A cesspool on its own site judicial practice. Cesspool device. Calculation of the volume and depth of the pit. Nizhny Novgorod Regional Court

According to statistics, an adult needs on average about two hundred and fifty liters of water per day. It is quite natural that this volume does not have to enter the body, it means that every day we wash, clean, wash the dishes, wash clothes. Of course, every summer resident, planning such a water consumption, must necessarily think over the issue regarding the device cesspool... You probably already know the main types of sewer systems, but so far only the simplest sewage system, a cesspool, can be built. Such a sewage system collects sewage and used water into a special storage tank, which is located at some distance from the residential building itself, and as it is filled, it is cleaned by the special service, whose workers are called "gold dumps".

Beginning of work

You should start your actions by choosing a place where you will arrange a cesspool or biological wastewater treatment plant. It should be borne in mind that no matter how tightly it is made, there is an option that some part of the water will seep into the adjacent soil. Be sure to find out what is the depth of groundwater in this place, how this value fluctuates seasonally. Keep in mind that if the groundwater approaches the surface closer than 2 meters, then the simplest sedimentation tanks cannot be installed there. In addition, the treatment plant should not be on the same line with any water intake, for example, a well, which can provoke the ingress of wastewater into drinking water. If you have a water intake on your site, the cesspool should be located diagonally and at a significant distance from the source (ideally at least 30 m).

How the volume and depth of the cesspool is calculated

So you've found a suitable location, but what should be the optimal dimensions? For an average family, V \u003d 1.5 m3 will be considered a normal volume, but it is not ideal. A cesspool implies periodic cleaning, that is, calling a sewer truck to the site, the work of which is paid in advance, is undesirable if it leaves half empty and appears on the site often. But not only the capacity of the car must be guided by the size. Taking on the device of an effective suburban sewage system settlement rate You can take a 300-liter volume per person, meaning 2-time rake per year. You can safely increase your "mathematics", of course, within reasonable limits, since buying an automatic washing machine will significantly accelerate the filling of the cesspool.

Another factor that determines the size is, for example, the design of the absorption pit. If the terrain permits, it is not necessary to ensure tightness, let some of the wastewater come out of the tank and be sucked in by the soil, with not very large volumes it is harmless to both the earth and people.

Absorption pits are usually made much smaller, since the function of accumulating the sewer mass disappears. However, it must be remembered that the soil copes with only a small amount of wastewater, and when large volumes seep, it first becomes poisoned by itself, and then poisons the space around, including people. If we exclude the harmful faecal component in the waters from the sewage system, for example, using a peat powder closet, then we get an environmentally friendly pit, and with it the possibility of composting and reusing waste.

Concrete rings for the construction of a cesspool

The industry now produces reinforced concrete rings (read about septic tanks here), with a square or round section, with a special cover and a metal hatch. A pit is pulled out, a couple of rings are put on top of each other, which are covered with a concrete cover, all existing joints are sealed on both sides, a layer of waterproofing is applied from the outside and all this is covered with earth. Only a metal hatch remains on the surface itself, and the resulting structure is capable of supporting even the weight of a large truck.

The drainage of sewage from the house through the sewage system to the cesspool, as in the septic tank Slop type tank, occurs underground, by gravity through a pipe. There are an abundance of plastic pipes on the market for the installation of sewer systems of various lengths, with branches, turns, adapters. Do not forget to carefully prepare the sand cushion for the pipes and maintain the general slope in this trench (about 3-5 degrees), to ensure proper gravity and all your efforts will result in many years of trouble-free operation of the system.

	What to do if the toilet is clogged? Nobody is immune from this. Conveniences, to which we have long been accustomed, living in urban conditions, sooner or later show their downside. Does water not go away threateningly filling more than half the volume of the toilet? What to do if it gets clogged? You can call a plumber, or you can solve the issue yourself. Fortunately, there are enough options for solving the problem.
	What you need to know about country houses from a bar? You are at the stage of choosing a building material for country house? Be sure to consider using a bar! This material is distinguished by its ease of use, aesthetic appearance, and high environmental properties. It is affordable and, most importantly, you can assemble the log house yourself. Just take a look at the photo - this could be your summer cottage!
	Interior staircase design options Stairs in a home can be a significant design element of interior decoration. More than ten staircase designs are offered to your attention: from simple to complex. Some of the ideas are suitable for implementation in small two-level apartments and country houses, others will be more appropriate in spacious cottages. Take your pick!

Judge Senkovenko E.The. Case No. 33-5230 / 2017

APPEAL DEFINITION

The Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Rostov Regional Court composed of the presiding judge I.V. Zinkina,

judges Senik Zh.Yu., Romanova P.G.

under the secretary Zhukova M.Yu.

considered in open court a civil case at the suit of T.A. Shcherbakova. to Iryupina T.S. , Gibadulina E.V. , third parties: Shcherbakov S.P. , Shcherbakov V.P. , Shcherbakova E.S. , Shcherbakova S.S. , on the prohibition of the operation of the drain pit, the obligation to dismantle the drain pit on the appeal Shcherbakova T.A. against the decision of the Taganrog City Court of the Rostov Region dated December 22, 2016.

After hearing the report of Judge Zinkina I.V., the judicial board

established:

Shcherbakova T.A. I went to court with a claim against Iryupina T.S., Gibadulina E.The. on the prohibition of the operation of the drain pit, the obligation to dismantle the drain pit.

In support of the stated claims, the plaintiff indicated that she is the owner of a 52/252 share in the right to home ownership at the ADDRESS IS NONLINED. Iryupina T.S. moved the drain pit, located on her site at the ADDRESS DEPLOYED to the residential building Shcherbakova TA, which entails negative consequences for the plaintiff in the form of dampness and unpleasant odors in the house.

Referring to the violation by the defendants of her rights, the plaintiff, in the final version of the claim, asked the court to oblige Iryupina T.S., Gibadulina E.The. prohibit the operation of the drain pit due to its inconsistency with SNiP and SanPin, oblige the defendants to dismantle the drain pit by cleaning it from waste that is present at the time of filling, fill the drain pit with soil.

By the decision of the Taganrog City Court of the Rostov Region dated December 22, 2016, the claims of T.A. Shcherbakova left unsatisfied.

Disagreeing with such a court decision, Shcherbakova T.A. filed an appeal, in which she asks to cancel the court order and satisfy her claim in full by a new decision.

In support of the complaint, the appellant points out that the drain pit is located at an unacceptable distance from her house - 5.9 square meters, is not airtight, ventilated and waterproof, its cleaning, which must be done every six months, has never been carried out.

The appellant draws the attention of the judicial board that a strong stench is spreading from this drain pit towards her house, and mold has appeared in the basement of the house due to constant dampness. The drains of the drainage pit entail the destruction of the foundation and basement under the house, which can lead to its collapse, and also create an unfavorable sanitary and epidemiological situation.

Having considered the materials of the case, the arguments of the appeal, having heard Shcherbakova T.A. and her representative by proxy Zinchenko Zh.G., Shcherbakov S.P., representative Iryupina T.S. on the order of Kropotin OA, the panel of judges concludes that there are no grounds provided for by Art. 330 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, to cancel the decision of the court of first instance.

When making a decision, the court was guided by Art. 10-12, 304-305 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, clause 45 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the RF Armed Forces No. 10, of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation No. 22 dated April 29, 2010 “On some issues arising in judicial practice when resolving disputes related to the protection of property rights and other real rights "and proceeded from the absence of grounds for satisfying the stated requirements.

To this conclusion the court came, having established that Shcherbakova T.A. is a co-owner of 55/252 shares in the right to a residential building at the ADDRESS OBZLICHEN. The defendants own a dwelling house and a land plot at the ADDRESS OBZLICHEN

The area where the households of the plaintiff and the defendants are located does not have a central sewerage system, in connection with which Iryupina T.S. the drain pit is in operation.

Taking into account that the plaintiff has not presented evidence of a threat to the life and health of citizens during the preservation and further operation of this drain pit, and the arguments about the violation of her rights have not been confirmed, the protection of which is possible only by prohibiting the use of the pit and its further dismantling, the court Taking into account the fact that the inconsistency of the drain pit with sanitary standards in terms of the ventilation system is not irreparable, he found the stated claims unreasonable and not subject to satisfaction.

The panel of judges agrees with such conclusions of the court.

In accordance with Art. 304 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the owner can demand the elimination of any violations of his rights, even if these violations were not connected with the deprivation of ownership.

According to the explanations set out in clause 45 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation N 10, Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation N 22 dated April 29, 2010 "On some issues arising in judicial practice when resolving disputes related to the protection of property rights and other property rights", a claim for the elimination of violations of the right not related to deprivation of possession shall be satisfied if the plaintiff proves that he is the owner or a person who owns the property on the grounds provided for by law or contract, and that the actions of the defendant not related to deprivation of possession are violated his ownership or legal possession. Such a claim is subject to satisfaction also in the event that the plaintiff proves that there is a real threat of violation of his property rights or legal possession by the defendant.

Refusing Shcherbakova T.A. in satisfying the claimed claim, the court of first instance proceeded from the fact that there was sufficient evidence that this drainage pit poses a threat to the life and health of the plaintiff, as well as pollutes the soil or otherwise violates the rights and legitimate interests of the plaintiff, T.A. Shcherbakova. not presented.

From the conclusion of the forensic examination of 11.11.2016, carried out by the NSEO FULL NAME14 on the basis of the court ruling of 23.08.2016, which is available in the case materials, it follows that the drain pit located at the address: ADDRESS IS REMOVED with the requirements of SanPiN and SNiP does not correspond. Unpleasant odors in the house, letter "A" by ADDRESS IS IMPOSSIBLE, are a consequence of negative impact drain pit, while cracks in the house letter "A" are not the result of the negative impact of the drain pit.

To eliminate the identified violations, the expert proposed the following necessary actions: to perform a new drain pit at a distance of no closer than 8.0 m from the residential building of the household at the address: ADDRESS DEPLOYED The new drain pit must be made in a sealed design with a sealed cover and exhaust ventilation. The cost of work on the construction of a new pit was determined by the expert at 33,800 rubles.

Evaluating this expert opinion in conjunction with the expert's explanations given during the trial, in accordance with the requirements of Art. Art. 67, 196 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, and other evidence presented in the case, the court of first instance came to a well-grounded conclusion that the plaintiff had not proved the arguments that the presence of a controversial drain pit and its operation by the defendant poses a threat to the life and health of T.A. Shcherbakova, entails destruction her home.

Taking into account that the drainage pit itself does not comply with sanitary standards and entails negative consequences in the form of unpleasant odors, however, these consequences are removable methods set out in the expert's opinion, the court rightly saw no reason to prohibit the operation of the drainage pit and to impose on Iryupina T.S. obligations to dismantle this object.

The appellant's references to the fact that the drain pit is located at an unacceptable distance from her house - 5.9 square meters, is not airtight, ventilated and waterproof, its cleaning, which must be carried out every six months, has never been carried out, the judicial board rejects, since the indicated circumstances are not grounds for satisfying the claimed claim.

The appellant's assertion that the drains of the drainage pit entail the destruction of the foundation and basement under the house, which can lead to its collapse, and also create an unfavorable sanitary and epidemiological situation, the judicial board finds untenable, since such a statement has not been confirmed by relevant and admissible evidence.

Since the appeal does not contain other arguments affecting the legality and validity of the court decision, there are no grounds for canceling or changing the court decision.

Guided by Art. 328-330 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, judicial board

defined:

the decision of the Taganrog City Court of the Rostov Region of December 22, 2016 to leave unchanged, the appeal of Shcherbakova T.A. - without satisfaction.

Presiding

Aleksinsky City Court of the Tula Region, consisting of:

presiding Minacheva V.F.,

under the secretary A.S. Krivitskaya,

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

installed:

Inkina I.A. and Inkin E.P. filed a lawsuit against Stepovy V.N., the administration of the municipal formation of Aleksinsky district, the administration of the municipal formation of the city of Aleksin of the Aleksinsky district about the obligation to take certain actions, namely: to oblige the administration to determine the possible location of the cesspool serving the household of Stepovoy VN., located at 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 a permit for its placement in the indicated place, and oblige V.N. dismantle the cesspool by moving to a location determined by the administrations.

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

The owners of the adjoining territory from the side of the street are the administration of the municipality Aleksinsky district.

In this local area, in the immediate vicinity of their household at a distance of 2m 50 cm from the boundaries 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 V.N.

It is believed 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 adjacent territory, since he is not its owner.

The cesspool was erected in violation of existing building codes in the immediate vicinity of their home, resulting in plaintiffs uncomfortable with the odor emanating from the cesspool. When the cesspool overflows, sewage flows to their land plot, since it is located downhill from the cesspool to the house. By constructing a cesspool the defendant substantially 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 house and land plot poses a threat to life and health, violates the sanitary and epidemiological situation in the area.

By the decision of the administration of the municipal formation, the city of Aleksin, Aleksinsky district, V.N. it was recommended to move the cesspool to a permissible distance.

The location of the cesspool violates the parameters for the location of this structure, established by subparagraphs 2.3.1 and 2.3.2 of paragraph 2.3 "SanPiN 42-128-4690-88 Sanitary rules for the maintenance of territories of populated areas" and, as a result, the rights and interests of the plaintiffs.

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

At the hearing:

Plaintiff Inkin E.P. he supported the amended claims on the grounds specified in the claim and asked to satisfy.

Plaintiff Inkina AND.A. She did not appear at the hearing, in her application she asked to consider the case in her absence with the participation of the lawyer's representative N.A. Kartysheva. Earlier in the court session, the specified claims were supported on the grounds set out in the claim.

The representative of the plaintiffs on the warrant lawyer Kartysheva N.A. The specified claims were supported in full on the grounds set out in the claim, and asked to satisfy them. At the same time, she explained that in 2010 the plaintiffs purchased a residential building with a land plot at the address: .., .., ... During the improvement of the land plot, it was found that in the immediate vicinity of the windows of the house there is a cesspool, which is located at a distance of less than 8 meters, the plaintiffs determined it visually, without using technical means of measurement. A cesspool is a bulk hillock. The problem is that in summer there is a very unpleasant smell from the cesspool and the liquid from it flows down under the windows of the plaintiffs' house.

The plaintiffs contacted the sanitary epidemiological station to resolve the issue of the cesspool. The chief state sanitary doctor in .. and .. .. replied with a letter that this issue could be resolved by the city administration. The plaintiffs applied for the 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. Today the cesspool is in the same place.

Clause 2.3 of the Sanitary Norms and Rules No. 42-128-4690-88 consolidated the provision on the collection of liquid waste. Subclause 2.3.2 explains that courtyard latrines should be removed from residential buildings, childcare facilities, schools, playgrounds for children and recreation of the population 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, had to go out and draw up an act on the presence of a cesspool and its location. In the presence of violations, determine the possible place of transfer of the cesspool. But the administration did not follow these steps. The plaintiffs cannot independently determine the place of the possible transfer of the cesspool.

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

The plaintiffs are sure that the distance from the cesspool to the windows of the house is less than 8 meters, in the case file there is an act of the interdepartmental commission, which states that the distance is 5 meters to ..., in ... Therefore, the SanPiN rules have been violated, the administration does not determine the possible place of transfer cesspool. Plaintiffs cannot currently reside in this house.

SanPin in clause 2.2. “Collection of municipal solid waste” contains a provision on an interim regime, this paragraph can be applied to the present situation by analogy.

Considers that it is possible to determine the location for the transfer of the cesspool.

Considers 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 for the Housing Stock in the Russian Federation" No. 37 dated 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 on a distance of more than 8 m from the land plot, and not from a residential building. Taking into account the provisions of this document, at present the cesspool of the defendant V.N. located less than 3 m.

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

Defendant Stepovoy V.N. and his representative by proxy Ivanova Oh.The. the stated requirements were not recognized.

In her objections Stepova V.N. pointed out that the household ... on ... 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 system in agreement with the WSS Administration ... At the time of the construction of the cesspool, it was allowed to be removed outside the home ownership, the water supply and sewerage project was approved by the coordinating authorities. At the time of the construction of the cesspool, the boundaries of the land plot of home ownership ... to .. were different.

From 1999 to 2004, the owner of the household ... was the defendant's mother, who accepted the inheritance after the death of her husband in the present form. Stepovoy V.N. is the owner of the home ... until .. since 2007. Any reorganization the existing system has not been carried out since the construction.

Plaintiffs acquired home ownership ... by ... in August 2010. Prior to the acquisition, the respective boundaries of the house and the surrounding area were familiarized.

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 municipality of the city of Aleksin of the Aleksinsky district ... Housing and communal services dated July 22, 2011, it was decided to take measures to move the cesspool to the distance specified in the regulatory documents. In this case, the decision refers to Art. 2.12 SNiP 2.07.01-89 "Urban Planning", which became null and void from 20.05.2011. Analyzing SNiP 2.07.01-89 "Urban Planning", he came to the conclusion that in the specified 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 about the violation of sanitary well-being. Not far from the cesspool there is a water distribution column, once a month MUP "VKH" .. water samples are taken for compliance with biological and sanitary indicators, the water is suitable for drinking. In addition, according to the letter of the administration of the municipality of the city of Aleksin, Aleksinsky district No. ... dated July 25, 2011, it follows that the sewer pipe leading from .. to the cesspool is sealed 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 the bottom is filled with crushed stone and therefore the drains do not flow to the land plot. Considers that there are no legal grounds to satisfy the claim.

At the same time, 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 permission was required to enter. It is not possible to build a cesspool on the territory of the household ..., since the distance between households is less than 8 m and a car entrance is needed to pump waste from the cesspool, there is no place in the garden for this.

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

The representative of the defendant of the administration of the municipal formation Aleksinsky district by proxy Mukhashova Oh.C. she did not recognize the claim. 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 plaintiffs' rights are not violated, there are no grounds for satisfying the claims.

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

Currently, based on current regulations and laws, a cesspool is illegal, but no permits were required at the time. Cesspools were built arbitrarily, if there were no objections from neighbors. The city administration does not give permission for the construction of cesspools, but only gives permission to put them into operation. 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, the court comes to the following.

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 adversarial nature and equality of the parties.

The court, maintaining independence, objectivity and impartiality, guides the process, explains to the persons participating in the case, their rights and obligations, warns about the consequences of the commission or non-performance of procedural actions.

As seen from the case materials and established by the court, Inkina AND.A. and Inkin E.P. are the owners of 1/2 for each household and land plot with a total area of \u200b\u200b828 sq.m, located at the address: .., which is confirmed by certificates of state registration of rights dated 05.08.2010, series ... ..., ..., ..., ....

From the explanations of the defendant it follows that the household ... on ... was built in 1959. Its owner was 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 Office of WSS .., which is confirmed by a statement of commitment .. dated 10/12/1984 (ld 54).

The defendant is the owner of the household ... by .. and land plots with a total area of \u200b\u200b642 square meters from 22.02.2007, which is confirmed by certificates of state registration of rights (series ... No. ..., ...). The reconstruction of the existing water supply system, as well as the cesspool, has not been carried out since the construction.

As can be seen from the situational plans as of 03/30/1999, the breakout drawing as of 03/28/2006, the plaintiffs' boundaries of home ownership differed significantly from those existing at the moment.

The plaintiffs ask to dismantle the cesspool and move it to another location, determined by the administrations of the Aleksinsky district and the city of Aleksin in the Alexinsky 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 Russian Federation the exercise of human and civil rights and freedoms must not violate the rights and freedoms of others.

According to article 304 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the owner can demand the elimination of any violations of his rights, even if these violations were not connected with the deprivation of ownership.

Based on this provision, it follows that the condition for the satisfaction of such claims is the violation of the rights of the owner, in in this case - plaintiffs, and in itself, the inconsistency of the location of the structure with the existing standards cannot be recognized as a sufficient reason for its demolition.

In the course of checking the appeal of Inkin E.P. The administration of the Aleksin municipal district of the Aleksinsky district, within its competence, established that the sewer pipe leading from .. to the cesspool is sealed and does not pose a threat to centralized water supply, since the water supply system passes 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 of 01.12.2011, approved by the decree of the administration of the municipal formation of the city of Aleksin of the Aleksinsky district ... of 02.12.2011, that the cesspool is not equipped with an overflow system of sewage, sewage from the cesspool to the site adjacent to the house ... until .. not received (ld 50-51).

By the decision of the Aleksinsky City Court of the Tula Region dated 09/08/2011, it was established that a sent letter with a recommendation to the administration of the Aleksin municipal district 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 submit an answer on such disagreement. The letter in the part disputed by the applicant does not contain any mandatory requirements.

In accordance with the Sanitary Rules and Norms SanPiN 42-128-4690-88 "Sanitary Rules for the Maintenance of Territories of Populated Areas" (hereinafter the norms of SanPiN 42-128-4690-88), approved by the Ministry of Health of the USSR on August 5, 1988 N 4690-88, for collection liquid waste in non-sewerage households, yard cesspools are arranged, which should have a waterproof cesspool and a ground part with a cover and grate for separating solid fractions. For easy cleaning of the grate, the front wall of the pit should be removable or openable. If there are courtyard latrines, the cesspool can be common (paragraph 2.Z.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 yard latrines is determined by representatives of the public, administrative commissions of local councils (clause 2.3.2.).

The plaintiffs refused to conduct a forensic construction and technical examination.

In addition, during the visiting court session, when inspecting the cesspool, measuring the compliance of the cesspool with the norms of SanPiN 42-128-4690-88 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 overlap is made of reinforced concrete reinforcement, which has a hatch closed at ground level with a cast-iron cover. Sewage is less than 0.35 m from the surface of the earth.

At the hearing, experts were questioned ... the head of the department for urban planning and architecture of the administration of the Moscow region .. and ... a specialist expert of the department of the Federal Service for Supervision of Consumer Rights Protection and Human Welfare on .. (Rospotrebnadzor Office for ..).

He explained that the cesspool is located in the local area belonging to the administration of the municipal formation Aleksinsky district. Measurements of the correspondence of the distance between the location of the cesspool and the plaintiffs' household were made with a meter tape. When measuring by air, a distance of about 5 meters from .. to the cesspool was established, which were indicated in the act dated 01.12.2011. When measured on the ground, more than 5 meters were obtained, 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 closing lid with a specialized transport access for pumping wastewater. According to the norms of 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 for urban planning and architecture of the administration of the Moscow region of Aleksin, Aleksinsky district, with a meter tape measure from the cesspool to the corner ... The shelf life for the operation of the cesspool has not been established. A courtyard toilet and a cesspool are equivalent concepts. In practice, the distance is measured from a residential building, and not from the boundaries of the land plot. 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 the sewage comes from the cesspool to the adjacent territory .. he cannot answer, since these items were assessed by the representative of the urban planning and architecture department of the administration of the Moscow region Aleksin of the Aleksinsky district. So that the drains do not go into the ground and a cesspool is being built, and it should be equipped with septic tanks, but septic tanks for private households are not provided.

Thus, at the hearing it was established that the cesspool of the defendant Stepovoy V.N. corresponds to SanPiN 42-128-4690-88, that is, no evidence of violation of the plaintiffs' rights was presented. To the central sewerage .. not connected, discharges of liquid waste and water disposal are carried out into a cesspool, built over 27 years, and located on a land plot that is in municipal ownership. The cesspool is cleaned regularly.

In case of liquidation of the cesspool, the residents ... will be left without a local sewage system. Although the house has a water supply, in accordance with paragraph 4.3.5. Code of Practice for Design and Construction 30-102-99 "Planning and Development of Low-Rise Housing Construction Areas" entering a water supply system into one or two-family houses is allowed if there is a connection to a centralized sewerage system or if there is a local sewerage system.

The administration of the Aleksinsky district does not insist on the transfer of the cesspool by V.N. Stepov. from the land plot owned by them.

The civil code of the Russian Federation lacks the concept of households and other complexes of capital construction objects, while in Art. 135 the definition of "the main thing and belonging" is given.

However, the land plot and the buildings located on it are independent objects of ownership 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' household may be at least 8 m, but the measurement must be made not from the windows of a residential building, but from the boundaries of the land plot, cannot be recognized by the court as solvent.

In this case, the court is guided by Art. 1 of the Instruction on the accounting of the housing stock of the Russian Federation, approved by the Order of the Ministry of Land Construction of Russia dated 04.08.1998 N 37, the unit of technical inventory is: home ownership; detached main building. Home ownership - a residential building (houses) and servicing it (their) buildings and structures 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.

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

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

i decided:

In satisfying the claims of Inkina Irina Anatolyevna and Inkin Yevgeny Pavlovich about the obligation of the administrations of the municipal formation of Aleksinsky district and the municipal formation of the city of Aleksin of the Aleksinsky district to determine the possible location of the cesspool serving the household of Stepovoy Vasily Nikolaevich, located at: 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 Vasily Nikolayevich Stepovoy to dismantle the cesspool, moving it to a place determined by the administrations, to refuse.

The decision can be appealed to the Judicial Collegium 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.

Civil case No. 2-200 / 2013

DECISION

In the name of the Russian Federation

Dmitrievsky District Court of the Kursk Region, composed of

Presiding Judge L.M. Goncharova, with the participation

Plaintiff Litvinova R.M.,

Representatives of a third party on the side of the plaintiff -

Administration of Dmitriev, Kursk region - chief specialist - expert

Dubinina S.M. (power of attorney from ***), engineer - mechanic of MUP Housing and Public Utilities

Puzanova I.A. (power of attorney from ***),

Defendant Ashurkova E.G.,

Chief specialist-expert of the territorial department

Office of the Federal Service for Supervision of Consumer Rights Protection and

Human well-being in the Kursk region Maslova V.I.

(power of attorney from *** No.)

Under the Secretary Brileva A.V.,

Having considered in open court a civil case on the claim of Litvinov R.M. to Ashurkova E.G., Ashurkov N.S. on the prohibition of the use of the cesspool and the dismantling of the cesspool,

Third party who does not declare independent

Claims regarding the subject of the dispute, on the side of the plaintiff, -

Administration of the city of Dmitriev, Kursk region,

U S T A N O V I L:

Litvinov R.M. applied to the court with a statement of claim against Ashurkova E.G. on the prohibition of the use of the cesspool and the dismantling of the cesspool. He motivated his demands by the fact that he owns a residential building No. with a land plot, located on.

Ashurkova EG lives next to him in apartment building no., In apartments no. 1, 2, and she built a cesspool in the common yard from used car tires, and household waste gets into the ground.

According to the requirements of the Sanitary Norms and Rules (SNiP), the cesspool should be located at a distance of at least 8 meters from the border of a neighboring site or at least 15 meters from a residential building. In fact, the cesspool is located 1.4 meters from the border of his land plot and 6.6 meters from his residential building. Since in the warm season an unpleasant smell emanates from the pit, insects fly, he is deprived of the opportunity to open the window in the room.

On the issue of the controversial structure, he applied to the Administration of the city of Dmitriev, Kursk Region, and received a written reply that the cesspool was indeed built with violations of SNiP and without the appropriate permission.

To voluntarily dismantle the cesspool E.G. Ashurkova. refuses, and therefore the plaintiff asked the court to oblige the defendant to stop using the cesspool and dismantle it: pump out the contents from the pit, remove car tires, contaminated soil, disinfect and fill it up.

As a co-defendant in the case, on the basis of a court ruling, the second owner of apartment No. 2 of house No. po - Ashurkov NS was recognized.

At the hearing, the plaintiff supported the stated requirements, citing arguments similar to the above circumstances. In addition, he explained that the ownership of a residential building and a land plot located at the address: registered for him in established by law the procedure for which there are certificates of state registration of rights. Since about 2007, he began to live in his home. Ashurkova E.G. in his presence she was building a cesspool. Then any comments and requirements on the issue of construction addressed to Ashurkova E.G. from him. was not received, since he did not expect that the cesspool in the future would create inconveniences for him. In addition to the fact that he cannot open the window in the room of the house during the warm season, household waste and other sewage from the pit fall into the ground, and therefore, two fruit trees - apricot and cherry - have dried up on his garden plot.

Litvinov R.M. believed that in the common courtyard of an apartment building it is possible to build a new cesspool, taking into account the requirements of SNiP (next to the cesspool K.). The existing violations cannot be eliminated by the defendants in any other way (waterproofing the structure), and therefore insisted on dismantling the cesspool.

The representative of a third party on the side of the plaintiff Dubinin S.M. considered the claim to be satisfied. At the same time, he explained that the common courtyard and the five-apartment residential building No. b are located on a land plot, which its tenants own on the basis of the right of permanent (unlimited) use. This building, as well as other apartment buildings on this street, lacks a central sewerage system. Indeed, Ashurkova E.G. without the permission of the City Administration for her family in the common yard, she built a cesspool in an economic way in violation of the requirements of SNiP. Another resident of the house has a similar pit. In March 2010, when Litvinov R.M. appealed to the City Administration on the issue of illegal arrangement of Ashurkova E.G. cesspool, according to the results of a survey of the disputed object on the spot, she was verbally prohibited from using the facility. However, the deadline for dismantling the cesspool was not set, control over the dismantling work was not carried out, and the City Administration did not file a claim with the court.

The representative of a third party on the side of the plaintiff Puzanov AND.A. at the hearing also considered that the cesspool built by Ashurkova E.G. in the common courtyard of an apartment building, does not meet the requirements of SNiP.

Defendant Ashurkova E.G. at the hearing she objected to the claims of Litvinova R.M. and explained the following. In an apartment building No. after them with their son Ashurkov NS owns two apartments: No. 1 - her individual property, No. 2 - common shared ownership of 1 \\ 2 shares to each of them. The controversial cesspool was originally built by the former owner at the time when Litvinov R.M. I haven't lived in the neighborhood yet. And she, Ashurkova E.G., having moved into the house, only repaired the already existing cesspool.

Indeed the pit is made of used tires of five truck wheels and one wheel passenger car smaller, covered from above with a metal hood from the car. The pit is intended only for collecting shower drains and household waste water, since there is a common toilet in the yard, which is used by all the residents of the house. There have never been any disputes with neighbors on this issue.

Ashurkova E.G. considers the arguments of Litvinov R.M. to be far-fetched. that he cannot open the window of the house because of unpleasant odors from the pit, and the sewage from the pit gets into the ground, so two fruit trees are salted. Between the house of Litvinov R.M. and a cesspool erected a high garage, and in the immediate vicinity of the pit in their yard, an apple tree grows, which bears fruit from year to year.

The plaintiff explains this position by the fact that hostile relations have developed between them, and Litvinov R.M. appealed to the court with a demand to dismantle the cesspool after she filed a claim for the demolition of his garage and the claim she filed was satisfied.

Also Ashurkova E.G. clarified that in March - May 2010, in their presence, the defendants, no inspection of the controversial cesspool by representatives of the Administration of the city of Dmitriev was carried out. Claims, orders, prohibitions regarding the use of the cesspool from the City Administration in writing and orally were not received by them.

According to Ashurkova E.G. it is not possible to build a new cesspool in the common yard, since each family has outbuildings, garages, and therefore did not object to carry out the necessary work to waterproof their pit.

Defendant Ashurkov N.S. at the hearing did not appear for health reasons. In a written application he asked the court to consider the case without his participation and in the claim to R.M. Litvinov. refuse. At the same time, he noted that the controversial cesspool was built several years ago and so far has not created any inconvenience to anyone.

At the hearing, witness K. testified that she lived in a multi-apartment residential building in apartment No. 3. When, about 4 years ago, she moved into the apartment, the controversial cesspool was already in use by the Ashurkovs. During the entire time of my residence, I did not feel the smell from the cesspool, I did not notice midges, there were no conflicts between the residents of their house about the Ashurkovs cesspool, there were no cases when the cesspool overflowed. She did not deny that the tenants of the house use a common toilet in the yard, and to collect household waste water from her apartment, she equipped a similar cesspool.

Specialist Maslov V.I. In accordance with the requirements of Art. gave the following clarifications.

According to p. 2.3.1, 2.3.22.3.3 SanPiN 42128-4690-88 "Sanitary rules for the maintenance of populated areas" for the collection of liquid waste in unanalyzed households, yard cesspools are arranged, which must have a waterproof cesspool and a ground part with a cover and a grate for separating solid fractions ... On the territory of private households, the distance from courtyard (toilet) latrines to households is determined by the homeowners themselves and can be reduced to 8-10 meters. In conflict situations, the location of courtyards (cesspools), latrines is determined by representatives of the public, administrative commissions of local councils. The ridge must be waterproof. The depth of the cesspool depends on the level of groundwater, but should not be more than 3 m. It is not allowed to fill the cesspool with sewage higher than 0.35 m from the ground surface.

The controversial cesspool located in the common courtyard of the apartment building No. po on the municipal land plot was to be built by residents with the permission of the land owner.

However, Maslov V.I. clarified that there is no actual possibility to locate a cesspool in another place and at the same time to comply with the requirements of sanitary norms and rules. The creation of a new cesspool in a common yard in the place indicated by the plaintiff may entail a violation of the rights and legitimate interests of other persons - the owners, co-owners of an apartment building.

Further exploitation of the cesspool by the Ashurkov family at the same place is possible by creating its tightness by performing waterproofing, ensuring the watertightness of the cesspool. In addition, it is necessary to install a tightly closing cover on top of the cesspool. Sewage from the cesspool should be promptly pumped out by special equipment and taken to specially designated places for their neutralization and destruction, in connection with which the defendants should conclude an appropriate contract for the removal of liquid waste.

Having heard the plaintiff, third parties on his side, the defendant, the witness, the specialist, having examined the controversial cesspool at its location, having examined the case materials, the court comes to the following.

I DECIDED:

Claims Litvinova R.M. to Ashurkova E.G., Ashurkov N.S. on the prohibition of the use of the cesspool and dismantling the cesspool to leave without satisfaction.

The decision can be appealed to the Kursk Regional Court through the Dmitrievsky District Court of the Kursk Region within one month from the date of its adoption by the court in its final form.

Judge L.M. Goncharova

Judicial practice on:

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

We draw your attention to the fact that this decision could be appealed in a higher court and canceled

TULA REGIONAL COURT

CASSATION DEFINITION
dated September 15, 2011 in case No. 33-3103

The Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Tula Regional Court composed of:
the presiding officer Bobkova S.A.,
judges Selishcheva V.V., Polosukhina N.A.,
under the secretary S.U.
examined in open court a civil case on the appeal of Sh.L.M. against the decision of the Odoevsky District Court of the Tula Region dated July 12, 2011 in the case under the claim of Sh.L.M. to M.A.I., M.N.V., on the recognition of the cesspool not complying with sanitary and building standards, on the transfer of this cesspool to another place.
Having heard the report of judge V.V. Selishchev, the judicial board

established: