The main conclusion of the Supreme Court should please many gardeners and dacha owners, as well as owners of land plots, which do not yet have housing, and the bill from the operator for garbage collection is already coming. On this occasion, conflicts are not at all uncommon.

The Supreme Court stated that the owner of the plot, which does not yet have habitable structures, does not have to pay for garbage collection. And the regional operator has no basis for charging the owner of such utilities if there are no registered residential premises on his land plot, and the fact of formation of household waste by the regional operator is not additionally confirmed.

The dispute began when a citizen, who began to receive bills from the regional operator for garbage disposal, went to complain to the prosecutor's office. The man was not indignant for nothing - what was he paying for if he had not yet built his house? The prosecutor's office studied the situation and sided with the complainant. She issued a statement - she demanded that the operator recalculate the fee for garbage disposal for the owner of the land in the village, on which there are neither registered, nor unregistered structures.

The regional operator was outraged and went to court to challenge the prosecutor's order. He was sure that the absence of a house, registered or not, did not matter - waste can also be generated on the land, "as it is used. Moreover, this citizen had some kind of farm on his property - a greenhouse without a foundation, a hut and a caravan. As they called the last one - "flatbed body on a frame". So, the owner is there sometimes, doing something. So he can produce garbage, too.

The operator's argument - according to the Land Code (Article 13), the owner is obliged to maintain his site in "proper condition". And the probable garbage must be disposed of with the help of the regional operator. Especially since he sends bills to the owner only during the dacha season.

But the courts agreed with the prosecutor's office. They said that there is no separate contract for garbage disposal between the consumer and the regional operator. There are rules for the provision of public services to owners and users of premises in apartment buildings and houses. But they apply only to residential buildings. And in this case there is no house.

The prosecutor's office demanded from the operator to recalculate the fee for garbage disposal of the owner.

The operator's argument that there may be trash on the property is flawed. Indeed, said the court, the formation of trash - the natural result of human activity. Therefore, the absence of premises on the property "does not indicate nonaccumulation of MSW by the owners." But this is only if it is proven that there are facilities suitable for habitation on the site. Albeit unregistered. In this particular case, the inspection showed that there is no garbage accumulation on this land, and the greenhouse without a foundation, a hut and a body on a frame "do not provide an opportunity for living, including temporary, during the inspected period. And the regooperator does not have any documents that there are facts of garbage production on this plot.

The last argument of the operator was the statement that the person pays for the electricity on the plot. But all the courts, including the Supreme Court, said that the landowner spent time on his property - the electrical appliances were working, but there was no possibility for garbage generation, because there were no conditions for living on the land.

Rossiyskaya Gazeta - Federal Edition: № 178(8826)