Deputy of the St. Petersburg Legislative Assembly Alexey Makarov sent a request to Governor Georgy Poltavchenko, asking for an explanation as to the circumstances under which the State Budgetary Institution “Center for Improving the Efficiency of State Property Use” was created to provide logistical support for the activities of the KUGI, and whether the KUGI transferred the powers of the owner to this institution.

Over the course of two years, the center has vacated about 500 city properties, demolished an unfinished restaurant in Roshchinsky Garden, and numerous shopping pavilions, the press service of the Legislative Assembly quotes Makarov as saying. The demolition activities organized by this institution are in conflict with the interpretation of civil law, Makarov believes. "In fact, the institution appropriates the powers of state authorities and, without a court order, disposes of property that does not belong to it," the deputy claims. He is sure that forced demolition of an unauthorized building can only be carried out on the basis of a court decision.

The center was created by a decree of the city government and operates on the basis of the Civil Code, property is freed from illegal buildings on the basis of self-defense of rights, says a representative of the center. According to her, the law allows this to be done without a court.

The damage caused may be more significant than the damage prevented, Makarov disagrees. The State Budgetary Institution was created to resolve issues illegally, bypassing the courts, believes Boris Gvozdov, a representative of the owner of the Parus landing stage. In September 2012, the State Budgetary Institution tried to free the embankment near Tuchkov Bridge from Parus. By that time, the Dzerzhinsky Court had made a decision on eviction, and subsequently the city court did not satisfy the owner's appeal. According to Gvozdov, the company was ready to pay rent, but the authorities refused to enter into an agreement. If there is a court decision, then bailiffs should enforce it; there is no need for a special institution, he is sure.

OOO "Yeliseyev Merchants' Store" tried to challenge the State Budgetary Institution's notice regarding the illegality of placing portable tables next to its cafe, but was rejected in two instances. The actions of the State Budgetary Institution are proportionate to the violation, since the center notifies the subject in advance of the need to vacate the illegally occupied site voluntarily or register the rights to it, the decision of the Thirteenth Court of Appeal states.

Against demolition without trial