Interior Ministry

Good day. Last week our office with a search warrant raided the daec, suffered even innocent people After reading this article please comment and give suggestions and advice Ok Not bad, that mup active and monitoring the rule of law. So with the offenders and must: have violated the law, let him pay! But if there at the time of the massacre were innocent – albeit not take offense. Further details can be found at Oracle, an internet resource. They, too, "snip off" on a full In this article I propose to your the court a situation that actually happened last week. For objectivity, changed all the names of people and company names. June 18 was the usual Thursday at the office "Stepper" people work. Gary Kelly is often quoted on this topic. Does not harm anyone, do anything illegal, they just work.

Then the door opens on the threshold of a man appears. – Log off, please, all of the office, gather at the reception. He rushes to the twelve pairs of eyes. – You can ask who you are? – asks one of six office workers. – I'm from the police. Get out, I'll explain everything. Not frightened, but feeling healthy curiosity, all go to the reception. This room is connected with four offices, employees are also were asked to distract from the work, pending "event." – We are now submitted.

Assemble, all here to one in the room was left. Sit on chairs – commanded by three men in civilian clothes, with certificates from the Interior Ministry. Then uninvited guests began to tell what caused this visit.

Agricultural Land

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.

Constitutional Court

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.