Production of a cesspool. Court proceedings Court decision to demolish a cesspool

Tambov Regional Court

Case: No. 33-2310

Referee: Alekseeva G.L.

CASSATION DEFINITION

Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Tambov Regional Court, composed of

presiding: Pachina L.N.

judges: Klepikova E.A., Belousova V.B.

under the secretary Simonova T.A.

examined in open court on July 20, 2011 , the cassation complaint Ledneva The.Yew. Kornienko A.K. on the decision of Morshansky district court Tambov region dated March 30, 2011 in a civil case on the claim of Bednova G.T. to Ledneva N.I., Lednev V.Yu. and Kornienko A.K. about removing obstacles and dismantling cesspool,

After hearing the report of Judge Klepikova E.A., the Judicial Board

SET UP:

Bednova G.T. went to court with statement of claim to Ledneva N.I. on the removal of obstacles to the use of water supply, as well as the removal of obstacles and the dismantling of the cesspool.

By the decision of the Morshansky District Court of August 17, 2010, the claims of Bednova T.T. in terms of removing obstacles to the use of water supply, they are satisfied. Claims Bednova T.T. in terms of removing obstacles and dismantling the cesspool, they were separated into a separate production. In support of their claims Bednova G.T. indicated that she owns *** shares in the household located in *** Morshansk. The co-owner of the rest of the house is Ledneva N.I., who permanently lives in the Moscow region, and comes to Morshansk during the winter and summer holidays. Believes that each of the co-owners of the house should keep their communication networks in proper order. In front of the wall of the part of the house belonging to her (Bednova G.T.), a sewer pit was built by Ledneva N.I., which constantly has a negative impact on the wall of the part of the plaintiff's house, since the foundation of the house is old and has no insulation. The distance during the construction of the pit from the wall of the house was not observed, it is less than 2 meters. There is a strong smell coming from the pit, and this smell is constantly present in the plaintiff's room. The plaintiff believes that the obstacles to the use of her house should be removed, and this sewer pit should be dismantled due to violation sanitary norms. At the same time, Bednova G.T. asks the court to ban Ledneva N.AND. use the sewer pit, which is located near the main wall of a part of the household belonging to the plaintiff.

The co-owners of the house were involved in the case: Lednev The.Yew. and Kornienko A.K., who were

By the decision of the Morshansky District Court of the Tambov Region dated March 30, 2011, the claims of Bednova T.T. to Ledneva N.I., Lednev V.Yu. and Kornienko A.K. on the removal of obstacles and the dismantling of the cesspool are satisfied. The court ordered Ledneva N.AND., Lednev V.Yu., Kornienko A.K. to dismantle their cesspool in the yard of household *** in Morshansk.

The appeal Lednev The.Yew., Kornienko A.K. raise the issue of annulment of the decision of the court. Indicate that Bednova G.T. The time limit for this dispute has expired. limitation period, since the plaintiff acquired part of the house in 1997, and went to court in 2010. At the time of the purchase of part of the house and over the next 13 years, Bednova did not have any claims regarding the cesspool. It is believed that the construction of the cesspool complied with all regulatory requirements, there is all the necessary documentation permitting its construction, as well as the consent of the Samsonovs' neighbors. From the former co-owner of the house, Ulybina, there is also consent to the construction of this pit, but it has not been preserved over the years. In addition, the complainants indicate that, according to the conclusions of the examination, the cesspool does not have a negative impact on the wall of the part of the house of Bednova G.T.. The expert's conclusions regarding the tightness of the cesspool are considered conjectural. The court did not examine the issue of the possibility of sewerage to their part of the house. Also, the court did not find out what the violation of the rights of Bednova T.T.

Having checked the case materials, the legality of the decision made as a result of the consideration of the case, the correctness of the application of the norms of substantive and procedural law within the limits established by Article 347 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, having discussed the arguments of the cassation appeal, the panel of judges came to the conclusion that there were no grounds for canceling the court decision.

Bednova G.T. is the owner of a *** share of home ownership in *** Morshansk, the co-owners of the share of the house are Ledneva N.I., Lednev V.Yu., Kornienko A.K. proximity to her home violates her rights. There is a smell coming from the pit, the pit was built in violation of sanitary standards, it has a negative impact on the wall of the house belonging to the plaintiff. The pit has been operated since the 90s. In support of her arguments, the plaintiff submitted to the court an expert opinion, according to the conclusions of which the placement of a “cesspool” relative to a residential building does not meet the sanitary requirements of SanPiN 42-128-4690-88 (8), so with a minimum standard of 8.0 m, the actual distance is 3.0 m, there is no tightness of the cesspool, and therefore its intended use is technically not possible. Its content leaks through the walls and bottom of the cesspool.

Satisfying the claims of Bednova T.T. the court reasonably accepted the expert's opinion as evidence, since the court has no reason to doubt its conclusions. The employees of the Territorial Department of Rospotrebnadzor in Morshansk, the Committee for Architecture and Urban Planning of the Administration of Morshansk, interrogated at the court session as specialists, did not rule out a violation of the tightness of the cesspool based on its service life, indicating that its preservation violates sanitary standards. Considering that earlier the household belonged to one owner, it was permissible to construct a pit at a distance of less than 8 m from a residential building, but given the life of the pit, its technical condition has deteriorated, which affects the rights of the plaintiff.

In accordance with Art. 56 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, each party must prove the circumstances to which it refers as the basis of its claims and objections, unless otherwise provided federal law. In substantiation of their objections, the defendants did not provide evidence to refute the conclusions of the expert. Considering that no such evidence was presented to the court, the court reasonably proceeded in making its decision from the evidence presented by the plaintiff. The defendants were not deprived of the opportunity to present other evidence that the court would have assessed in their entirety.

The arguments of the complaint that there is no reason to dismantle the cesspool, since it was officially allowed and legalized, are not based on the law.

In accordance with Art. 210 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the owner bears the burden of maintaining the property belonging to him, unless otherwise provided by law or contract. Therefore, the defendants have a duty to maintain the cesspool in good condition. By allowing the breach of the tightness of the pit, they actually violated the rights of the plaintiff. The lack of absolute tightness of the cesspool, as the expert pointed out, leads to the penetration of sewage into the soil and pollution environment. By virtue of Part 4 of Article 212 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the rights of all owners are protected equally, and therefore, in accordance with Art. 304 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the plaintiff has the right to apply to the court for the protection of his rights.

Based on the foregoing, the judicial colleague finds no reason to cancel the judgment.

Guided by Art. 360.361 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, judicial board

DETERMINED:

The decision of the Morshansky District Court of the Tambov Region of March 30, 2011 to be left unchanged, the cassation appeal of Lednev V.Yu., Kornienko A.K. - without satisfaction.

presiding.

Case No. 2-849/14

SOLUTION

Name Russian Federation

Kerch City Court of the Republic of Crimea composed of Judge Sobeshchanskaya N.V., with the secretary Nikitina E.A., with the participation of the plaintiff Pavlova T.G., the representative of the plaintiff Solovieva S.S., the defendant Sushkov O.D., the representative of the defendant Krutko Yu .V.,

Having considered in open court a civil case on the claim of Tatyana Georgievna Pavlova against Oleg Danilovich Sushkov on the obligation to perform certain actions,

INST A N O V&L:

In June 2014 Pavlova T.G. filed a lawsuit against Sushkov Oh.D. on the obligation to perform certain actions, namely to oblige Sushkov Oh.D. liquidate the cesspool built on the land plot at the address. She motivates her claims by the fact that she is the owner of the home ownership on the basis of a certificate of inheritance from DD.MM.YYYY under register No. and a certificate of inheritance under the law from DD.MM.YYYY under register No. The household is located on a land plot of 600 sq.m., allocated for use on the basis of the decision of the Executive Committee of the Kerch City Council of Workers' Deputies No. DD.MM.YYYY. In the spring of 2012 Sushkov O.D. purchased a home. The land plots on which the households are located are adjacent. In autumn 2012 Sushkov O.D. dug a cesspool on its territory, the distance from the cesspool to the fence separating their plots is no more than half a meter. In the spring of 2014 from the side land plot Sushkova O.D. she noticed that dirty water was running. As she later found out, it was contaminated water from a cesspool. The land is tilted towards her land plot, and all the sewage falls on her land plot. On this fact, she turned to Sushkov O.D. and asked him to eliminate the violations, he did not respond to her requests. On May 2, 2014, she applied to the Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation in the city of Kerch for the protection of her violated rights. DD.MM.YYYY 1st Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation for the city of Kerch issued a decision to refuse to initiate a criminal case. This decision reflected the explanations of Sushkov O.D., who explained that the water that allegedly collected in their garden and flooded the outbuildings not from his pit, but only because it rained and since their outbuildings are in close proximity to fence and there is no ventilation, then moisture lingers in the walls. On May 6, 2014, she applied on the issue of the legality of the location of the cesspool to the Housing and Utilities Department of the Kerch City Council. DD.MM.YYYY she received an answer for No. No., from which it follows that the specialists of the KRP "Water of Crimea" on site made a sampling and analysis of water from the network of the house. The results of the analysis showed that this sample contains impurities Wastewater. In turn, this indicates that the explanations of Sushkov O.D. that this moisture lingers in the wall are not correct. In addition, in the response of the Housing and Utilities Department it was reflected that local governments do not consider land disputes of citizens, and she was recommended to apply to the court on this issue. Sushkov O.D. violates sanitary standards of both Ukrainian and Russian legislation, the cesspool on its territory is lined with shell rock without any sealing, for this reason there is a flow of water to its site. Since Sushkov O.D. v voluntary does not eliminate violations: does not bring the cesspool in line with sanitary standards, wastewater from the cesspool flows to her on the land plot, thereby violating her rights as a user of the land plot, as well as her right to a favorable habitat. I asked the court to oblige Sushkov Oh.D. liquidate the cesspool built on the land plot at the address: .

The plaintiff at the hearing supported her claims in full, asked the court to satisfy them in accordance with the stated requirements, gave explanations on the circumstances of the case. To the questions of the representative of the respondent, she explained that the cesspool, which she uses, is completely concreted, waterproof, pumps it out every 3-4 years. The pit was equipped back in the 70s, when the pit is pumped out, it is clear that the walls and floor are concreted, pumping is carried out by a private person without issuing receipts for this service. Last fall, she discovered that the earth in her garden was all wet, this year the earth became white. When asked by the court, she explained that the water was taken, but the results were not known to her, since the studies were not paid for. Soil analysis has not been carried out at this time.

The representative of the plaintiff Solovieva S.S., acting on the basis of a duly executed power of attorney, supported the claims of her principal at the hearing, asked the court to satisfy them on the basis of the circumstances set forth in the claim, the case materials, as well as the submitted written explanations (l.d. 178-187). According to which, Pavlova T.G. filed a lawsuit in June 2014 for the reason that the land plot located at the address: was repeatedly flooded with sewage from a cesspool located on the land plot at the address:, that is, from the land plot of Sushkov O.D., the defendant in the case . Evidence of this fact is the answer from the Housing and Utilities Department dated June 02, 2014, the decision to refuse to initiate a criminal case dated May 03, 2014, the examination, the conclusion of which is available in the case file, the explanations of the expert Sedova N.Yu. The response of the Housing and Public Utilities Department dated June 02, 2014 reflects that the specialists of the KRP "Water of Crimea" took and analyzed water from the network on site. The results of the analysis showed that this sample contains sewage impurities. In the case file there is a response URP "Water of Crimea" addressed to the head of the Department of housing and communal services FULL NAME8 From this response it follows that: living on the issue of the spreading of sewage from a residential area, reports the following: on site, a water sample was taken and analyzed from the network of the house. The results of the analysis showed that this sample contains sewage impurities. According to Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of July 29, 2013 No. 644, paragraph 35-, the Subscriber is obliged to ensure the elimination of damage or malfunction of water pipes and (or) located within the boundaries of his operational responsibility and eliminate the consequences of such damage and malfunctions. Based on the foregoing, work on sealing cesspools, residents of households and, must be performed on their own and at the expense of own funds, since in the area of ​​the above streets, there are no centralized drainage networks, which are on the balance sheet of the enterprise. This answer contains a lexical error: the answer states that the sampling and analysis of the water sample was made from the network of the house, which in turn is not true. Water intake was carried out in May from the soil at the junction land plots. Further, the answer states that it is necessary to seal the cesspools, which in turn indicates that the answer is about cesspools, and not about the network of the house. Water intake from the network could not be taken, since the plaintiff does not have a sewer network in the house at all. The response of the PRC "Crimea Water" indicates that the results of the analysis showed that the sample contains sewage impurities, which in turn is a violation of sanitary norms and rules. Pavlova T.G. no wastewater analysis was carried out, since there are no laboratories in Kerch that have a license for a full analysis, and in turn, the presence of wastewater on the land plot in itself is a violation of the plaintiff's rights, both the user of the land plot, and the plaintiff's rights to a favorable environment a habitat. In the case file there is an expert opinion, in which expert Sedova H.Yew. responded to all the questions raised by the court. So, on the 1st question, the expert concluded that the location and device, as well as the materials from which the cesspool was built, located on the land plot of Sushkov O.D. at the address: in does not comply with accepted sanitary norms and rules. On the land plot of the household, the simplest single-chamber septic tank is actually equipped, the designs of which do not meet the regulatory requirements for this type of structure in terms of waterproofing the walls and equipping the bottom of the structure, as well as in terms of its location relative to the border with the adjacent household along. At the time of the inspection, the expert recorded the following state of the cesspool located on the land plot of Sushkov O.D. at the address:: the overall dimensions of the cesspool in terms of external dimensions are 3.6 meters by 3.8 meters. The depth of the cesspool is 1.90 meters. The internal volume of the cesspool is 20 cubic meters. The bottom of the cesspool is compacted soil, which does not meet regulatory requirements. The walls of the cesspool are made of shell stone half a stone thick, not plastered, not made necessary work for waterproofing the walls and bottom of the cesspool, which does not meet regulatory requirements. The cesspool is covered from above with metal profiles, along which corrugated asbestos-cement sheets are laid, which are then filled with concrete. In the pit, a hatch measuring 0.43 by 0.43 meters is equipped on top. An exhaust pipe was equipped from the concrete cover of the pit, which was not installed at a distance of 1.0 meters, but adjoins the slate fence with the neighboring household, which does not meet regulatory requirements. The pit is equipped at a distance of less than 1.0 meters from the current border with the neighboring household, which does not meet regulatory requirements. The part of the land plot of the household in po, which is adjacent to the border with the neighboring household in po, is in an unsatisfactory condition. During the inspection, contamination of the soil of this land plot with wastewater from a cesspool located on the land plot of O.D. Sushkov was recorded. at the address:, which I also point out the results of the analysis of samples performed by the specialized organization "Kerch branch of the KRP" Water of Crimea ". As a result of the survey, the expert admits the existence of a causal relationship between the location, arrangement and condition of the cesspool located on the land plot of Sushkov O.D. at the address: and the state of the land (soil pollution) Pavlova T.G. by the address: . Objections to the examination were attached to the materials of the case by the responding party, in which questions were posed to the expert, a petition was filed for interrogation in court of experts Khropko S.A. and Sedova N.Yu. Expert Khropko S.A. one question was posed for permission: does the cesspool located in the household at the address: construction norms and rules, a set of rules, as well as SanPiNam. In the conclusions of the conclusion, the expert gave the following answer: the cesspool, located in the courtyard of the household at the address:, RK, complies with building codes and regulations, codes, rules, as well as SanPiNam. The cesspool is located at a distance of 12.36 m from the residential building lit. "A", has an indent from the border of the neighboring plot, as well as a distance to the residential building of the neighboring plot of 21.12 m. All fire and sanitary distances correspond to SNiP, SP, SanPin. In this conclusion, the expert indicates that the cesspool is indented from the border of the neighboring plot, but intentionally does not indicate this distance, since it is less than it should be: less than one meter. In addition, this examination was carried out without a court ruling on the appointment of an examination, and accordingly, the expert was not warned about criminal liability under Art. for giving a deliberately false conclusion, which in turn could allow the expert to distort the data. At the hearing on 09.09. In 2014, the experts who conducted the examinations were questioned: Khropko S.A. and Sedova N.Yu. Sedova N.Yu. gave explanations on the examination, answered all the questions raised by the responding party, answers in writing are available in the case file. According to Letter 18529-08 / IP-OG “On clarifying the status of the Codes of Rules - updated SNiP”, approved by the Ministry of Regional Development of Russia on August 15, 2011, which is available in the case file, the updated codes of rules do not cancel the previous codes of rules. Their replacement will be made by making appropriate changes to these lists. Also, the responding party, in its objections, poses questions to the expert that were not included in the list of questions, according to the court ruling of July 30, 2014 on the appointment of an examination. Part 2 of Art. it was determined that each of the parties and other persons participating in the case have the right to submit to the court issues to be resolved during the examination. The final range of issues on which an expert opinion is required is determined by the court. The Respondent was present at the determination of the range of questions, the opinion of the Respondent on the issues raised was heard. He did not object to the examination, agreed with the range of questions raised, but, despite this, in the objection to the conclusion of the examination, it indicates that the expert did not give answers to the questions that were stated by O.D. Sushkov. (“Which straight line were the measurements taken from? Were the dimensions of the land plot taken according to the technical passports of the BTI for home ownership according to and? Who has deviations in the linear dimensions of the land plots and which of them left the straight line?” “The year the cesspool was built?” what is the slope of the land plots? ground water?”, what is the difference in land plots and the consequence of this difference). These questions were not raised in the court ruling on the appointment of an examination, the defendant did not declare in a timely manner. During the examination, the expert suggested that the defendant pump out sewage from the cesspool in order to inspect the bottom of the cesspool, as well as for a more accurate examination of the walls of the pit. The defendant, referring to the impossibility of doing so in deadlines- three days, gave explanations that the bottom of the cesspool is compacted soil. The walls of the cesspool were examined by the expert as far as possible at the top of the cesspool. According to Art. 24 of the Law of the Russian Federation “On State Forensic Expert Activities”, participants in the process who are present during the production of a forensic examination can give explanations and ask questions to an expert related to the subject of a forensic examination. The defendant gave his explanations regarding the state of the cesspool, which were recorded in the conclusion by the expert. At the court session, the defendant began to evade his words regarding the bottom of the cesspool, and gave the court an explanation that the expert did not offer him to pump out the cesspool. I asked the court to pay attention, that when conducting an examination, when drawing up an opinion, when giving explanations at the hearing, expert Sedova H.Yew. was warned for knowingly making false statements. The defendant, on the other hand, about giving knowingly false testimony, due to his civil procedural position, is not warned about criminal liability, which gives him the opportunity to change his testimony. Part 3 of Art. determined that if a party evades participation in the examination, fails to present to the experts necessary materials and documents for examination and in other cases, if due to the circumstances of the case and without the participation of this party, it is impossible to conduct an examination, the court, depending on which party evades examination, and also what significance it has for it, has the right to recognize the fact, for the clarification of which examination was appointed, established or refuted. Since the defendant himself gave an explanation that the bottom of the cesspool is compacted soil, and the expert recorded this explanation in the conclusion, this circumstance can be considered proven. If the defendant is currently changing his testimony, then by virtue of Part 3 of Art. The CPC court has the right to recognize the fact that the bottom of the cesspool is leaky. In addition, to refute the conclusions of the examination, no petitions for an additional or repeated examination were received from the defendant. In response to questions from Sushkov O.D. and his representative, the expert explains that the level of the earth's surface has a natural slope to the side. Since the expert recorded that the level of the earth's surface has a natural slope to the side, then, accordingly, all wastewater from the land plot has the direction of its flow towards the site along, that is, from top to bottom. Since the cesspool on the defendant's land was built without permission, without technical documentation and permissions, and, accordingly, does not have a name confirmed by the relevant documents, then the expert in his opinion mentions a backlash-closet, outhouses, one- and two-chamber septic tanks, and comes to the conclusion that a structure is located on the land plot, more falling under the name "single-chamber septic tank", but in turn does not meet all the rules and regulations for this type of structure. Any structure that serves to collect and store sewage must first of all be airtight, which in turn is confirmed by the responding party in its objection to the examination. The building on the defendant's land is not airtight. The expert also gave a conclusion regarding the state of the land Pavlova T.G. in accordance with their special knowledge , according to which the land plot of the latter is flooded with sewage from a cesspool. The expert does not analyze wastewater. During the examination, the expert examined outbuildings under lit. "D", which is directly located in the flood zone, as well as buildings under lit. "E", "B", "B". The expert notes that on the wooden parts of the roof of the farm building, lit. "D" characteristic traces of intense wetting by atmospheric precipitation were not recorded. Visually, the roof of the outbuilding has no holes and openings. Atmospheric precipitation from the roof equipped over the outbuilding lit. "D" drain, in the opposite direction from the cesspool equipped in the neighboring household, namely in the direction of the residential building. In the utility building lit.. "D" all the wooden parts of the structures that have direct contact with the ground have turned black from decay and are covered with whitish deposits. On the surface of the soil - a whitish coating. The ground floor is wet. As for the outbuildings under lit. "E", "C" and "B" - the expert did not identify any signs of flooding. In this connection, the flooding does not occur from the restroom plaintiff - lit. "B", and is not a consequence of precipitation. Since signs of flooding has a utility building under lit. "D", as well as part of the land near lit. "D", which in turn are located in close proximity to the defendant's cesspool, there are no other sources of flooding nearby - then the expert came to the correct conclusion that the defendant's cesspool is the cause of the flooding. In the course of the examination, the expert identified violations during the construction of the cesspool: the cesspool is located at a distance of 0.2-0.35 m from the neighboring site, the bottom of the cesspool and the walls of the cesspool are leaky, the cesspool is located on a land plot that, in its turn relative to the plaintiff's land is higher. It follows from this that in any case, wastewater from this cesspool will fall on the plaintiff's land. Contaminated sewage poses a health hazard to both the plaintiff and the defendant, as well as other neighbors, land plots, which are located near the leaking cesspool. Soil that is contaminated by sewage will require decades of effort to clean it up. An article of the Land Code of the Russian Federation obliges the owners of land plots, land users to take measures to protect land from various pollution, to eliminate the consequences of pollution. Article 10 of the Law of the Russian Federation "On the sanitary and epidemiological well-being of the population" obliges citizens to comply with the requirements of sanitary legislation, as well as resolutions, instructions that carry out federal state sanitary and epidemiological supervision officials, not to carry out actions that entail a violation of the rights of other citizens to health protection and a favorable living environment. Based on the above, I asked the court to satisfy the claims of Pavlova T.T. as they are substantiated, and confirmed by the evidence available in the case file. I asked the court to oblige Sushkov Oh.D. eliminate the cesspool by pumping and filling, did not mind using it for other purposes. To the court's questions, she explained that the defendant's cesspool had been built in violation of building and sanitary norms. The plaintiff does not have a sewer system, the toilet is separate. Defendant has a system that drains effluent into a cesspool, which is the subject of a dispute.

defendant Sushkov Oh.D. at the hearing with the claim did not agree, asked the court to refuse to satisfy it. The pit was built by builders, they promised that it would meet all standards. Cleans the pit regularly, the pit is built with shell rock building stone and mortar. He does not know if the bottom of the pit is cemented or not. The plaintiff addressed him on the issue of bringing the pit into conformity. If the court decides to fill up the pit, he will use the outdoor toilet, and the water, after use, will be drained into the street. The top of the pit is concreted, it is difficult to get inside. To the questions of the representative of the plaintiff, he explained that he did not order technical documentation during the construction of the cesspool, where he showed that the builders built there, not during the construction of construction and sanitary standards, he trusted the builders in resolving these issues. When the pit is pumped out, the hose reaches the bottom, but a layer of mud remains on the bottom, the machine cleans regularly 2-3 times a month. When buying a house, he asked whether or not approval and technical documentation was needed for the construction of a cesspool, at the BTI he was told that since this underground facility agreement is not needed.

The representative of the defendant Krutko Yew.The., at the hearing the claims Pavlova T.T. did not recognize, I asked the court to refuse to satisfy them in full, since both from the explanations of the parties, and the case file, it follows that Sushkov Oh.D. equipped with a sewage pit. A causal relationship has not been established between the location of the cesspool on the land plot owned by Sushkov O.D. and pollution of the land claimant Pavlova T.T. The conclusion about the pollution of the earth can only be made by an expert institution or laboratory. Analyzes were taken in the garden of the defendant and near the cesspool located on the land plot of Sushkov O.D., bacteria were not detected. According to the research of the expert Khropko S.A., the cesspool on the land plot of Sushkov O.D. complies with the rules and regulations. Expert Sedova N.Yu. in her conclusion, she identified the concepts of the border of the land plot and the fence. The expert had to make measurements from the cesspool to the residential building. The distance is given in the study of the expert Khropko S.A. information that in the land Pavlova T.T. contain impurities sewage court is not presented. The representative of the plaintiff gave an explanation that there was wetting and a whitish coating on one building. The expert did not examine all the buildings, both on the land plot of the plaintiff and the defendant. The presented photos with the dug hole are not known where and when they were taken. Also in the examination of the type of land, it is not general form, and the uprooted plots, even in these pictures, vegetation is visible on the land plot owned by the plaintiff Pavlova T.G., therefore, it is impossible to say that nothing grows. When asked by the court, she explained that the construction was carried out without coordination and development of technical documentation. The location of the cesspool complies with all regulations and rules, sanitary standards are observed.

Court after hearing the explanation of the parties, having studied the written materials of the case according to Article. Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, came to the following.

In accordance with the provisions of Art. the interested person has the right, in accordance with the procedure established by the legislation on civil proceedings, to apply to the court for the protection of the disputed rights, freedoms and legitimate interests.

Within the meaning of these norms, only violated or challenged rights are subject to protection, while the obligation to prove the very existence of such a right and its violation by someone lies with the person who applied to the court.

At the same time, it should be noted that the method chosen by a citizen to protect a right that a person considers violated must comply with the violated or disputed right, and also meet the requirements of the law.

Therefore, going to court should be conditioned by the need to protect (restore) violated rights, should ensure the restoration of the violated right of the person applying to the court so that it is not illusory, and the methods of its protection are really valid and effective.

Determining the subject of the dispute and choosing the means of civil proceedings is not within the competence of the court, since by virtue of paragraph 1 of Art. citizens and legal entities exercise their rights at their own discretion.

Resolving this dispute, the court proceeds from the provisions of Art. by virtue of which the owner may demand the elimination of any violations of his right, even if these violations were not connected with deprivation of possession.

If the circumstances on which the plaintiff bases his claim are not proven, the court shall dismiss the claim.

Such evidence by the plaintiff, contrary to the provision of the above norm (Article 1), was not presented to the court.

In view of the foregoing, there are no legal grounds for imposing on the defendant the obligation to fill up the pit. Therefore, the claims in this part of the claim are not subject to satisfaction.

The location of the pit at a distance of less than 1 meter from the boundary itself cannot be sufficient grounds for imposing on the defendant the obligation to fill up the pit. Violations of the rights of the plaintiff as the owner of the neighboring land plot were not established by the court.

Since the court refused to satisfy the claim in full, it is also necessary to refuse to recover the costs of paying the state duty and the costs of a representative (Article ,).

Based on the above, guided by Article.Article. , - Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, court

DECIDED:

Claims of Pavlova Tatyana Georgievna to Sushkov Oleg Danilovich about the obligation to perform certain actions to leave without satisfaction.

The decision can be appealed on appeal to Court of Appeal of the Republic of Crimea through the Kerch City Court within a month after the final decision of the court.

The final decision was made on 10/13/2014.

referee Sobeshchanskaya H.The.

Court:

Judges of the case:

Litigation on:

Arbitrage practice on the application of Art. 10 Civil Code of the Russian Federation

Aleksinsky City Court of the Tula Region, consisting of:

presiding Minacheva V.F.,

under the secretary Krivitskaya A.S.,

having considered in open court the civil case No. 2-1394/11 on the claim of Inkina Irina Anatolyevna, Inkin Evgeny Pavlovich to Stepovoy Vasily Nikolaevich, administration municipality Aleksinsky district, the administration of the municipality city of Aleksin, Aleksinsky district, on the obligation to take certain actions,

installed:

Inkina I.A. and Inkin E.P. filed a lawsuit against V.N. address: .., in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation, that is, at a distance of at least 8 meters from the boundaries of the household at the address: .., and issue permission for its placement in the specified location, and oblige Stepovoy V.N. dismantle the cesspool, moving it to a place determined by the administrations.

In support of the stated requirements, they indicated that they are the owners of a residential building and a land plot located at: ...

Owners adjoining territory from the side of the street is the administration of the municipality Aleksinsky district.

In this adjacent territory, in the immediate vicinity of their household at a distance of 2m 50 cm from the borders of the house and 8m 40 cm from the wall of the house, there is a cesspool built by the defendant and serving directly the household of Stepovoy V.N.

They consider that by virtue of Art. 209 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation Stepovoy V.N. was not entitled to determine the procedure for using the adjoining territory, since he is not its owner.

The cesspool was erected in violation of existing building codes assets in close proximity to their home, as a result of which the plaintiffs experience inconvenience from the unpleasant smell emanating from the cesspool. When the cesspool overflows, sewage flows onto their land, as it is located on a slope from the cesspool to the house. By constructing a cesspool, the defendant significantly violated their rights under Art. Articles 40, 41 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation.

The significance of the violation of urban planning and building norms and rules is due to the fact that the preservation of a cesspool in the immediate vicinity of their home and land creates a threat to life and health, violates the sanitary and epidemiological situation on the ground.

By the decision of the administration of the municipality, the city of Aleksin, Aleksinsky District, Stepovoy V.N. it was recommended to move the cesspool to an acceptable distance.

The location of the cesspool violates the parameters for the placement of this structure, established by subparagraphs 2.3.1 and 2.3.2 of clause 2.3 of SanPiN 42-128-4690-88 of the Sanitary Rules for the Maintenance of Territories of Populated Places, and, as a result, the rights and interests of the plaintiffs.

Since on a voluntary basis Stepovoy V.N. does not want to dismantle the disputed cesspool to transfer it to another location, to bring its location in accordance with the rules and regulations, they believe that in this case, the possible location of the cesspool should be determined by representatives of the administrations.

At the court session:

Plaintiff Inkin E.P. amended claims upheld on the grounds specified in the claim, asked to meet.

Claimant Inkina AND.A. did not appear at the hearing, in her statement she asked to consider the case in her absence with the participation of a representative of the lawyer Kartysheva H.A. Earlier at the hearing, the specified claims were upheld on the grounds set forth in the claim.

The representative of the plaintiffs on warrant lawyer Kartysheva H.A. amended claims supported in full on the grounds set forth in the claim, asked them to satisfy. At the same time, she explained that in 2010 the plaintiffs purchased a residential building with a land plot at the address: .., .., ... meters, the plaintiffs determined it visually, without the use of technical measuring instruments. The cesspool is a mound. The problem is that in the summer, a very unpleasant smell comes from the cesspool and the liquid from it flows under the windows of the plaintiffs' house.

The plaintiffs applied to the sanitary epidemiological station to resolve the issue of the cesspool. The chief state sanitary doctor in..i..x.. replied with a letter that this issue could be resolved by the city administration. The plaintiffs applied for resolution of this issue to the administration in July 2011. A letter was sent from the administration to the defendants with a recommendation to move the cesspool to a distance of 15 m. To date, the cesspool is in its original place.

Paragraph 2.3 of the Sanitary Norms and Regulations No. 42-128-4690-88 fixed the provision on the collection of liquid waste. Subparagraph 2.3.2 explains that yard latrines should be removed from residential buildings, child care facilities, schools, playgrounds for children and public recreation at a distance of at least 20 meters and not more than 100 meters. On the territory of private households, the distance from yard latrines to households is determined by the homeowners themselves and can be reduced to 8-10 meters.

In a conflict situation, when the parties cannot agree and determine the location of the yard latrines, it is determined by representatives of the public, administrative commissions of local councils.

The administration of the Moscow Region, the city of Aleksin, Aleksinsky District, was supposed to go to the site and draw up an act on the presence of a cesspool and its location. If there are violations, determine the possible place for transferring the cesspool. But the administration did not take these actions. The plaintiffs cannot independently determine the place of the possible transfer of the cesspool.

This cesspool is not located on the plaintiffs' or defendants' land. The land plot on which the cesspool is located is in municipal ownership - the administration of the Moscow Region Aleksinsky District.

The plaintiffs are sure that the distance from the cesspool to the windows of the house is less than 8 meters, the case file contains an act of the interdepartmental commission, which indicates that the distance is 5 meters to .., in ... Therefore, the SanPiN rules are violated, the administration does not determine the possible place of transfer cesspool. Plaintiffs on this moment cannot live in this house.

SanPin in clause 2.2. "collection of municipal solid waste" contains a provision on the temporary regime, this paragraph can be applied to the present situation by analogy.

He believes that it is possible to determine a place for transferring a cesspool.

He believes that, taking into account the requirements of the Order of the Ministry of Zemstroy of the Russian Federation “On approval of the Instruction on accounting housing stock in the Russian Federation "No. 37 of 08/04/1998, home ownership is understood as a residential building with outbuildings located on a separate land plot, that is, a cesspool should be located at a distance of more than 8 m from the land plot, and not a residential building. Taking into account the provisions of this document, currently the cesspool of the defendant Stepovoy V.N. located less than 3 m.

It was also found that the cesspool is not airtight, which violates the norms for arranging the pit, that is, the sanitary and epidemiological conditions are violated. The cesspool must be located on the territory of the household of the defendant Stepovoy V.N.

defendant Stepovoy The.GN. and his representative by proxy Ivanova Oh.The. the claims were not accepted.

In his objections Stepova V.N. indicated that the household ... by .. was built in 1959. It was owned by the defendant's father, who died in 1999. The controversial cesspool was erected in 1984 during the construction of a permanent water supply in agreement with the WSS Department ... At the time of the construction of the cesspool, it was allowed to be moved outside the household, the project of water supply and sewerage was approved by the coordinating authorities. At the time of the construction of the cesspool, the boundaries of the land plot of the household ... by .. were different.

From 1999 to 2004, the owner of the property ... was the mother of the defendant, who accepted the inheritance after the death of her husband in the form that it is at the moment. Stepovoy V.N. has been the owner of the household ... to .. since 2007. Any reorganization existing system has not been carried out since its construction.

The plaintiffs purchased the property ... by ... in August 2010. With the appropriate boundary of the house and the surrounding area were familiarized before the acquisition.

In accordance with Art. 54 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the law has no retroactive effect.

By the decision of the administration of the municipal formation, the city of Aleksin, Aleksinsky district ... Housing and communal services dated 07/22/2011, sent to him, it was decided to take measures to transfer the cesspool to the indicated normative documents distance. The decision refers to Art. 2.12 SNiP 2.07.01-89 "Urban planning", which became invalid from 20.05.2011. Analyzing SNiP 2.07.01-89 "Urban planning", he came to the conclusion that in the said document Art. 2.12 does not correspond to the actual content of the document referred to by the administration.

During the existence of the cesspool for more than 27 years, no comments were made on the violation of sanitary well-being. Not far from the cesspool there is a water distribution column, once a month MUP "VKH" .. conduct water samples for compliance with biological and sanitary indicators, the water is suitable for drinking. In addition, according to a letter from the administration of the municipality, the city of Aleksin, Aleksinsky district, No. ... dated July 25, 2011, it follows that the sewer pipe leading from .. to the cesspool is hermetic and does not pose a threat to centralized water supply, since the water supply system runs at an acceptable distance from the sewer pipe. The cesspool is cleaned regularly. The cesspool consists of reinforced concrete rings with a diameter of 2 meters and a height of 1 meter 20 cm. It is designed for 8 cubic meters. The cesspool does not provide for a hard bottom, but crushed stone is poured on the bottom and therefore drains do not enter the land. He considers that there are no legal grounds for satisfying the claim.

while Ivanova Oh.The. explained that she objects to the dismantling of the cesspool. The pit was built on this site 27 years ago in 1984. At the time this pit was being built, no entry permission was required. It is not possible to build a cesspool on the territory of a household ..., since the distance between households is less than 8 m and a car entrance is needed to pump out waste from a cesspool, there is no place for this in the garden.

The distance from the cesspool must be measured to the wall of the residential building. The broad interpretation of Order No. 37 of 04.08.1998 of the Ministry of Zemstroy of the Russian Federation, as presented by the representative of the plaintiffs, that home ownership is understood to include a land plot, and it is necessary to make measurements from the land plot of the plaintiffs, is considered illegal.

The representative of the defendant administration of the municipality Aleksinsky district by proxy Mukhashova Oh.C. claims were not recognized. At the same time, she explained that at the time of the construction of the cesspool, there was only one administration, there was no division into two. In 1984 a cesspool was built and an agreement was reached with the neighbors. The cesspool is located from .. in accordance with SanPiN 42-128-4690-88 at a distance of more than 8 meters. The rights of the plaintiffs are not violated, there are no grounds for satisfying the claims.

The representative of the defendant administration of the municipality city of Aleksin Aleksinsky district by proxy Khanin K.A. did not recognize the claims. At the same time, he explained that indeed, until 1984, there were no permits for the construction of cesspools and no demolition orders. The consent of the neighbors was for the construction of this cesspool.

At present, based on current rules and laws, a cesspool is illegal, but at that time permits were not required. Cesspools were built arbitrarily, if there were no objections from the neighbors. The city administration does not give permission for the construction of cesspools, but only gives permission for their commissioning. The cesspool is located from .. in accordance with SanPiN 42-128-4690-88 at a distance of more than 8 meters.

After listening to the persons involved in the case, interrogating a specialist, examining written evidence, court comes next.

By virtue of Art. 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, justice in civil cases is carried out on the basis of competitiveness and equality of the parties.

The court, while maintaining independence, objectivity and impartiality, manages the process, explains to the persons participating in the case their rights and obligations, warns about the consequences of committing or not committing procedural actions.

As seen from the case file and established by the court, Inkina AND.A. and Inkin E.P. are owners of 1/2 for each household and land with total area 828 sq.m, located at: .., which is confirmed by certificates of state registration rights from 05.08.2010 series... ..., ..., ..., ....

It follows from the defendant's explanations that the home ownership ... by .. was built in 1959. It was owned by the defendant's father, who died in 1999. The disputed cesspool was erected in 1984 during the construction of a permanent water supply in agreement with the WSS Department .., which is confirmed by a statement of commitment .. dated 12.10.1984 (case sheet 54).

The defendant has been the owner of a home ownership ... by .. and land plots with a total area of ​​642 sq.m since February 22, 2007, which is confirmed by certificates of state registration of rights (series ... No. ..., ...). Reconstruction of the existing water supply system, as well as the cesspool, has not been carried out since the construction.

As seen from situational plans As of March 30, 1999, of the layout drawing as of March 28, 2006, the boundaries of the plaintiffs' home ownership differed significantly from those currently existing.

The plaintiffs ask to dismantle the cesspool and move it to another place, determined by the administrations of the Aleksinsky district and the city of Aleksin, Aleksinsky district.

The court considers, these claims are not subject to satisfaction on the following grounds.

By virtue of Part 3 of Article 17 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the exercise of human and civil rights and freedoms must not violate the rights and freedoms of other persons.

According to Article 304 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the owner may demand the elimination of any violations of his right, even if these violations were not connected with deprivation of possession.

Based on this norm, it follows that the condition for satisfying such requirements is a violation of the rights of the owner, in this case, the plaintiffs, and in itself, the discrepancy between the location of the structure and the existing standards cannot be considered sufficient grounds for its demolition.

During the verification of the appeal of Inkin E.P. the administration of the municipality of Aleksin, Aleksinsky district, within its competence, established that the sewer pipe leading from .. to the cesspool is airtight and does not pose a threat to centralized water supply, since the water supply system runs at an acceptable distance from the sewer pipe. The cesspool is cleaned regularly (case sheet 13).

The above is confirmed by the act of the interdepartmental commission dated 01.12.2011, approved by the resolution of the administration of the municipal formation of the city of Aleksin, Aleksinsky district ... dated 02.12.2011, that the cesspool is not equipped with an overflow system of sewage, sewage from the cesspool to the area adjacent to the house ... according to .. do not arrive (case sheet 50-51).

By the decision of the Aleksinsky City Court of the Tula Region dated September 8, 2011, it was established that the letter sent with the recommendation of the administration of the Moscow Region of the city of Aleksin of the Aleksinsky District to move the cesspool to an acceptable distance from the household ... by .. (plaintiffs) at least 15 meters, imposes on Stepovoy V.N. only the obligation to consider it allows, in case of disagreement with the submission, to provide a response on such disagreement. The letter does not contain any mandatory requirements in the part disputed by the applicant.

In accordance with the Sanitary Rules and Norms SanPiN 42-128-4690-88 "Sanitary Rules for the Maintenance of Territories of Populated Places" (hereinafter SanPiN 42-128-4690-88), approved by the USSR Ministry of Health on August 5, 1988 N 4690-88, for collection liquid waste in non-sewered households, yard garbage dumps are arranged, which must have a waterproof cesspool and a ground part with a lid and a grate to separate solid fractions. For the convenience of cleaning the grate, the front wall of the garbage can should be removable or openable. If there are yard latrines, the cesspool may be shared (clause 2.З.1.). On the territory of private households, the distance from yard latrines to households is determined by the homeowners themselves and can be reduced to 8-10 meters. In conflict situations, the location of outdoor latrines is determined by representatives of the public, administrative commissions of local Councils (clause 2.3.2.).

The plaintiffs refused to conduct a judicial construction and technical expertise.

In addition, during the offsite court session, when inspecting the cesspool, measuring the compliance of the cesspool with the norms of SanPiN 42-128-4690-88, it was established. The distance from the corner of the plaintiffs' house to the cesspool is 8 m 40 cm. The plaintiffs do not live in the house, as its reconstruction is required. The cesspool is more than 3 m deep. Concrete rings are located at a depth of 2.5 m. The pit is covered with reinforced concrete reinforcement, which has a hatch that closes at ground level with a cast-iron lid. Sewage is located below 0.35 m from the ground.

At the court session, specialists were interrogated ... the head of the department for urban planning and architecture of the administration of the Moscow Region .. and ... a specialist expert of the management department Federal Service on supervision in the field of consumer protection and human well-being by .. (Department of Rospotrebnadzor for ..).

He explained that the cesspool is located on the adjacent territory belonging to the administration of the municipality Aleksinsky district. Measurements of the conformity of the distance of the location of the cesspool from the household of the plaintiffs were made with a meter tape measure. When measured by air, a distance of about 5 meters from .. to the cesspool was established, which were indicated in the act of 12/01/2011. When measuring on the ground, it turned out more than 5 meters, but this was not recorded. He is not authorized to decide on the demolition or transfer of the cesspool.

She explained that, according to SanPiN 42-128-4690-88, the cesspool should be a sealed cesspool with a tightly closed lid with an entrance for specialized vehicles for pumping wastewater. According to SanPiN 42-128-4690-88, the cesspool should be located at a distance of 8-10 meters from the house. Measurements were made by a representative from the department of urban planning and architecture of the administration of the Moscow Region, the city of Aleksin, Aleksinsky district, with a meter tape measure from the cesspool to the corner ... The expiration date for the operation of the cesspool has not been established. Yard restroom and cesspool are equivalent concepts. In practice, the distance is measured from a residential building, and not from the boundaries of the land. The cesspool was inspected visually, only from above; it is not possible to say about the tightness of the cesspool, since at the time of the inspection it was closed. Whether sewage flows from the cesspool to the adjacent territory .. cannot answer, since these points were evaluated by the representative of the department of urban planning and architecture of the administration of the Moscow Region, proud Aleksin of the Aleksinsky district. In order for the drains not to go into the ground, a cesspool is being built, and it must be equipped with septic tanks, but septic tanks are not provided for private households.

Thus it is at the hearing found, that the cesspool of the defendant Stepovogo The.GN. complies with SanPiN 42-128-4690-88, that is, no evidence of a violation of the plaintiffs' rights has been presented. It is not connected to the central sewerage system, liquid waste is discharged and drained into a cesspool built over 27 years old and located on a land plot owned by the municipality. The cesspool is cleaned regularly.

In the event of the liquidation of the cesspool, the residents will be left without local sewage. Although the house has water supply, and in accordance with paragraph 4.3.5. Code of rules for design and construction 30-102-99 "Planning and development of territories of low-rise housing construction" the introduction of a water pipeline into one - semi-detached houses allowed if there is a connection to a centralized sewerage system or if there is a local sewerage system.

The administration of the municipality of Aleksinsky district does not insist on the transfer of the cesspool by Stepov V.N. from the land they own.

V civil code Russian Federation there is no concept of households and other complexes of objects capital construction, while in Art. 135 defines "the main thing and belonging".

However, the land plot and the buildings located on it are independent objects of property rights and the provision of Art. Art. 134 - 135 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation.

The arguments of the plaintiffs' representative that the distance from the cesspool to the plaintiffs' home ownership can be at least 8 m, but the measurement must be made not from the windows of the residential building, but from the boundaries of the land plot, cannot be recognized by the court as valid.

In doing so, the court is guided by Art. 1 Instructions on accounting for the housing stock of the Russian Federation, approved by Order of the Ministry of Land Construction of Russia dated 04.08.1998 N 37, unit technical inventory is: home ownership; separate main building. Home ownership - a residential building (houses) and buildings and structures serving it (theirs), located on a separate land plot.

In this regard, when resolving the case, the court measured the location of the cesspool from the corner of the house to the specified object and established its actual location at a distance of 8 m 40 cm from the house.

Assessing the evidence examined at the hearing according to the rules of Art.Article. 59, 60, 67 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, court comes to the conclusion that the stated claims Inkinoy AND.A. and Inkina E.P. are not subject to satisfaction, which in turn, by virtue of Art. 98 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation entails a refusal to satisfy the claim for the recovery of court costs.

Guided by Article.Article. 194-199 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, court

decided:

In satisfaction of the claims of Inkina Irina Anatolyevna and Inkin Evgeny Pavlovich on the obligation of the administrations of the municipal formation of Aleksinsky district and the municipality of the city of Aleksin of Aleksinsky district to determine the possible location of the cesspool serving the household of Stepovoy Vasily Nikolaevich, located at: .., in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation, that is, at a distance of at least 8 meters from the boundaries of the household at the address: .., and issue a permit for its placement in the indicated place and the obligation of Stepovoy Vasily Nikolaevich to dismantle the cesspool, moving it to a place determined by the administrations, to refuse.

The decision can be appealed to the Judicial Chamber for Civil Cases of the Tula Regional Court through the Aleksinsky City Court of the Tula Region within 10 days from the date of the final decision by the court.

In modern housing sewerage is an integral part of a comfortable and safe life support system. In urban apartment buildings used centralized system sewerage. For the improvement of a country house is used autonomous sewerage. There are several types of cleaning systems in use today. You can install a ready-made septic tank, a well made of reinforced concrete rings, or dig a cesspool.

Cesspool: design features A cesspool is the simplest wastewater treatment system in a suburban area. This is the simplest engineering structure, which, despite the appearance of more modern systems cleaning, is widely used in the arrangement of suburban areas. Such autonomous sewerage economical, it does not require large investments for the device. Its design consists of a sealed recess in the ground of a plot two or more meters in size. Such a country sewerage may have concrete walls, or walls lined with red brick. In some cases, boards treated with a special solution that prevents them from rotting can be used.
Cesspool device: main stages Making a cesspool can be made independently, using a non-tricky set of tools and observing the recommended technology.
In order for such a suburban sewage system to function well, and it would be easier to take care of it, the shape of the cesspool must be made round. The easiest way to make it from reinforced concrete rings. The round shape allows better sealing of the sump and reliably prevents sewage from entering the soil through the seams.
Step-by-step arrangement of a cesspool First you need to choose the location of the pit. Autonomous sewerage on a suburban area should be located at a distance of at least 30 meters from wells and sources of drinking water, in accordance with the requirements of building codes and sanitary rules. It must be separated from residential buildings by at least 12 meters. The distance from the site fence should not be less than 1 meter. In case of violation of these standards, the owner of the site may be held liable.
It is also necessary, when choosing a place for a cesspool, to provide for the possibility of access for special sewage equipment.
When choosing a place, it is better to choose the lowest point on the site. In this case, sewerage will flow through the pipes by gravity without blockages.
After choosing a place, it is necessary to determine the volume of the cesspool, which will depend on the number of people permanently residing in the house. One person should account for about half a cubic meter. The larger the volume of the sump, the less often you will have to call a sewage truck.
Making a cesspool should begin with the calculation of the amount of building materials needed for its construction. To do this, you need to decide on the type of material. To strengthen the walls, you can use reinforced concrete rings, concrete or brick. The bottom of the pit must be reinforced and concreted. From a smooth surface, sewage will be pumped out faster and better.
To protect the cesspool, you will need a special hatch built into a reinforced concrete slab. This will help to quickly respond to emergencies and will protect the cesspool from freezing. The slab must be immersed in the ground, on the surface of which only the manhole cover should remain.
To remove carbon dioxide formed during the life of aerobic microorganisms, it is necessary to remember to bring ventilation pipes to the soil surface during the construction of a cesspool. The ventilation pipe brought to the surface of the soil must be protected by a special canopy from possible clogging.

Construction expertise: ▼

1. Making a cesspool for a summer residence Making a cesspool for giving B last years more and more citizens...
2. Making a cesspool for a cottage Making a cesspool for a cottage Making a cesspool for a cottage is necessary......
3. Production of wooden stairs Wooden elements in the interior are invariably at the peak of popularity. Even with the advent of new materials, purchase or manufacture......
4. Cottage sewerage systems Sewerage is a sewage disposal system, in without fail necessary ......
5. Cesspool device Cesspool device A comfortable life in your own private housing is not possible ......
6. The device of a cesspool for the house The device of a cesspool for the house For a comfortable stay in a country house......
7. Installation of a cesspool for a summer residence Installation of a cesspool for a summer residence For living in a country house, regardless of......
8. Installation of a cesspool of a cottage Installation of a cesspool of a cottage Installation of a cesspool of a cottage is an important step......
9. Pit installation for a modern home Pit installation for modern home In modern homes, more and more ......
10. Installation of a cesspool for a house Installation of a cesspool for a house Designing a country house requires mandatory arrangement......
11. The device of a cesspool for a cottage The device of a cesspool for a cottage The process of implementing a sewage disposal system......
12. The device of a cesspool for a summer residence The device of a cesspool for a summer residence Owners of houses, cottages and cottages intended, ......
13. The device of a cesspool of a private house The device of a cesspool of a private house The owner of a private house sooner or later......

SOLUTION

In the name of the Russian Federation

January 19, 2011 Trinity City Court Chelyabinsk region consisting of: presiding Mirzoyan N.E.,

under the secretary Kadomtseva T.G.,

with the participation of lawyer Chiganova T.I.,

examined in open court a civil case under the claim Bubyasheva L.A. to Tleumagambetova L.Yu. to remove obstacles to the use of property

installed:

Bubyasheva L.A. filed a lawsuit in which she asks to oblige the defendant to dismantle, in compliance with sanitary standards and rules, an unauthorized structure - a cesspool located on the border of land plots between their houses and to recultivate her land plot at a distance of 30 meters from the boundary line.

In support of the claim, he refers to the fact that the pit was made in violation of sanitary standards, is not airtight, sewage flows into the ground, which leads to wetting of the foundation in the house, the appearance of cracks on the walls of the house and the appearance of a fetid smell in the house. For this reason, the quality of water in her well has deteriorated. The cesspool is located near the city water supply, which the plaintiff uses.

At the hearing the plaintiff and her representative Ezhov A.AND. supported the claim, referring to the arguments set out in the claim.

defendant Tleumagambetova L.Yew. the lawsuit was not recognized, referring to the fact that the cesspool is airtight, neither smells nor drains penetrate the ground, it is impossible to locate it in another place due to the size of the land. The presence of chemical substances in the air examined in the plaintiff's house is not the reason for the connection with the cesspool. There are also sources of pollution on the plaintiff's land plot: a cesspool from a bathhouse, a toilet. He asks to dismiss the claim.

After hearing the parties, the testimony of witnesses, examining the evidence in the case, the court finds the claim subject to partial satisfaction.

decided:

Oblige Tleumagambetova L.Yew. dismantle, in compliance with sanitary standards and rules, a cesspool located on a land plot at the address<адрес>deadline d. XXX April 2011.

In the suit Bubyasheva L.A. to Tleumagambetova L.Yu. on the reclamation of the land plot to refuse.

recover from Tleumagambetova A.Yew. in favor of Bubyasheva L.A. legal costs in the amount of 36840 (thirty six thousand eight hundred forty) RUB.

The decision can be appealed to the Chelyabinsk Regional Court within 10 days through Troitsk City Court.