Tag Archives: 2001 Land Code

Amendments and additions to laws in December 2009

“Amendments and additions to laws in December 2009,” Metrkv.ru: Vsya Nedvizhimost’ Rossii. December 2009. 28 June 2010 http://metrkv.ru/articles/index.xml?&articles_id=10336016.

Cataloguing of amendments made by the Duma in December 2009. On December 27, 2009, the deadline for the restructuring of lands held under permanent (perpetual) use was extended to January 1, 2012, and for lands on which electric, telecommunications, pipe, etc. lines are located, the deadline is now January 1, 2015.  However, the changes also include another extension: the date after which fines may be imposed upon firms that have not restructured their land holdings is now Jaunary 1, 2013, meaning enterprises that do not meet the 2012 restructuring deadline may only be fined at least a year later.  De facto, the original Edinaya Rossiya proposal (see above) was upheld.

News of the Week

“News of the Week,” Ekspert Volga 38 (153), 5 October 2009.  30 June 2010 http://www.expert.ru/printissues/volga/2009/38/news_week/.

The Republic of Tatarstan’s Gossovet deputies proposed an amendment to the RF Land Code that would allow seizures of land, the owners of which have not paid their land taxes or put the land to use in the last three years. The proceeds from these lands’ auctions (minus transaction costs) would be used as compensation for the previous proprietors, from whom the land was seized. “The measures put forth by the deputies, indubitably, could enliven the land market and shrink the number of ineffectively used lands.”

Land seized from Ekaterinburg developers

“Land seized from Ekaterinburg developers,” (“U ekaterinburgskikh zastroyschikov otobrali zemlyu”), Ekspert Ural 26 (382), 6 June 2009. 1 July 2010 http://www.expert.ru/printissues/ural/2009/26/news_nash_dom/.

Report on ZAO Nash Dom losing two land plots that Sverdlovskii arbitration courts ruled had been improperly divided up by the city administration.  The land, nearly 42,000 m2 now returned to the city, was transferred in spring of 2007 by decision of the Ekaterinburg mayor; the courts noted that by law, after October 1, 2005, transfer of land was only legal through an auction.  Although the Land Code does provide that lands included in contracts drawn-up before the 2005 cut-off could be transferred no later than March 1, 2007, since the actual lease agreement had been signed neither by Nash Dom nor by the city, the agreement made by both parties in 2005 did not hold up against the general prosecutor.

Nash Dom must now return the 79 million rubles to investors in the projects planned for the land’s development, as well as face the lost 130 million rubles already spent in the preparation of the land.  Representatives of the company say they will file for compensation of these monies if the lands are returned to the city.  In Ekaterinburg, there are 200 other property transactions that could be disputed by the general prosecutor in the same way; these are the seventh/eighth substantial plots seized as such.

At the end of May, Duma to consider amendments to Land Code

“Dragonov: At the end of May, Duma will consider amendments to Land Code,” Edinaya Rossiya, 19 May 2009. 28 June 2010 http://www.edinros.ru/text.shtml?7/9830,.

Report on the Edinaya Rossiya party website on proposed amendments to the 2001 Land Code, regarding provisions that require firms to restructure their land holdings as leases or private property by January 1, 2010.  The party cites support for the changes from the industry, property, and land-issues committees.  The proposed extension on the deadline would be for 3 years until Jan. 1, 2013 (for lands under electric, telecommunication, pipe, motorway, and train lines, 6 years until Jan. 1, 2016).  Gosduma representatives calculate this will allow proprietors to “composedly (spokoyno)” make the required changes.

“In the opinion of [Valeriy] Dragonov,” vice-chair of the Duma Committee on Industry, “the deadline extension for the restructuring of these lands is one of the important steps to the comprehensive support of homeland industry.”  The party seems to view their postponement of short-term costs of land privatization (or restructuring as a lease) as a supporting Russian industry.

Perpetual land – for three years

Vasil’eva, Yuliya. “Perpetual land – for three years: Business asks to postpone the buy-out deadline for land plots to Jan. 1, 2013” (“Zemlya bessrochno – na tri goda”), Rossiiskaya Biznes-gazeta 692, 3 March 2009. 1 July 2010 http://www.rg.ru/2009/03/03/zemlya-vikup.html.

Summary of the history and current state of the Land Code amendments; stresses business’ desire to privatize/restructure their land use, but inability to do so due to bureaucratic barriers and high buy-out prices.  Power-mongering and super-control of the restructuring procedures on the part of local powers also complicate the conditions in which businesses were being required to buy-out their land.   The decrease in businesses’ liquid funds due to the crisis—funds that would be needed for land transactions—also increases the hardship.

In addition to these issues, RSPP department head Irina Kotelevskaya notes the lack of a “good register of land territories” as another complicating problem.  In the federal Duma’s Committee on Property, “it has been noted that in crisis-time conditions, with the increase in the price of credit and the insufficiencies of working capital at many industrial enterprises, the direction of significant monetary resources towards the organization of the buy-out of land plots might just lead to a worsening of their financial situation all the way to near-bankruptcy.

The Surveyor

Belykh, Anton.  “The Surveyor” (“Zemlemer”), Biznes-Zhurnal 7, 10 April 2007. 15 July 2010 http://www.business-magazine.ru/trends/government/pub282369.

Survey of Moscow land reform.  Article discusses the unwillingness of the Moscow bureaucracy to let go of land ownership, despite the April 2006 passage of No 431-PP “On the transfer of land plots in the city of Moscow to private ownership,” which was aimed at bringing Moscow land legislation and procedures in line with the federal Land Code.  More precisely, it was to change what had been, for all intents and purposes, a non-existent procedure for land privatization into its first existence.  For the law firm Vegas Lex, despite the significant number of land buy-out applications filed with the firm in the first nine months of the new law being in effect, no more than 10 privatization transactions have been successful.  Oleg Ryzhkov and his officers promise that the number of unsuccessful privatizations will soon start to come down.  In addition the bureaucracy’s grasping onto its land rights as a power control, the article also points out that lease payments from land tenants (mostly developers) generate more revenue than would land taxes (i.e., than they did in 2007 at publication).