The applicant is registered in the disputed residential premises. This living space was provided to the applicant's mother. Upon reaching the age of 16, the applicant is registered in the disputed apartment in accordance with the procedure established by law. At the time of payment of the share, the applicant was a minor. At the moment, the defendant is the owner of the residential premises. The applicant, being a minor who does not have independent sources of income, could not acquire the right to a share in the accumulation, and therefore, in connection with the adoption of the Property Law, could not be classified as one of the persons who acquire the right of ownership of an apartment provided for use in a housing building -building cooperative, after full payment of the share. The applicant, as a member of the defendant’s family, having moved into the disputed residential premises, acquired the right to use it. The applicant requests that his application be considered in the prescribed manner. Check the legality of actions. If violations are detected, take prosecutorial response measures.

To the Prosecutor General Russian Federation
___________________________

From ___________________________
___________________________

COMPLAINT

Registered in the disputed residential premises, in a three-room apartment with a living area of ​​____ sq.m.
This living space was provided to the mother of ________________________.
This order No. _______ dated ___________ included the father _____________ and the son _________________
Upon reaching the age of 16, the Plaintiff was registered in the disputed apartment in accordance with the procedure established by law.
This residential premises is located in the housing cooperative "________"
When the share was paid, the Plaintiff was a minor.
At the moment, the Defendant is the owner of the residential premises located at the address: __________________________
based on a certificate of ownership.
In accordance with Art. 13 clause 2 of the Law of the RSFSR "On Property in the RSFSR" dated December 24, 1990, a member of a housing construction cooperative who has fully paid his share contribution for the apartment provided to him for use acquires ownership of this property.

Before payment of the share contribution, the shareholder has the following rights:
-live with his family in an apartment provided to him in a cooperative building;
-voluntarily leave the housing cooperative;
- in accordance with the established procedure, transfer the share to any adult family member permanently residing with him;
- receive a vacant apartment in the building of the same cooperative if there is a need for improved living conditions;
- exchange the occupied residential premises for another residential premises, including in a state or public housing building, or for a residential building owned by a citizen.

However, the Plaintiff, being a minor who does not have independent sources of income, could not acquire the right to a share in the accumulation, and therefore, in connection with the adoption of the Property Law, could not be classified as one of the persons who acquire the right of ownership of an apartment provided for use in the house housing construction cooperative, after full payment of the share. The plaintiff, as a member of the defendant’s family, having moved into the disputed residential premises, acquired the right to use it.

In accordance with Part 1.2 of Article 166 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, a transaction is invalid on the grounds established by this Code, due to its recognition as such by the court (voidable transaction) or regardless of that recognition (void transaction)
In accordance with Art. 168 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, a transaction that does not comply with the requirements of the law or other legal acts is void unless the law establishes that such a transaction is contestable or does not provide for other consequences of the violation.
According to Art. 27. Powers of the prosecutor Federal Law “On the Prosecutor’s Office”
1. When performing the functions assigned to him, the prosecutor:
considers and verifies applications, complaints and other reports of violations of human and civil rights and freedoms;
explains to victims the procedure for protecting their rights and freedoms;
takes measures to prevent and suppress violations of human and civil rights and freedoms, bring to justice those who violated the law, and compensate for the damage caused;
uses the powers provided for in Article 22 of this Federal Law.
2. If there are grounds to believe that the violation of human and civil rights and freedoms has the nature of a crime, the prosecutor takes measures to ensure that the persons who committed it are subject to criminal prosecution in accordance with the law.
3. In cases where the violation of the rights and freedoms of man and citizen is in the nature of an administrative offense, the prosecutor initiates proceedings on an administrative offense or immediately transmits a report of the offense and inspection materials to the body or official authorized to consider cases of administrative offenses.
4. In case of violation of the rights and freedoms of man and citizen, protected in civil proceedings, when the victim, for health reasons, age or other reasons, cannot personally defend his rights and freedoms in court or arbitration court, or when the rights and freedoms of a significant number of citizens are violated or due to other circumstances the violation has acquired a special public importance, the prosecutor brings and supports a claim in court or arbitration court in the interests of the victims.

Based on the above, guided by Article 166 168 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, Article 27 of the Law “On the Prosecutor’s Office”

1. Consider my application in the prescribed manner.
2.Check the legality of the actions.
3.If violations are detected, take prosecutorial response measures.

Notify me of the results of consideration of the application in writing within the period prescribed by law.
Please send the answer to this application to your place of residence, namely: ____________________

«___»_____________ ________________

TEXT OF APPLICATION TO THE Prosecutor General's Office of the Russian Federation
The prosecutor's office does not provide a refutation of my arguments.

To the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation, Yuri Yakovlevich Chaika

from gr. Buyanov Pyotr Mikhailovich, convicted under Art. 30 part 3, art. 171 h. 2 p.p. "a", "b", art. 171 h. 2 p.p. "a", "b", art. 171.1 part 2 p.p. “a”, “c” of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in criminal case No. 1-1/2011.

Located at the address: 355031, Russian Federation, Stavropol, Pamirsky passage, building 53 (tel. 8 962 40 23 8 46)

STATEMENT

on appealing the actions/inactions of the Investigative Committee prosecutor

By the verdict of the Leninsky District Court of the city of Stavropol on February 18, 2011 in criminal case No. 1-1/2011 (judge Anisimova O.A.), I was found guilty of committing crimes under Art. 30 part 3, art. 171 h. 2 p.p. "a", "b", art. 171 h. 2 p.p. "a", "b", art. 171.1 part 2 p.p. “a”, “c” of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and on the basis of Art. 69 part 3 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, by partial addition of punishments for a set of crimes, a fine in the amount of six hundred thousand rubles was finally imposed, with deprivation of the right to hold positions related to the implementation of administrative, economic and managerial functions, as well as those related to the distribution of material assets for a period of three years.

By the ruling of the judicial panel for criminal cases of the Stavropol Regional Court on June 08, 2011, the verdict was changed (No. 22-2405/2011) in terms of qualifying the actions of P.M. Buyanov. according to pp. “a, c” part 2 art. 171.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (as amended by Federal Law No. 26-FZ of March 7, 2011 “On Amendments to the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation”), but the assessment my arguments were not carried out by the cassation court, my complaint dated March 10, 2011. left unsatisfied and the punishment left unchanged.

On September 22, 2011, judge of the regional court N.I. Grichina denied my complaint by way of supervisory review dated July 27, 2011.

In response to my appeal dated November 16, 2011, I received a response from the prosecutor of the Stavropol Territory Yu.N. Turygina SK No. 12-555-2011 dated December 15, 2011 (EB No. 020369).

With this letter, the prosecutor of the Investigative Committee reports that “there were no violations of the criminal procedural law during the investigation of the criminal case, no falsification of evidence,” my guilt “is confirmed by the totality of evidence in the case” and, accordingly, the punishment is fair. A copy of the application to the Prosecutor's Office of the Investigative Committee and the response are attached.

I strongly disagree with the contents and conclusions in this letter. I consider myself unfoundedly accused and unfairly convicted in a criminal case in which I was not involved. Let me explain my position.

Accusation of Buyanov P.M. in this criminal case is based on the following arguments (full list):

1. On the notes in the notebook allegedly made by P.M. Buyanov.
2. In photographs of documents allegedly prepared and signed by P.M. Buyanov.
3. On funds from the illegal activities of the distillery production, received by a group of persons and seized from Buyanov P.M.

Other arguments about the involvement of Buyanov P.M. the prosecution did not provide any information in connection with this criminal case.

Thus, no other “body of evidence in the case”, other than those indicated above, can prove the guilt of P.M. Buyanov. it does not matter.

The above evidence is:

1. Materials falsified by the investigator for examination (copies of the relevant sheets of the criminal case are attached):

1.1. Notebooks with notes allegedly seized from P.M. Buyanov’s office are equally known to the investigation.

1.2. One of the notebooks was deliberately, groundlessly, knowingly falsely provided by investigator S.M. Eronin. for the examination of handwriting in another notebook as “free samples of P.M. Buyanov’s handwriting”, after the examination could not establish that the notes belonged to the hand of P.M. Buyanov. based on experimental and conditionally free handwriting samples of Buyanov P.M.

1.4. Documents on the inclusion of free handwriting samples of P.M. Buyanova in the criminal case. in a criminal case no.

1.5. Investigator Eronin S.M. misled independent forensic experts and obtained the MAIN “evidence” required by the prosecution in the case.

2. Unreliable, dubious materials for examination, which received not a probabilistic, but an unfounded categorical conclusion of the examination subordinate to the investigation:

2.1. Categorical conclusions of the examination on the signing by Buyanov P.M. documents provided for examination in photocopies do not correspond to the materials provided for examination and the research conducted, according to the Advisory Opinion of the specialist No. 078-I/10 dated 07.11.2010 attached to the criminal case and the testimony of the specialist Potudinsky V.P. himself, during the court hearing November 10, 2011

2.2. I, Buyanov P.M., do not dispute that the photographs of documents provided in the case contain a signature similar to mine. But I did not sign any and the form of the documents, the signatures of other persons, the seal and stamp imprints are not known to me and other numerous witnesses in this criminal case; they were not used at the Strizhament distillery.

2.3. I myself have never produced or signed documents similar to those provided in photocopies; none of the witnesses to the production and signing by P.M. Buyanov. did not confirm such documents during the court hearing.

2.4. Neither the documents themselves, nor similar documents or traces of their production at the workplace of P.M. Buyanova. either at my home or in any other place the investigation did not find it. The defense believes that they did not exist, except in photographs of the investigation.

2.5. When conducting examinations based on scientifically based methods not specified in the conclusion, the following materials were not examined for reliability:

2.5.1. There is no research into the reliability of the content of digital media,

2.5.2. No examination of digital photo files for lack of corrections (editing),

2.5.3. There is no study of the lack of editing of the objects themselves being photographed,

2.5.4. There is no research into the method of applying signatures and seals to the document (handwriting, photocopying or another method of applying to the document)

2.5.5. There is no study of the document material, the composition of ink, powders or other carriers of prints and signatures for the authenticity of production in comparison with those used at the distillery, the order of applying text to the document, seal impressions, signatures, or other methods of falsifying documents.

3. The statements about the storage and accumulation of funds are false and unfounded:

3.1. Cash in the amount of 199,890 rubles, which were confiscated from me, P.M. Buyanova, were called by the prosecution “the accumulated income of a group of persons from illegal alcoholic beverage production,” but not a single piece of evidence was provided for this in the case.

3.2. During the court hearing on November 1, 2011, witness A.G. Solovyov, an honored teacher of additional education in the UK, my hang-gliding coach in the late 70s, testified that the loan amount of 200,000 rubles was returned to me at the end of December 2005. , given by me to him in 2003, long before my work at the Strizhament distillery, for the purchase of part of his private house and explained the origin of the money by selling part of his collection.

My petitions, complaints and appeals indicate in detail and with reason numerous violations of the law of the Russian Federation and by-laws during the preliminary investigation, proceedings in criminal case No. 1-1/2011 and during the sentencing on 02/18/2011 of the Leninsky District Court. Stavropol.

Namely.

1. Investigator S.M. Eronin (UD No. 1-1/2011, volume 21, p. 234), deliberately provided for handwriting examination deliberately false materials as free samples of Buyanov’s handwriting;
2. Other materials for handwriting examinations in UD No. 1-1/2011 are also questionable and unreliable. Petitions pointing to the dubiousness of the materials and violations in the conduct of examinations were left unsatisfied by the court - they were not considered in the legal sense.
3. During the proceedings under UD No. 1-1/2011, court rulings Leninsky district of Stavropol (judge O.A. Anisimova) dated 10/29/2011, 11/01/2011 I was denied the legal right to be considered in court, according to 1 tsp. 47 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, my petitions and in violation Part 2 Art. 271 Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation abandonedNO CONSIDERATION:

Petition dated October 29, 2010 to recognize as inadmissible evidence the conclusion No. 16 dated January 17, 2007 of a handwriting examination performed without proper documentation, illiterately, without indicating the research methodology, without describing the receipt and examination of the materials;

Petition dated October 29, 2010 to recognize as inadmissible evidence the conclusion No. 16 dated January 17, 2007 of a handwriting examination performed without a technical examination of the materials provided;

Petition dated November 1, 2010 to recognize as inadmissible evidence the conclusion No. 16 of January 17, 2007, of a handwriting examination performed with numerous violations of the legislation of the Russian Federation;

Petition dated November 1, 2010 to recognize as inadmissible evidence the conclusion No. 1588 of a handwriting examination based on “free handwriting samples” falsified by the investigator;

Petition dated November 1, 2010 to recognize as inadmissible evidence the protocol of the search conducted in the office of P.M. Buyanov. with numerous violations of the legislation of the Russian Federation, in the absence of the owner of the premises or his legal representative.

4. All requests for inspection and examination by the court of material evidence in UD 1-1/2011 were left unsatisfied.

Not a single piece of evidence during production in UD No. 1-1/2011 not examined or examined by the court in violation Art. 284 Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation.

5. All requests for the appointment of repeated forensic handwriting examinations based on the materials of UD No. 1-1/2011 were left unsatisfied by the court.

6. IN sentence 02/18/2011 by the court, in violation clause 5 Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated April 29, 1996 N 1 “ON COURT VERDICT”, Not the actions of the convicted person are qualified Buyanova P.M., both in the text of the verdict dated February 18, 2011, and when announcing the verdict.

All petitions aimed at establishing the truth in a criminal case in court were left unsatisfied by the court.

A complete, detailed, motivated list of violations of the law during criminal proceedings No. 1-1/2011 is reflected in my cassation and supervisory complaints, the satisfaction of which was denied to me without any explanation on the points of violation of the law. A copy of the supervisory complaint is attached.

The Leninsky District Court of Stavropol, the cassation (No. 22-2405/2011 dated 06/08/2011) and the supervisory instance of the Stavropol Regional Court (No. 4U-2004/2011 dated 09/22/2011), the prosecutor's office of the Stavropol Territory consistently ignore the consideration of the merits (they answer only with general phrases about the legality of the proceedings and the refusal to satisfy requests) of my well-founded, detailed, motivated petitions, complaints, appeals and instructions from the Prosecutor General's Office on the legal assessment of illegal actions, numerous violations in the proceedings under UD No. 1-1/2011 , which led to an unfair assessment of acts that were not committed by the convicted Buyanov P.M.

Prosecutor of the Investigative Committee Yu.N. Turygin after a full and objective inspection by the prosecutor’s office of the Investigative Committee with the study of the materials of the criminal case

Finds in the criminal case some other body of evidence confirming the guilt of P.M. Buyanov, but cannot present it,

Blatant forgery by investigator S.M. Eronin (official crime) and other dubious photographic materials for examinations are called collected in accordance with the requirements of the criminal procedural law, examined on the basis of scientific methods and the conclusions of the examinations are not in doubt,

The complete, absolute absence of presentation and examination of any material evidence during the trial is called verification of the material evidence in the case at the court hearing,

The gross violations of the law of the Russian Federation indicated by me and during the trial are called, in general, by the absence of grounds for bringing a supervisory representation,

Assessment of the activities of Buyanov P.M. calls it legally correct, the punishment is fair.

I believe that the verdict of the Leninsky District Court of the Stavropol Territory with such gross violations in the proceedings under Criminal Case No. 1-1/2011 cannot be legal and fair.

I ask you to

• Give a legal assessment of the actions of your subordinates from the Prosecutor's Office of the Stavropol Territory, who, through incompetence, negligence or intentionally, cover up violations of the law of the Russian Federation by relevant officials;
• Consider on the merits the violations of the law I have indicated and restore the effect of the law of the Russian Federation in the Stavropol Territory;
• Bring a protest against the verdict against P.M. Buyanov.

Application:

1. Copy of the application to the prosecutor's office of the Investigative Committee dated November 16, 2011 (3 pages)
2. Copy of the response from the prosecutor of the Investigative Committee Turygin Yu.N. dated December 15, 2011 No. 12-555-11 (EB No. 020369) (1 sheet)
3. Copy of the complaint by way of supervision dated September 27, 2011 (9 pages)
4. Copy of the search and seizure protocol dated December 28, 2005 (10 pages)
5. Copy of the inspection report dated January 16, 2006 (20 pages)
6. Copy of the resolution ordering the examination dated 22/20/2006 (1 sheet)
7. A copy of the absence of sufficient materials to establish the identity of the handwriting (1 sheet)
8. A copy of the letter of referral additionally for the examination of “free samples of P.M. Buyanov’s handwriting.” (1 l.)
9. Copy of the examination report dated January 19, 2007 (4 pages)

Complaint to the Prosecutor General's Office. The applicant and his brother are the children of the deceased citizen. The father drew up a will for the applicant and his brother for shares in the common law shared ownership for residential premises. The other share of the apartment belongs to the applicant's stepmother. After the death of the father, a certain relative of the stepmother allegedly appeared. His actions are aimed at seizing the living space, the disputed apartment, but he has nothing to do with it. The applicant, based on the facts set out in the complaint, asks to verify the legality and legality of the actions of a certain relative.

To the Prosecutor General's Office of the Russian Federation

_____________________________________,
______________________________________

Complaint

I, ___________________, born __________, am the daughter of __________________________, born ___________, died on _________.
My brother ______________________, born _____________, and I constantly came to our father, looked after him, helped with the housework (bearing the material costs of his upkeep).
In _______________, our father’s health deteriorated, and from _______________, my brother, ______________, took forced leave and moved to live with his father in order to provide constant care for him, as well as to care for his wife _______________________, who, due to her advanced age, needs care.
Currently, _________________ does not understand the meaning of her actions, and cannot understand the nature of their consequences (documents have currently been filed with the court to limit the latter’s legal capacity).
Our father drew up a will for me and my brother for __ shares in the right of common shared ownership of residential premises located at the address: ________________________________________. The other __ share of the apartment belongs to ____________________. After the death of our father, a certain relative of our stepmother _______________________________________ allegedly appeared, who introduced himself to us as a cousin of _______________________.
Then, when I arrived at my stepmother's ______________________, I discovered that documents were missing from the apartment, incl. personal documents __________________________________________, he ordered a new passport for her, takes her entire pension, taking advantage of her state of helplessness. He also threatens me and my brother. He calls the police and evicts us from the disputed apartment.
Actions __________________________. aimed at seizing the living space, the disputed apartment, but he has nothing to do with it. Moreover, _________ of the year ________________ opened the locks in the disputed apartment and took out all the things from it that belonged to our father and _________________. _______________ year he generally kidnapped _____________ from the apartment and took her in a direction unknown to us.

He answers my calls with threats to my life and reprisals against me and my brother. I fear for the life of our stepmother _______________, because... For so many days now we have not known about her fate. I contacted the local district commissioner, but no action has been taken on his part.

According to Art. 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, the inquiry officer, the inquiry body, the investigator, the head of the investigative body are obliged to accept, verify a message about any committed or impending crime and, within the competence established by this Code, make a decision on it no later than 3 days from the date of receipt of the specified message. When checking a report of a crime, the body of inquiry, the inquiry officer, the investigator, the head of the investigative body has the right to demand documentary checks, audits and involve specialists in their participation.
However, to date, no decision has been made on the application that was written to the district police officer, which significantly violates my rights and interests protected by law.

The provision of part three of Article 124 in its constitutional and legal interpretation, as stated in the ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of January 25, 2005 No. 42-O, does not allow the refusal of the inquirer, investigator, prosecutor, as well as the court when considering an application, petition or
complaints of a participant in criminal proceedings from the study and assessment of all the arguments presented in them, as well as the motivation of their decisions by indicating specific, sufficient from the point of view of the principle of reasonableness, grounds on which these arguments are rejected by the body or official considering the relevant appeal.

Based on the above, guided by Article 12 of the “Police Law”, Articles 2,4,12 of the Federal Law “On the procedure for considering citizens’ appeals”, Art. Art. 124, 144-145 Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation,

1. Based on the facts stated in my complaint, I ask you to check the legality and legality of ________________’s actions.
2. Conduct a review of the legality of the inactions of the senior representative of the precinct district ___________ in not responding to my application to initiate a criminal case on ______________.
2. Based on the facts presented, I ask you to conduct an investigation and initiate a criminal case against ________________ for the kidnapping of _______________.

Please inform me about the results at the specified postal address.

"__"______________2013 _______________ ______________