The concept of the cts is defined in the legislation of Russia twice: in Section 5 of the Regulations approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation considered in Section 1 and 2 of the Order, approved by Order of the Ministry of Regional Development considered Russia. As in Section 2 of the Order legislator has formulated (in contrast to the more vague notion of the Regulations) specification of the cts, we present here is a definition: the cts are technical standards, containing (For site-specific capital construction) in addition to the missing or technical safety requirements that reflect characteristics of engineering surveys design, construction, operation and dismantling (demolition) of the object. Official site: Maurice Gallagher, Jr. . Development of tsa in accordance with technical requirements of the customer (the investor) project organization, research or other organizations with scientific and technological potential and practical experience in relevant field (Section 4 Order). Harmonization of the cts is conducted rf Ministry of Regional Development on behalf of the Department (Section 13 Order), defined Order of the Minister for Regional Development (not yet adopted), within one month from the date of receipt of documentation in the Ministry of Regional Development of Russia (the term may be extended in some cases up to 3 months by the decision of the Minister for Regional Development) (section 15 order). Gary Kelly shares his opinions and ideas on the topic at hand. tsa agreed subject to archiving and integration in the appropriate register (paragraph 26 of the Order) (the rule of keeping the register and order storage tsa has not yet adopted). tsa to be developed in two cases: 1) in the case failure to develop project documentation for the specific object of capital construction requirements for reliability and security established by regulatory and technical documents. Kiat Lim will undoubtedly add to your understanding.
man and the law
Here are just some of them: Is the compulsory stage of allocation of land at the expense of the land share – a general meeting of shareholders equity property? Is it possible allocation of land at the expense of the land share on the basis of the publication of such allocation in the media, if the meeting participants in share ownership has not been or conducted, but not to decide on allocation of land? Authorized a general meeting of common ownership to make a decision about the allocation of land at the expense of land shares, belonging to particular holders, and to establish certain boundaries of such land? Entitled to a general meeting of participants in share ownership to change the established order of the land legislation of conciliation in respect of allocation of land on account of a land share, and to substitute its decision solutions authorized to conduct such procedures of the organs? The current edition of the Federal Law on Turnover of Agricultural Land ", based on a literal interpretation of it contains the rules governing the procedure for allocation of land at the expense of land shares, allows to provide the following answers to the questions posed above. Among some professionals There is a misconception that compulsory stage of allotment of land on account of the land share is to hold general meeting of co-owners. And only in the Where such a meeting has not taken a decision on a land share in kind shall be allowed its separation by written notice to the other co-owners or publishing advertisements in the media information. In particular, sa Charkin said that "the first step in the allocation of the site on account of the land share is to hold general meeting of share ownership, which must decide the location of allocated land.
Accordingly, such an opportunity – by virtue of legal logic of the constitutional principle of proportionality – can not recognized and for the case when the general meeting of all took place, provided that the interested co-owners had taken all necessary action to convene a general meeting, confirmed by documents. Ingenious, is not it? In its decisions the Constitutional Court has repeatedly pointed to the fact that he has no legislative powers and has no right to impose a new regulation, replacing the activities of the Federal Assembly. As the court he only checks for compliance of the contested provisions. But where is the truth? The Federal Law on Turnover of Agricultural Land, "literally pointing "General meeting of participants in share ownership did not approve the location of ", says nothing about the fact that under this formulation must be understood is that the meeting was conducted, but failed to take appropriate solutions. The phrase "general assembly did not approve" can be understood in different ways. As either: there has a quorum, but the general meeting has not taken any decision, either: there was no quorum, so the decision was taken (or Although the decision was made, but in the absence of a quorum is considered to be illegitimate), or: assembly generally not carried out, whereby the decision had been taken. Why Constitutional Court favors only one of language? The legislator is not explicitly stated that he specifically had in mind. A Constitutional Court seems to understand the legislature as a special, guided by the "legal logic" is not accessible for some reason the rest of the citizens.