Search

The Author sets the task to help the law enforcer understand the complex array of environmental and sanitary legislation and, based on the analysis of regulatory acts, reveal the concepts used in Art. 251 of the ­Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Examining environmental legislation, he gives examples of violations of the rules for the emission of pollutants into the atmosphere, as well as cases representing violations of the rules for the operation of installations, structures and other objects. In particular, such violations are the release of pollutants: from a stationary source that is not included in the state register of objects that have a negative impact on the environment; substances of I or II hazard class by objects registered with the state as category IV objects; from a stationary source without gas-trapping equipment (as well as a source with idle gas-trapping equipment), which should be equipped with such devices; resulting in excess of category I, II and III facilities (for category III only with respect to radioactive and highly toxic substances) of an emission standard or indicators of temporarily permitted emission of pollutants; substances whose degree of danger to human life and health and to the environment has not been established; at facilities of category I–III during unfavorable weather conditions with violation of relevant measures in force during unfavorable weather conditions; which led to violation by legal entities and entrepreneurs of the conditions for quoting emissions in cities, a list of which is given in the Law on emission quotas. He comes to the conclusion that air pollution is qualified if the illegal exceeding of the maximum permissible concentrations is detected in a residential area or recreational area. “Other changes in the natural properties of air” should include noise, vibration, ionizing radiation, temperature and other physical factors that change the physical properties of atmospheric air.

The key factor in choosing a proprietary method of protecting civil rights is the question of ownership of an item. In a situation when the land plot is transferred under a deal to a new owner, who subsequently made a deal to alienate him to a third party, the original owner cannot be recognized as a person who has retained possession, despite the fact that access to the land plot is free, did not begin to use it, did not enclose and did not take other measures to visualize their possession. In this case, the claim for recognition of the right absent is not applicable. Protection of rights should be carried out with the help of a vindication suit. The Author, fearing the expansion of the scope of the claim for recognizing the right absent, which is not covered by the limitation period, gives arguments that restrict the application of this claim strictly to the cases listed in par. 4 p. 52 of the Resolution of the Plenum No. 10/22, when: the ownership of the same property is registered for different persons; the title to movable property is registered as real estate; mortgage or other encumbrance ceased.

The article deals with the problem connected with the possibility of the parties to include into the civil law contract some suspensive or cancelling conditions which depend on the will of one of the parties. The author produces proofs of scientists on this issue and illustrates with the help of examples from judicial practice the contradictoriness of the grounds related to the question under study. The author proposes to include into the RF Civil code the norm admitting the freedom of potestative conditions usage by the privies in civil law.

The issue of the obligations structure concerning the breach of a contract is considered in the article. According to the author’s opinion there simultaneously exists the initial obligation in conformity with the contract and obligation of losses compensation for the contract breach. Such an approach allows to recover damages before the moment when the initial obligation is discontinued by law or by a contract provision. The correlation between the initial obligation and the obligation to compensate losses because of the contract breach is being analyzed here.