According to city needs

The prosecutor's office suspended the dispute between officials and deputies over the seizure of land plots

The attempt of the capital's authorities to introduce a norm into legislation that would simplify the seizure of land plots from users for urban needs turned out to be a failure. At yesterday's meeting of the Moscow City Duma, deputies who came to the defense of tenants were unexpectedly supported by the Moscow prosecutor's office. And one of the most controversial points of the updated law “On Land Use and Development” was excluded.

The reason for adjusting the Moscow law was the new Land Code of the Russian Federation. City officials tried to comply with the requirements of federal legislation with maximum benefit for the mayor's office. The Department of Land Resources has prepared amendments to the above-mentioned regulations, suggesting that sufficient grounds for confiscation of plots from tenants are not only target programs approved by the city government, but also, for example, agreements concluded by development companies with the mayor's office. Considering the enormous scale of road construction and reconstruction and the increased competition for every undeveloped acre, this foreshadowed serious problems for current land users and long legal battles to protect their plots from those who wanted to seize them for “urban needs.”

However, officials failed to pass this norm through the city parliament. According to Moscow City Duma deputy Ivan Novitsky, representing the United Democrats faction, the mayor’s office twice introduced a clause on the seizure of land in the bill, but parliamentarians sought to exclude it. The dispute between officials and the Moscow City Duma was put to an end by the prosecutor's office, which confirmed that in accordance with federal legislation, “contracts, agreements and city targeted programs are not grounds for the seizure of land plots.”

In a conversation with a Vremya Novostey correspondent, Mr. Novitsky, who acted as a co-rapporteur of the bill, noted that opposition deputies managed to defend their other amendments. In particular, the bill returned the rule that increases in land rental rates cannot have retroactive effect. According to him, the law also specifies that the penalty for late rent will become fixed and amount to 1/300 of the Central Bank refinancing rate per day. The previous version of the bill provided for vague wording “no more than 1/300 of the refinancing rate,” which allowed for various abuses.

As a result, the final version of the bill presented yesterday satisfied both United Russia members and representatives of the opposition and was adopted with an overwhelming majority of votes. However, as Mikhail Moskvin-Tarkhanov, head of the Moscow City Duma Commission on Perspective Development and Urban Planning, clarified, the appearance of a compromise will not at all save land users from numerous lawsuits. Answering questions from a Vremya Novostey correspondent, he explained that the seizure of land plots is possible only in two cases: either for the state needs of Moscow, or due to the counterparty’s failure to fulfill the terms of the investment contract. According to the deputy, no one disputes the city’s right to seize land plots for state needs, but the dispute with the prosecutor’s office arose over what exactly is considered city needs. “But the prosecutor’s office does not have a clear position on this issue either,” assures Mr. Moskvin-Tarkhanov. According to him, the grounds for the seizure of land plots are listed in another city law - “On ensuring the housing rights of citizens during relocation.” According to the deputy, the prosecutor's office did not challenge this law, but stated that in court it would defend the position of land users, not the mayor's office. “That is, today we have three options: either we negotiate with the prosecutor’s office and come to some kind of compromise, or the prosecutor’s office challenges the law, or everything remains as it is, and the law will be adjusted on the basis of judicial practice on claims of land users defending their rights ", said the deputy.

Alexander GUDKOV