The Supreme Court limited the seizure by the state of land from private owners
Using an example of a dispute between the farmer and the cement plant, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation (Sun) clarified the conditions for the seizure and transfer of the agricultural agent for the subsoil user for the purposes of state needs. In particular, for such an seizure, the authorities must confirm the presence of a specific “public interest” and the inability to satisfy it by transferring other sections to the plant. In addition, even if a person with a license for the extraction of the subsoil claims to be controversial land, it is necessary to correlate the rarity of minerals and the priority of the use of agricultural land for their intended purpose, the Armed Forces emphasized. Lawyers say that this position can turn the practice, since earlier in most cases the interests of subsoil users have received priority.
The spores examined by the Armed Forces unfolded between the farmer-IP Natalia Porotikova and the government of the Ryazan region. Mrs. Porotikova appealed to the court the order of the regional authorities to seize 90.2 hectares of land for state -owners. The plaintiff referred to the fact that officials planned to transfer plots for the extraction of clay and limestone to the Serebryansky cement plant (part of Cemos), whose interests do not belong to state -owned -wingers. The plant participated in the case by a third party. In addition, according to IP, it is now impossible to use several areas with a total area of about 15 hectares according to agricultural, which is confirmed by the conclusion of a cadastral engineer.
The arbitration courts of the three instances sided with the regional government and rejected the claims of the farmer. The courts considered that the grounds for the seizure of land fall under the State Supervision, taking into account federal state programs and regional development strategies, as well as the presence of a license for the use of subsoil (See “Kommersant” from March 28). At the same time, the plaintiff’s application for the appointment of a forensic examination to verify the legality of the division of land was rejected. But Mrs. Porotikova achieved the transfer to the Economic College of the Armed Forces, which ultimately canceled the decisions of lower instances.
From the definition of the Armed Forces it follows that the arguments of the IP were generally supported. The economy of the colleague noted that the presence of a license for the use of subsoil « cannot be the only and unconditional basis for the seizure of land from owners and land users. »
In addition, there is no evidence in the case file that the plant executes state contracts and provides the needs of the region or social facilities of the region at the expense of these minerals, but there are not enough links to state programs to confirm “public interests”. The regional strategy of socio-economic development, which officials referred to, also does not confirm the presence of state-owners, since the “Ryazan region specializes in manufacturing products and agriculture”, and there is no production industry in the list of promising, the judicial board emphasized. In addition, limestone and clay are not unique and scarce fossils, and the plant has other areas for prey, according to the definition of aircraft.
“The presence of appropriate needs and the exclusivity of the case under consideration should be justified by the initiator of the seizure of a land plot,” the economy college emphasized. The Armed Forces also recalled the principle of “priority of land protection as a means of production in agriculture”, over which the extraction of subsoil has no advantages, since “ensuring the food security of the state” is one of the national priorities.
The case was sent for a new consideration in the regional arbitration court, which, according to the instructions of the Armed Forces, will be found to find out what the economic value and significance of this section of the subsoil, whether it is possible to use it without removal and, in principle, the grounds for withdrawing land for state -owners.
3594 lawsuit
The arbitration courts for 2024 were examined about the contest of acts of the authorities related to the land.
After the transfer of the case to the economy of the Ryazan region, Kommersant was informed that they had no other disputes with farmers about the seizure of lands. They could not promptly comment on the outcome of the case in the Armed Forces. Kommeros, Kommersant, said that they would “analyze the definition of aircraft and continue to defend the company’s position upon a new consideration of the dispute.” They clarified that legally the IP so far continues to be the owner of the site. It was not possible to contact Natalia Porotikova.
Turn in practice
Lawyers consider the decision of the Armed Forces extremely important for such disputes. The partner of the dispute resolution of the ALUMNI PARTNERS legal firm, Ivan Veselov, says that in most cases the courts recognized the presence of a license for mining to be a sufficient basis for the withdrawal of a land plot and made decisions in favor of subsoil users. In such cases, the courts presented the presence of state-owners and did not demand “any additional justification”, Mr. Veselov said. Egor Kovalev, adviser to the practice of private customers of KA Delcredere, explains that the procedure for withdrawing land for subsoil mining is “very formalized”, therefore the courts considered such disputes accordingly – “if the formalities are observed, then the decision to seize is recognized as legal”.
Lawyers surveyed by Kommersant support the conclusions of the economy colleague. Ivan Veselov emphasizes that « the civil circulation should not be reduced to the arbitrary removal of the means of production of one business for the activity of another. » “Deprivation of ownership is an extreme measure, and for this reason, the court decision on such cases should have a particularly strong argument and not doubt,” said Vladovikov, leading lawyer Enforce Law Company. The economy colleague “illuminated all the weaknesses of the matter”, including the principle of priority for the protection of agricultural land, Mr. Veselov points out. Egor Kovalev believes that the position of the Armed Forces is another step towards a less formal consideration of similar disputes.
However, the outcome of the proceedings for a new consideration has not yet been a foregone conclusion, it all depends on what evidence will present the part of the dispute, warns Mr. Kovalev. Nevertheless, Ivan Veselov calls the decision of the Armed Forces « a positive precedent for the agrarian sector. » “To withdraw agricultural lands in favor of the subsoil user, it will now be necessary to prove that geological study and mining of minerals in a particular area for society is more valuable,” said Vlad Strelkov. According to lawyers, in the case of common fossils, this will not be easy to do, since they can be mined in other areas.
