Tyumen milk producer proves in court that he did not pollute the fields

Golden Meadows does not agree with the conclusion of Rosprirodnadzor The company asks to invalidate the act of a scheduled inspection on the identification of wastewater,entering the filtration fields as waste

The Golden Meadows company, the largest MILK producer in the Tyumen region, is suing the North Urals Interregional Department of Rosprirodnadzor. She does not agree with his decision following the results of a scheduled inspection.

The lawsuit by Golden Meadows was filed with the Regional Arbitration COURT in March of this year. The company asks to invalidate the act of a scheduled inspection, which was carried out in the fall of 2021, in terms of the conclusions about the identification of wastewater entering the filtration fields as waste. In addition, the company does not agree with other findings of the audit regarding non-compliance with the requirements of environmental legislation, including the pollution of the pond.

“Compliance with the conditions for the use of a water body has not been ensured, namely: wastewater has been discharged into a water body - into a pond on the river. SALT cellar with exceeding the permissible concentrations of pollutants in wastewater samples: nitrate nitrogen - 1.1 times; for the sulfate ion - 2.9 times, ”Rosprirodnadzor came to such conclusions.

A court hearing has been scheduled for May 24. A request for comment was sent to the Golden Meadows company, at the time of publication of the material, no response was received.

In 2021, when exercising the powers to exercise federal state environmental supervision, the bodies of Rosprirodnadzor conducted more than 13,000 inspections, during which 42,986 violations of mandatory requirements were identified. During the same period, according to the file of arbitration cases, arbitration courts received 753 cases in which the bodies of Rosprirodnadzor were defendants.

Yevgeny Zharov, lawyer, managing partner of the Zharov Group environmental practice law office, told RBC Tyumen that over the year, the courts considered 2,405 cases involving Rosprirodnadzor bodies. Among them are 1373 cases of contesting decisions on cases of administrative offenses and 817 cases of contesting non-normative legal acts and decisions.

“Of the considered cases, 1,670 cases were decided in favor of the supervisory authority, another 217 were partially ruled in its favor. In 518 cases, the courts sided with the users of natural resources. The statistical probability of winning in court in a dispute with Rosprirodnadzor is 21%. As for the application of JSC Zolotye Luga to the North-Urals Interregional Department of Rosprirodnadzor to invalidate the act of a scheduled field inspection, this case is one of the first when a nature user appeals against the act of inspection. Prior to the entry into force of the new law on inspections No. 248-FZ, it was impossible to appeal against the acts, since, according to the courts, they did not entail property consequences for the enterprise. The new law allows appealing against the act as an independent non-normative document affecting the rights of users of natural resources, and introduces a mandatory pre-trial procedure for its appeal. The practice of appealing acts based on the results of scheduled inspections under the new law has not yet been formed. There are many cases when, contrary to the norms of the law, the courts formulate their own interpretation of the norm, this may just be the case. Taking into account the past judicial experience, assessing the prospects of such disputes, I can say that the chances of challenging the inspection act are not great, remarkable efforts must be made to reverse the tendentiousness and past judicial experience, ”explained Yevgeny Zharov.

Read on RBC Pro Pro How an accountant created India's largest bank for the poor at a cost of $ 6 billion Articles ProHumanely, but with calculation: how to sell in a crisis and not burn outfour tips Instructions Pro I listen but do not hear:why it is difficult for managers to give feedback Instructions Pro A top manager received an offer during a crisis:when to agree Articles Pro Pick up IKEA customers:how advertising campaigns worked after February 24 Cases Pro Work 12 hours 6 days a week.How it is to open a business in CHINA Instructions Pro How to register an employee remotely InstructionsPro How to register an employee remotely InstructionsPro How to register an employee remotely Instructions

Andrey Saunin, Attorney at Law, HEAD of SAUNIN Law Practice, noted that in order to successfully appeal against the order of Rosprirodnadzor, it is necessary to identify and prove procedural violations committed during the audit.

“As a rule, the most common are violations of the terms or grounds for an inspection, an inspection by an unauthorized person, or going beyond the competence of the inspection body, errors in drafting an order. It is not uncommon for a person to be checked who is not the subject of an offense or a person controlled by this body. At the same time, I do not rule out that technical discrepancies between the way the object was described and what it actually is, or incorrect criteria or indicators of violations may be used as arguments for declaring the prescription illegal. In this case, a special examination may be appointed, ”Andrey Saunin told RBC Tyumen.

According to the financial statements, the revenue of JSC Zolotye Luga in 2021 amounted to 4 billion rubles, profit - 110 million rubles.

More business news in the RBC Tyumen TELEGRAM channel