We, gardeners, gathered at the forum of the SNT "PISHCHEVIK" website of the Kaliningrad region, discussing the draft FEDERAL LAW "On horticulture, horticulture and summer cottages and on amendments to certain legislative acts Russian Federation, we make comments on this project.

1. The draft law should logically sum up the almost twenty years of existence of the law “On horticultural, horticultural and dacha non-profit associations of citizens” FZ-66 of April 15, 1998, corrected further development legislation in the field of regulating relations in the conduct of collective and individual horticulture (horticulture by citizens on their personal plots), gardening and dacha management and bring the law into line with the new edition of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and delimit horticulture, horticulture and dacha management from issues of individual housing construction, successfully masquerading as the creation of AtoN/DNO.
Twenty years ago, the question arose of bringing the legislation of the Russian Federation into conformity after the adoption in 1994 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation.
FZ-66 "On horticultural, horticultural and dacha non-profit associations of citizens" was supposed to bring the existence of numerous gardening groups to the norms of civil law.
After a five-year transitional period, one could state a complete misunderstanding of both the heads of organizations and the heads of registration bodies of the meaning of the changes.
Horticultural organizations were supposed to become horticultural non-profit organizations, which, according to the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, changed the organizational and legal forms adopted in accordance with the legislation of the Soviet period and the Law of the Russian Federation of June 19, 1992 N 3085-I "On consumer cooperation (consumer societies, their unions ) in the Russian Federation" to the organizational and legal forms adopted by the Civil Code of the Russian Federation of 1994 and other special laws. Instead of the reorganization declared by Article 53 FZ-66 when changing the legal form, there was a change in the names and re-registration of legal entities.
At the same time, the statutes of the newly named SNO/DNO continued to contain information about the creation in Soviet period, created property, on the allocation of land for collective gardening.

In fact, the newly created legal entities were assigned the details of the old organizations. At the same time, new legal entities often have only a certificate of creation before 2002, but they do not have a protocol of creation or documents on reorganization in registration files (stored in tax inspectorates). In addition, new legal entities, in fact, entered into the use of the property of old organizations and arrogated to themselves the rights to land plots allocated to old organizations (including on the basis of collective joint ownership) New organizations began to declare their rights to land plots allocated by resolutions of local authorities old organizations (which have not registered land rights). At the same time, local authorities and registration authorities turned a blind eye to compliance with the formal requirements of the law, apparently taking care of the indicators in reporting on allocated and developed land plots for gardeners, gardeners and summer residents in local interests.
In addition to the issue of succession, the issue of individual management became acute.
After the adoption by the country's leadership of the course for privatization. In fact, there was a departure from collective gardening with a transition to individual gardening.
Individual gardening provides for the gardener's management on a personal plot, registered in the ownership or use of an individual who is a member of the organization. Personal plots were formed during the division of the land allocated to the organization during the creation of SNO / DNO for collective gardening, horticulture or dacha management.
The connecting link of this compact group of plots is the LAND OF PUBLIC USE, the rights to which are most often held by legal entities - SNO/DNO.
Thus, the problem of IDENTIFICATION of a group of land plots of individual owners and a plot of public land owned by a legal entity was revealed.
The general tendency to consider such a group as a territorial entity has led to the emergence of the concept of the territory of the association.
Although, in fact, according to the norms of the Land Code of the Russian Federation, when dividing the initial land plot, rights are issued to newly formed plots.
Consequently, there is no single land tenure with a group of land owners.
There are no other obligations for each of the owners of this group of land plots, except for the uniform rules for land use.
As well as the occurrence of the addressing element is tied to planning documents for a single land use, which does not take into account the division of this single land use and the formal absence of reasons why planning documents for a single land use plot can be applied to a compactly located group of plots of different owners outside the boundaries of the settlement.
There was also a problem with the use of COMMON USE LANDS.
According to the legislation, land plots for common use are lands in the use of an unlimited number of persons.
Charging a fee from a limited circle of people for the use of these lands and not charging a fee from everyone else puts a limited circle of people in an unequal position with other users. .
The next point is the ownership of common property for the conditions of SNT.
FZ-66 determines that in the case of the creation of an IOP through a special fund, the created property belongs to the legal entity and, on the contrary, the property created for earmarked contributions does not belong to the legal entity (belongs to members of the association).
At the same time, there is no formal indication of how targeted contributions are collected, by whom they are collected (by a legal entity or by the members themselves). Who creates the IEP and how the rights to this IOP are formalized.
The result of the absence of formal requirements was the practice of collecting earmarked contributions by a legal entity, creating a declared property by a legal entity and the absence of a moment of transfer of rights to the created property to members of the organization.
In fact, the legal entity arrogated to itself the rights to both the created property and the funds collected as earmarked contributions.
The practice of substituting concepts has also become widespread: earmarked contributions are collected not for the creation of objects of common use, but for the creation of any property in common use.

Attention should be paid to the absence of strict norms in the formation of the institution of commissioners.
The law failed to formulate clear rules for the development of newly acquired land plots, or responsibility for changing the type of permitted use of the land plot. Or the return to circulation of abandoned or long-term uncultivated land.
2. At the moment, a situation has developed that is similar to the situation almost twenty years ago.
Again, the question arose WHERE TO GO and the question of BRINGING IN ACCORDANCE with Federal Law-66 "On horticultural, horticultural and dacha non-profit associations of citizens".
WHERE TO GO.
The practice of land use has shown that over the past twenty years, most of those wishing to receive land plots have already realized their desires.
At the moment, the state is struggling to implement programs to repair the existing infrastructure and is not considering budget allocations for the creation of new infrastructure for new projects to create zones for gardening, horticulture and dacha management.
At the same time in the existing zones. at least 10% of land plots have not been cultivated for years, become deserted, and become littered.
At the same time, municipal land control authorities from year to year condone the ownerless attitude towards empty and abandoned, as well as undeveloped land. Also, from the non-involvement in the turnover of empty plots, the state receives less significant funds (holding auctions, taxation, secondary income from trade).
It is clear that the current practice suggests the following development path:
-Development of new territories and involvement in the circulation of empty and abandoned land plots by conducting an audit of the lands of municipalities as soon as possible.
-Development of collective gardening (members of the SSS/VDN manage the land owned by the organization - legal entity).
- Choice of management method for individual horticulture (horticulture / dacha farming on the owners' personal plots in areas of compact arrangement of plots for horticulture and dacha management).
These control methods can be:
-direct control;
- management through the creation of a partnership of property owners or the creation of a consumer cooperative;
- attracting a commercial management organization.
In this form, the law assumes the solution of mutually opposite development paths, such as obtaining new plots (where possible) and redistributing abandoned ones and providing legislative support for managing management in collective and individual gardening.

It would be interesting to consider the issues of collective management separately from the issues of individual management.

3. Separate attention should be paid to the identification of the concepts of GARDENING PARTNERSHIP and TERRITORIAL FORMATION that has developed over the years.
At its core, people do not see the subject of relations, replacing it with an OBJECT, which is given to the management and disposal of an organization created to obtain a land plot and register rights to it.
Such an identification is contrary to the norms of the law.
According to the existing legislation, the Horticultural Association operates as a legal entity, not as a territorial entity. The provision introduced into circulation that the territory of the partnership is an element of the planning structure determined by the development project does not stand up to criticism after considering the question of which land plot project is in question. There is no reason to combine the plans of land plots obtained after the division of the land plot provided to the association for gardening.
This is not a single land holding.
If this is not a single land ownership, then there is no reason to consider a compactly located group of land plots with the same type of permitted use as a single element of the planning structure.
The proposed project failed to resolve the legal conflict.
A logical legal method for solving the problem is the convention of referring the object of law to an element of the planning structure.
The division into squares, quarters, streets - it is the most fair.
Who will serve the infrastructure complex of elements of planning structures will decide the choice of land owners: the competitive, tender system has basically justified itself. The state order has not exhausted its possibilities either.

4. A separate question about individuals engaged in gardening on an individual basis.
The prevailing public opinion (often based on information disseminated by interested parties) presents individuals as some kind of pennies who refuse to pay for the benefits provided to them.
In fact, many of these individuals participated in the creation of infrastructure, paid for the creation of an IEP, which was subsequently appropriated by legal entities. At the heart of leaving to individuals is a protest against the illegal methods of MANAGEMENT in horticultural associations and the illegal methods of managing horticultural associations and the infrastructure of horticultural formations.
People are moving away from extortions from the leadership of associations for the purpose of personal enrichment, from pathological accounting illiteracy, from arbitrariness and lawlessness.

A few words about the project under consideration.
After a careful reading, I got the impression that the project was written by people who were not familiar not only with gardening and summer cottages, but also not familiar with the basics of law, resource supply and accounting.
So the project article:
Article 4
Partnerships can be created and have the right to carry out their activities for the joint possession, use and, within the limits established by law, the disposal of property (things), by virtue of the law being in their common ownership or in common use, as well as for one or more of the following purposes:
1) gardening, horticulture and dacha farming and the creation of favorable conditions for this (providing electricity, heat, gas, water supply, sanitation, solid municipal waste management, improvement and protection of the territory of the partnership, ensuring fire safety of the territory of the partnership);
2) ensuring the development of land plots within the boundaries of the territory of the partnership;
3) interaction of members of the partnership in relations with third parties, including bodies state power and local self-government bodies, as well as the protection of their rights and legitimate interests.
Commentary: the partnership is created as a legal entity (according to Art. 2, paragraph 3). This legal entity cannot have property in common ownership. It may be the property of a legal entity. Therefore, the partnership cannot carry out its activities with anyone for joint possession, use and, within the limits established by law, the disposal of property (things).

Project position:
the boundaries of the territory of the partnership - the boundaries of the element of the planning structure, in respect of which the documentation for the planning of the territory, developed for this partnership, is approved;
It is more fair to replace the concept of territory with the concept of a land plot.
Then the phrase makes sense
BORDERS OF THE LAND PLOT OF THE PARTNERSHIP - the boundaries of the element of the planning structure, in respect of which the partnership has rights.
If we consider the situation: in relation to which the territory planning documentation developed for this partnership is approved, then a situation will arise when the partnership develops documentation for a group of land plots, for some of which the partnership has no rights. These parcels then have obligations towards the association only on the basis of the arbitrary inclusion of these parcels in the planning documentation.
Project position:
garden (country) land plot - a land plot located within the boundaries of the territory of a horticultural non-profit partnership and intended for growing fruit, berry, vegetable, melons or other crops with the right to rest and place a garden house, outbuildings and an object of individual housing construction (country house , dachas), with the exception of cases established by federal law;

GARDENING NON-PROFIT PARTNERSHIP "PISHCHEVIK", Krasnogorsk district, Moscow region

The main activity according to the OKVED code:

Additional activities of the company:

• . Cultivation of other agricultural crops not included in other groups;

All-Russian classifier of products by type of economic activity:

• . Engineering diagnostics of reactive energy compensation devices;
• . Engineering diagnostics of river watercourses;
• . Maintenance work (maintenance) of planar structures of stadiums and sports grounds;
• . Maintenance work (maintenance) of internal electrical lighting and power supply networks (including electrical fittings) in non-residential buildings, performed on individual orders;
• . Engineering diagnostics of structures and equipment for special types of water treatment;
• . Works on the diagnostics of the technical condition of reserve and control tanks for water storage;
• . Services for managing the operation of engineering systems and equipment, maintenance of buildings and structures;
• . Maintenance work (maintenance) of local cable (underground) telephone and other communication lines, including auxiliary work, except for work performed on individual orders;

GARDENING NON-PROFIT PARTNERSHIP "PISHCHEVIK"

Categories

• Property management / Non-residential property management

Estimated goods and services, according to OKPD:

• Maintenance work (maintenance) of pipeline networks, radiators and other pipeline fittings, performed on individual orders
• Maintenance work (maintenance) of other building objects from prefabricated structures
• Maintenance work (maintenance) of the subway and other underground railways
• Engineering diagnostics of hot water supply systems, including built-in boiler rooms, instrumentation, automation, metering devices
• Engineering diagnostics of fire tanks and fire reservoirs
• Engineering diagnostics of mobile power plants and diesel generator sets
• Maintenance work (maintenance) of local cable (underground) power lines, including auxiliary work
• Maintenance work (maintenance) of facilities for the mining industry
• Maintenance work (maintenance) of outbuildings performed on individual orders
• Maintenance work (maintenance) of cold water supply systems, performed on individual orders

Archival extract

Mini-reference on SNT "PISHCHEVIK"

SNT "PISHCHEVIK", registration date - February 28, 2003, registrar - Inspectorate of the Ministry of Taxation of Russia for the city of KRASNOGORSK, MOSCOW Oblast. Full official name - GARDENING NON-PROFIT PARTNERSHIP "PISHCHEVIK". Legal address: 143414, MOSCOW region, KRASNOGORSK. The main activity is: "Management of operation of non-residential fund". Chairman - Gavrilov Viktor Sergeevich. Organizational and legal form (OPF) - horticultural, horticultural or dacha non-profit partnerships. The type of property is private property.

Contacts

Other companies in the region

SEPARATE DIVISION LLC "PPK"
Production of spices and seasonings
141400, MOSCOW region, KHIMKI, st. LENINGRADSKAYA, possession 39, BUSINESS PARK "KHIMKI", pom. N OB02 09

OP NOCHUDO "LINGWORLD"
Adult education and other types of education n.e.c.
141202, Moscow region, PUSHKINO, DZERZHINETS microdistrict, 5A

"LAND PREMIUM", LLC
Renting out your own real estate
142305, MOSCOW region, CHEKHOVSKY district, SERGEEVO village, st. INDUSTRIAL, d. 1

"CONSUL-D", OOO
Provision of intermediary services in the purchase, sale and lease of real estate
142033, MOSCOW region, DOMODEDOVO, st. STATION, d. 5A

"WEST PREMIUM", LLC, KOROLEV
Soap and detergent production
141080, MOSCOW region, KOROLEV, st. SILIKATE, 10A

MBOU SECONDARY SCHOOL №24
Primary general education
140408, MOSCOW region, KOLOMNA, st. LENINA, d. 1B

"ELTROS", LLC, KLIMOVSK
Wholesale of industrial electrical and electronic equipment, including telecommunication equipment
142181, MOSCOW region, KLIMOVSK, st. FACTORY, 2

"LUCH", LLC, LUCHINSKOE

143502, Moscow region, Istra district, p / o ISTRA, p. Luchinsky, st. CENTRAL, building 3

"GALEON", LLC
Maintenance and repair of motor vehicles
141304, MOSCOW region, SERGIEV POSAD, st. SERGIEVSKAYA, 21

"FORTA", LLC
Wholesale trade, including trade through agents, except for trade in motor vehicles and motorcycles
141070, MOSCOW region, KOROLEV, st. KARLA MARKSA, 3

"NEW TECHNOLOGIES", LLC
Maintenance and repair of passenger cars
142180, MOSCOW region, KLIMOVSK, st. RAILWAY, 2

"AVANPOST", LLC
Organization of cargo transportation
141560, Moscow region, Solnechnogorsk district, p. ALABUSHEVO, st. 3rd dead end, 5

"SHCHELKOVSKY DISTRICT MARKET", OJSC, SHCHELKOVSKY
Crop production combined with animal husbandry (mixed agriculture)
141100, Moscow region, Shchelkovo, st. TALSINSKAYA, 1

NP "IK" KUZNITSA", KHIMKI
Provision of intermediary services in the purchase, sale and lease of residential real estate
141400, MOSCOW region, KHIMKI, st. MARCH 8, d. 1, apt. 36

"OKEAN", LLC, KLINSKY
Retail sale in non-specialized stores primarily of food products, including beverages, and tobacco products
141607, MOSCOW region, KLIN, st. LAVROVSKAYA ROAD, 54