copy . 
When I filed a complaint with the Dzerzhinsky City Court, then in court no. Prosecutor p/p-k Korolev argued that they did not have any criminal case, presenting to the court a book of registration of criminal case materials, which showed that it was not registered with them. The prosecutor's office did not know that when they first opened a criminal case against me, the assistant. I took the corresponding resolution from the military prosecutor Mr. Vikarchuk, which I presented to the court. Before the trial, I warned the judge not to show his Queen. You should have seen this scene in court, when he lied in court that there was no case against me in the prosecutor’s office, and the judge had a resolution to initiate a criminal case on his desk. The court ordered that copies of the materials be submitted to the court, which was done. Adj. copy of the court decision dated March 18, 2003 
Case No. 2-184/2017
SOLUTION
In the name Russian Federation
Volodarsky district court Nizhny Novgorod region consisting of:
Presiding judge Moiseev S.Yu.,
with the participation of the Deputy Military Prosecutor of the Mulin garrison B.I.S.
under secretary M.A. Mukhina,
having examined in the open court hearing civil case on the claim of the Military Prosecutor of the Mulinsky garrison in defense of the interests of an indefinite number of persons, against the Commander of the Western Military District, Commander of the military unit 74036, on declaring illegal and prohibiting the operation of an object without permission to put it into operation, on the prohibition of operating an object before obtaining such permission ,
INSTALLED:
The military prosecutor of the Mulinsky garrison filed the said claim, arguing that the Military Prosecutor's Office of the Mulinsky garrison had carried out prosecutor's check compliance with legal requirements in the field capital construction and protecting the life and health of military personnel. As part of the execution of the state defense order, on the territory of the Mulinsky garrison (Mulino village, Volodarsky district, Nizhny Novgorod region), the construction of the “Field camp of the Western Military District in the settlement of” is being carried out. Mulino" (object code) within government contract Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation No.
Relations regarding the construction of capital construction projects and their reconstruction are regulated by the legislation on urban planning activities, including the Town Planning Code of the Russian Federation. Capital construction facility - a building, structure, structure, objects whose construction has not been completed, with the exception of temporary buildings, kiosks, sheds and other similar structures (clause 10 of the article of the Russian Federation).
As established during the inspection, to date, work under the above contract has not been fully completed, and the facility has not been put into operation.
From legal position and Determinations of the judicial panel for civil cases of the Samara Regional Court from DD.MM.YYYY according to civil case No. it is clear that “...Analyzing legal norms article, which gives an interested person the right to file a lawsuit to prohibit an activity that has caused harm or creates a danger of causing such harm in the future, the court correctly indicated that in order to satisfy a claim based on its provisions, the plaintiff must prove the danger of causing harm in the future, the illegality of the behavior of the defendant - the causer of harm, the causal connection between the occurrence of harm and illegal behavior the tortfeasor, in in this case causal relationship between exploitation non-residential premises and causing harm or the threat of new harm, the guilt of the harm-doer.”
However, the prosecutor’s office has not provided evidence confirming the set of conditions for preventing harm in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 of the article Civil Code Russian Federation.
Prohibition of the operation of buildings and structures based solely on violations of urban planning norms and rules is a public legal preventive measure. Making a decision to ban and suspend the operation of a facility for the specified reasons falls within the competence of authorized bodies local government. To relations related to the prohibition of exploitation on grounds of violation of norms administrative legislation, civil legal relations do not apply by virtue of clause 3 of Art. .
From statement of claim it follows that the prosecutor, within the powers provided for in Art. , appealed to protect the rights of an indefinite number of persons with a demand to ban the operation of the disputed facility, due to the fact that the operation of this premises creates the preconditions for causing harm in the future, the danger of causing harm to the life and health of military personnel.
As a way of protection civil rights The article defines, in particular, the suppression of actions that violate the right or create a threat of its violation.
Claims brought in the manner prescribed by article are subject to consideration according to the rules civil proceedings. The defendant is not presumed to be guilty of the offenses in question. The burden of proving the possibility of causing harm and the need to prohibit a particular activity lies with the plaintiff.
The lack of permission to put a facility into operation does not in itself indicate that the operation of the building poses a threat to the life and health of an indefinite number of persons. The plaintiff did not present evidence to the court that as a result of the operation of a building that was not put into operation in the manner established by the city planning rules, an immediate danger is created, a threat to the life and health of an indefinite number of citizens.
The prosecutor also erroneously applies the provisions of Art. about the method of protecting civil rights, namely the award of duties in kind. Judgment to fulfill an obligation in kind as a way of protecting civil rights consists in forcing the debtor to perform actions that he must perform by virtue of the obligation (agreement) binding the parties. With this measure, protection is restored property rights subjects of civil law. The cause of action under consideration does not affect anyone's property rights.
In addition, the prosecutor’s statement about the start of the operation by the command of military unit No. of autonomous field camps/towns of a closed life support cycle is not justified and contradicts the actual circumstances of the case, since they were not supplied to military unit No., which also indicates an insufficient and superficial study of the subject of the dispute on the part of the plaintiff.
Based on the above, he requests that the Military Prosecutor of the Mulinsky Garrison to the Commander of Military Unit No. and the Commander of the Western Military District refuse to satisfy the stated demands in full.
After hearing the parties and examining the case materials, the court comes to the following conclusion:
In accordance with Part 1 of Art. the prosecutor has the right to apply to the court in defense of the rights, freedoms and legitimate interests of citizens, an indefinite number of persons or interests of the Russian Federation, constituent entities of the Russian Federation, municipalities.
According to an article of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, one of the ways to protect civil rights is to suppress actions that create a threat of violation of the rights of citizens, including the right to protect life and health.
Due to the requirements of paragraph 1 of Article of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the danger of causing harm in the future is the basis for a claim to prohibit activities that create such a threat.
Within the meaning of the above norms, the provisions established by paragraph 1 of the article of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation perform a preventive function aimed at ensuring the protection of the rights and interests of citizens and organizations, being, in accordance with the article of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, one of the ways to protect civil rights. To resolve the issue of prohibiting activities that create a risk of causing harm in the future, strong evidence must be provided that the identified deficiencies, the presence of which creates a threat of harm, cannot be eliminated, or there is no desire to eliminate them.
An article of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation classifies the implementation of construction and other related activities as activities associated with increased danger.
In accordance with Part 1 of the article of the Russian Federation, a permit to put a facility into operation is a document that certifies the completion of construction, reconstruction of a capital construction facility in full in accordance with the construction permit, the compliance of the constructed, reconstructed capital construction facility urban plan land plot or in the case of construction, reconstruction of a linear facility, a territory planning project and a territory surveying project, as well as project documentation.
The responsibility for obtaining permission to put a facility into operation in accordance with the article of the Russian Federation rests with the developer, who is an individual or entity, providing on his property plot of land construction, reconstruction, overhaul of capital construction projects, as well as implementation engineering surveys, preparation of design documentation for their construction, reconstruction, overhaul(clause 16 of the article of the Russian Federation).
The procedure for obtaining permission to put a facility into operation is defined in the article of the Russian Federation. According to paragraph 16 of the article of the Russian Federation, a developer is an individual or legal entity that provides construction, reconstruction, and major repairs of capital construction projects on a land plot owned by him, as well as performing engineering surveys and preparing design documentation for their construction, reconstruction, and major repairs. Permission to put a facility into operation is the basis for registering a constructed capital construction facility with the state and making changes to documents state accounting reconstructed capital construction facility. A permit to put an object into operation certifies that the construction or reconstruction of a capital construction project has been completed in full in accordance with the requirements of legislation and design documentation; it is prohibited to operate such an object until permission is received.
According to Part 2 of Art. In the Russian Federation, the operation of a constructed or reconstructed building or structure is permitted after the developer receives permission to put the facility into operation.
The court found that, as part of the execution of the state defense order of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation No., on the territory of the Mulinsky garrison (Mulino village, Volodarsky district, Nizhny Novgorod region), the construction of the “Field camp of the Western Military District in the settlement” is being carried out. Mulino" (object code No.).
As follows from the case materials, to date, work under the above contract has not been fully completed, and the facility has not been put into operation.
The court found that the command of military unit No., at the direction of the leadership of the headquarters of the Western Military District, made a decision to begin operating autonomous field camps/closed life support cycle towns for their intended purpose with the involvement of military personnel of the RF Armed Forces on the territory of the unfinished construction of the Western Military District Field Camp, namely on sites under field camps, designed to accommodate 6 autonomous field camps, and included in the II stage of the construction of the code.
From the explanations of the commander of military unit No., received during the inspection, it was established that with DD.MM.YYYY, within the framework of the organizational and methodological instructions of the commander of the Western Military District troops for 2017 academic year planned for training in. The camp houses personnel and units military equipment. To accommodate the regiment, three sets are used, each of which is designed to accommodate military personnel with uniforms, weapons, and military equipment. Three sets are located on specially equipped sites on the territory of the facility under construction “Field camp of the Western Military District in the village. Mulino."
According to the legislation of the Russian Federation, actions to operate a building, structure, structure until permission to put it into operation is regarded as illegal, that is, contrary to the requirements of the law.
Still missing executive documentation, without which the commissioning of the facility is not possible. In fact, military personnel are deployed and are at the construction site.
These circumstances indicate the presence of real prerequisites for the death and injury of military personnel, persons civilian personnel Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, in case of continued illegal operation of autonomous field camps, which is a gross violation of their civil rights.
Art. The Federal Law “On the Status of Military Personnel” stipulates that the protection of the health of military personnel is ensured by the creation of favorable conditions for military service, everyday life and a system of measures to limit hazardous factors military service carried out by commanders in cooperation with authorities state power. Caring for the preservation and strengthening of the health of military personnel is the responsibility of commanders. They are entrusted with ensuring safety requirements during exercises, other combat training events, during the operation of weapons and military equipment, during the performance of work, and the performance of other military service duties. Commanders are the sole commanders and are responsible in peacetime and war for the safety of military service (Article of the Federal Law “On the Status of Military Personnel”).
In accordance with the provisions of Art. Art. 163, 317 of the Charter internal service Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, the safety of military service consists in maintaining in the regiment (unit) the conditions of military service and the procedure for its performance, ensuring the security of personnel and each serviceman individually, as well as local population, his property and environment from exposure to hazardous factors of military service arising during daily activities regiment (unit).
According to the provisions of the article of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the protection of civil rights is carried out, among other things, by suppressing actions that violate the right or create a threat of its violation.
In accordance with paragraph 1 of Article of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the danger of causing harm in the future may be the basis for a claim to prohibit activities that create such a danger. Since the use of facilities that have not been put into operation in the manner established by the current legislation of the Russian Federation is prohibited and illegal, these actions of the command of unit 74036 and the headquarters of the Western Military District pose a threat to the life and health of people, as well as to the existing order of construction and exploitation, lead to the undermining of social, environmental, fire safety.
According to the provisions of Art. , the prosecutor has the right to appeal to the court with a statement in defense of the rights, freedoms and legitimate interests citizens, an indefinite circle of persons or interests of the Russian Federation, constituent entities of the Russian Federation, municipalities. The combat training center of the Ground Forces of the RF Armed Forces is intended for training military personnel of the RF Armed Forces undergoing military service in various military units, including those stationed outside the Nizhny Novgorod region.
According to Art. One of the ways to protect civil rights is to award performance of duties in kind. Considering that the commander of military unit No. and the commander of the Western Military District troops are operating autonomous field camps/settlements of a closed life support cycle in violation of the requirements Town Planning Code RF, the operation of this facility should be prohibited until the listed violations of the law are eliminated.
Taking into account the circumstances established in the case, the court finds grounds to satisfy the demands of the military prosecutor of the Mulin garrison to recognize the operation of the facility without permission to put it into operation as illegal, and to prohibit the operation of the facility until such permission is received.
Based on the above, guided by Art. Art. - Civil procedural code Russian Federation, court
DECIDED:
Claim Please satisfy the Military Prosecutor of the Mulino garrison.
To recognize as illegal the operation of three autonomous field camps of the Combat Training Center of the Ground Forces on the territory of the unfinished construction site of the Western Military District Field Camp in the settlement. Mulino", namely on sites for field camps, intended to accommodate 6 autonomous field camps, and included in the II stage of construction of the facility (facility code No.).
Prohibit the operation of autonomous field camps, the Combat Training Center of the Ground Forces on the territory of the unfinished construction site of the Western Military District Field Camp in the village. Mulino", namely on sites for field camps, intended to accommodate 6 autonomous field camps, and included in the II stage of construction of the facility (facility code No.) until permission to put this facility into operation is received.
The decision can be appealed to appeal procedure within a month from the date of production in final form in Nizhny Novgorod regional court by filing appeal through the Volodarsky District Court of the Nizhny Novgorod Region.
Judge S.Yu. Moiseev
Court:
Volodarsky District Court ( Nizhny Novgorod Region)Plaintiffs:
Military prosecutor of the Mulinsky garrisonDefendants:
Commander of military unit 74036Commander of the Western Military District
Other persons:
Piktorinskaya R.R.Judges of the case:
Moiseev Sergey Yurievich (judge)Judicial practice on:
Arbitrage practice on the application of the norm of Art. 1079 Civil Code of the Russian Federation
In September 2014, Major of Justice Vadim Nikolaevich BAYDACHNY appointed military prosecutor of the Yaroslavl garrison. In the Western Military District (WMD), he became the youngest in this position - at 33 years old.
After graduation Faculty of Law Kursk State Technical University Baidachny went from an investigator to an assistant military prosecutor military prosecutor's office Mulinsky garrison, having investigated more than a hundred criminal cases of various categories of complexity. Then for two years Vadim Nikolaevich served in the Chechen Republic as a deputy military prosecutor in the Borzoi garrison. After serving in the department for supervising the execution of laws during the investigation of crimes of the military prosecutor's office of the Moscow Military District, in 2011 he was appointed deputy military prosecutor of the Smolensk garrison. In 2013–2014 Baidachny is deputy head of the organizational and analytical department of the military prosecutor's office of the Western Military District at the prosecutor's station in Moscow.
Then Vadim Nikolaevich was appointed military prosecutor of the Yaroslavl garrison. The results of work in the new position were immediate: in the first half of 2015 measures were taken
to eliminate more than 1.5 thousand violations of the law, the rights of over 6 thousand military personnel and other citizens were restored.
Behind these statistics is the growth of authority and trust in the prosecutor’s office. Through the courts, she helps restore legal rights military personnel and members of their families, the number of satisfied requests for non-payment has noticeably increased monetary allowance, violation of housing and labor legislation. People reached out to the prosecutor's office for help.
The focus is also on other current trends. Thus, coordination of activities law enforcement and supervised command made it possible to significantly reduce the number of crimes against military service and in the field illegal trafficking drugs. The military prosecutor's office, with the involvement of the command, judges of the garrison court, and employees of the military investigation department, organizes uniform days and weeks legal knowledge. Prevention allows for early identification of persons prone to violating military discipline and committing crimes.
Serious efforts are being made to combat corruption. In particular, facts of extortion by the command were revealed military units bonus money from employees. Also, in February–April 2015, 8 criminal cases were initiated regarding fraud among military personnel of two military units.
It must be said that all the prosecutor's offices headed by Vadim Baidachny were considered among the leading ones. He himself became the successor of the dynasty: his father Nikolai Fedorovich, a lieutenant colonel, retired from the post of deputy regiment commander; brother Eduard – lieutenant colonel; mother Nina Egorovna is an employee Russian army in Kursk.
He and his wife Ekaterina have been together for ten years. Parents are pleased with their two children: daughter Miroslava and son Gordey. In short, everything is fine on the personal front with Justice Major Vadim Baidachny.
S. Ustinov.