Ситуация

The prosecutor's office of one of the districts of the Moscow region filed a lawsuit against the tenant of the land plot to stop the misuse of the land plot and to carry out the reclamation of the land plot, the state examination of the land reclamation project. The suit was motivated, according to the prosecutor's office, by the placement of production and consumption waste in the form of soil dumps on the agricultural land plot, which indicates damage to the land plot.

The situation was aggravated by the presence of a decision that had entered into force in the case of an administrative offense initiated and carried out by the prosecutor's office against the tenant on the same basis and subject matter of the requirements. The potential threat of this dispute was the subsequent monetary assessment of the alleged damage caused by the prosecutor's office to the land plot in accordance with the methods approved by the Ministry of Natural Resources of the Russian Federation, the amount of which could be at least several million rubles.

Проведенная работа

Employees of the law firm "Paritet" collected documentary evidence and, on their basis, compiled a legal structure that made it possible to refute the arguments of the prosecutor's office and the content of the case file on an administrative offense. In court hearings, our experts proved that the removal of soil from Moscow to the Moscow Region was coordinated with the state bodies of the city of Moscow and the Moscow Region, as well as with the territorial departments of the federal services of the Moscow Region. In addition, it was proved that equipment is used on the land plot that allows the processing of soil into components that are safe for nature, which can be reused by introducing them into the soil, and earthworks are carried out on the basis of a permit issued in the prescribed manner and are accompanied by chemical and biological studies, confirming the environmental friendliness of the activities. Thus, the position of the prosecutor's office contradicted the arguments of other competent authorities and was not based on a full and objective investigation of the case of an administrative offense. Moreover, it was possible to document that such work is necessary to create a site for growing trees for sale. In addition, our lawyers took advantage of the mistake of the prosecutor's office, which did not conduct an environmental assessment in the framework of the case on an administrative offense, and asked the court to appoint it. The ecological expertise appointed by the court confirmed the arguments of our lawyers.