How do you feel about the rejection of self-regulation and the return of the institution of licensing in the construction industry?

From 04/07/2017 to 05/12/2017

For maintaining self-regulation as it currently exists 0% (0)

For maintaining self-regulation, subject to fundamental changes 0% (0)

For the return of licensing, in the form in which it existed before 2009 0% (0)

For using two mechanisms at the same time: licensing and insurance 0% (0)

For abandoning self-regulation and introducing an insurance mechanism 0% (0)

For the rejection of any regulatory mechanisms in the construction industry 0% (0)

Question answer:

Question: Can a foreign company join an SRO in the construction industry without registering a branch of a foreign company with the Federal Tax Service?

Despite the fact that the Town Planning Code of the Russian Federation explicitly states that foreign legal entities (foreign companies) can join SROs of builders, designers and surveyors, and does not indicate the need to register a branch or representative office of a foreign legal entity in Russia (Art. 55.6 of the City Code - foreign companies are indicated), self-regulatory organizations are guided by the norms when admitting members federal law"Foreign investment in Russian Federation» dated 09.07.1999 No. 160-FZ, where in clause 3, art. 4 indicates the need for accreditation of a branch or representative office of a foreign company in Russia in order to carry out commercial activities.

We quote: “A foreign legal entity whose purpose of creation and (or) activities are of a commercial nature and which bears property liability for the obligations assumed by it in connection with the implementation of the specified activity on the territory of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as the foreign legal entity), has the right to carry out activities on territory of the Russian Federation through a branch, representative office from the date of their accreditation, unless otherwise provided by federal laws. A foreign legal entity terminates its activities in the territory of the Russian Federation through a branch, representative office from the date of termination of the accreditation of the branch, representative office.

Day of accreditation of a branch, representative office of a foreign legal entity or making changes to the information contained in the state register of accredited branches, representative offices of foreign legal entities, which is information system(hereinafter also referred to as the register), or the termination of the accreditation of a branch, representative office of a foreign legal entity, the day of making the corresponding entry in the register is recognized. (Clause as amended by Federal Law No. 106-FZ dated 05.05.2014)"

Question: Is it possible to return the contribution to the compensation fund?

Answer: In accordance with Part 4 of Art. 55.7 of the Town Planning Code of the Russian Federation, a person who has terminated membership in a self-regulatory organization shall not be refunded a contribution to the compensation fund, unless otherwise provided.
By "other" is meant certain cases described in Art. 3.2 Federal Law "On the Enactment of the Town Planning Code of the Russian Federation" dated December 29, 2004 No. 191-FZ (as amended by the Federal Law "On Amendments to Urban planning code Russian Federation and individual legislative acts Russian Federation” dated July 27, 2010 No. 240-FZ). They inform that the construction, engineering, survey SRO is obliged to return to organizations or individual entrepreneurs that have terminated their membership in the relevant partnership, the funds they paid from the compfund, if the following conditions are met:
1) obtaining permission from this SRO for a certain type or types of work excluded on August 1, 2010 from the official list of types of work on engineering surveys, for the preparation project documentation, for the construction, reconstruction, overhaul of capital construction facilities that affect the safety of capital construction facilities;
2) the person’s lack of access to other types of work (lack of other types of work in the admission of the SRO);
3) termination of membership in this SRO not earlier than two and not later than 6 months from the date of exclusion of the types of work reflected in the admission from the official classifier of the list (that is, from September 1, 2010 to January 1, 2011).
Note that only if all three of the above conditions are met self-regulatory organization is obliged to return the contributions to the compensation fund to the members who left the membership in full.
For a return Money was given a period of no more than 10 calendar days after termination of membership. The day of termination of membership is determined by the day of registration of an application from an individual entrepreneur or a legal entity to withdraw from the SRO.
Due to the fact that several years have already passed since the period of time allotted for the official termination of membership in the SRO, these grounds seem to be irrelevant.
The City Planning Code defines only a few assumptions for making payments from the compensation fund of a self-regulatory organization. Money can be returned if it was erroneously transferred to the SRO account; transferred for the placement of funds of the SRO compensation fund in order to maintain and increase it; used to make payments as a result of the onset of joint and several liability for the obligations of its members arising from the infliction of harm.

Assignment of rights to an apartment in case of bankruptcy of the developer
Igor, June 30, 2017, 15:56

Hello. The apartment in the Su-155 building is fully paid. Treaty equity participation according to 214-FZ, it is registered with the state registration authorities. There is a positive court decision on inclusion in the register of claims. The act of acceptance is not...

validity of the reasons for missing the deadline for filing a claim
Larisa, May 25, 2017, 16:01

Good evening! By the decision of the Arbitration Court of the Voronezh Region of August 21, 2016, the NPC-Stroy consumer housing and construction cooperative was declared bankrupt. Bankruptcy proceedings are open for 6 months. I am a shareholder of a cooperative and bought a 2-room apartment...

Hello! This is the situation, we ordered a monument in November 2016, now, in May, we just decided to find out what happened to our monument, and the company turned out to be bankrupt. What should we do? Can I get back the amount paid?

Bankruptcy: Legislation

Bankruptcy: Litigation

In order to recognize the claim of the shareholder as justified and include it in the register of creditors' claims, it is necessary to provide evidence of the existence of an agreement providing for the transfer of residential premises and payment under this agreement

part 6

In addition, as follows from the circumstances of the case, at present the partnership has taken measures to improve office work, in particular, another staff member has been introduced into the apparatus of NP Avangard. At the same time, the measures taken to improve the activities of the partnership, so out of 45 appeals received from 08-05.20075, responses to 41 appeals were sent to applicants in set time, and for 4 the deadline for the answer has not yet come and they are in work.
According to Clause 11 of the Rules for conducting a self-regulatory organization of arbitration managers inspecting the activities of its members, approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of June 25, 2003 No. 366, a mail notification of delivery of a copy of the audit report to a partnership member must be stored with a copy of the audit report in a self-regulatory organization of arbitration managers. Within the meaning of this provision of Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of June 25, 2003 No. 366, NP Avangard is obliged to send a copy of the act to the manager and keep the notifications of delivery received from the postal institution in its documentation.
As a violation of Rosregistration, it pointed out the absence of mail notifications of the delivery of documents to Sobolev K.V., Mukhin S.V., Lychagin A.M., Glagazin A.N., Sorokapud N.A., Sokolov N.Yu., Belokopyt A.V.
Notifications to Sobolev K.V. and Lychagin A.M. received at the post office and are available in the files on the relevant complaints. As follows from the circumstances of the case, the documents were sent to the rest of the insolvency practitioners to their home address by registered by mail with notification of receipt, as follows from the registers of shipments and postal receipts. However, the mail notifications were not returned by the post office. Thus, the obligation to provide documents to the members of the partnership has been fulfilled, and the absence of mail notifications cannot be a circumstance that is the basis for the exclusion of NP Avangard from the unified state register self-regulatory organizations, in connection with repeated violations of the Federal Law of October 26, 2002 No. 127-FZ “On Insolvency (Bankruptcy)”, since NP Avangard took the necessary actions.
As follows from the circumstances of the case, in the course of an unscheduled inspection, Rosregistration established the formal nature of inspections by NP Avangard of the activities of partnership members, which is proved by the fact that, based on complaints against members of the partnership, Zheleznyak E.A., Saltykov A.V., Pulyaevsky V.M., Sokolova SV, Sulimova V.V. The audit of the partnership found no violations, while the said arbitration managers were brought to administrative responsibility at the request of Rosregistration. At the same time, the regulatory body believes that NP Avangard made unreasonable decisions based on the results of the verification of partnership members V.V. Motorzhin, A.A. Timakov, V.V. Ratkovsky, A.M. Lychagin, E.V. Zadvornova.
However, the very fact of the audit testifies to the control of NP "Avangard" over the activities of its members. At the same time, as follows from the circumstances of the case, in the appeals received by NP Avangard, in most cases there was no indication of the circumstances for which the members of the partnership were subsequently brought to administrative responsibility. Documents and information for consideration of complaints are submitted by interested parties, and as of the date of the inspection, the bodies of NP Avangard did not have information about possible violations of the law.
At the same time, according to the results of a re-check in the activities of the partnership members - arbitration managers Zheleznyak E.A., Saltykov A.V., Motorzhina V.V., Timakov A.A., Ratkovsky V.V., Zadvornova E.V., Lychagin A.M., violations were revealed and the materials were transferred to the disciplinary committee of the partnership to resolve the issue of imposing disciplinary action. By the decision of the board of NP “Avangard” dated 10.08.2007, the arbitration manager Lychagin A.M. brought to disciplinary responsibility in the form of exclusion from the partnership.
The above circumstances are confirmed by data on additional inspections, as well as an extract from the minutes of the partnership board meeting.
In accordance with paragraph 3 of Art. 45 of the Federal Law of October 26, 2002 No. 127-FZ “0 insolvency (bankruptcy)”, the partnership must send a list of candidates within five days from the date of receipt of the court request. At the same time, it should be noted that the self-regulatory organization of arbitration managers in order to fulfill the requirements of paragraph 3 of Art. 45 of the Federal Law of October 26, 2002 No. 127-FZ “On Insolvency (Bankruptcy)” must first, in order to compile the list, obtain the consent of the arbitration managers themselves, which is also provided for in paragraph 1 of Art. 45 of the Federal Law of October 26, 2002 No. 127-FZ “On Insolvency (Bankruptcy)”. In addition, by virtue of the provisions of paragraph 5 of Art. 45 of the Federal Law of October 26, 2002 No. 127-FZ “On Insolvency (Bankruptcy)”, which regulates the procedure for appointment in case of non-submission of the list by a self-regulatory organization.
When checking the activities of the partnership for the audited period, 3 violations of the five-day deadline for sending the list of candidates for arbitration managers to the arbitration court were established, which is approximately 0.5% of the total number of appointments for the audited period. The specified number of identified violations of the requirements of Art. 45 of the Federal Law of October 26, 2002 No. 127-FZ “0 insolvency (bankruptcy)” is insignificant and confirms that in more than 99% of cases NP Avangard properly fulfills the obligation to send a list of candidates for arbitration managers to the arbitration court within five days term.
In addition, as follows from the circumstances of the present case and the defendant's arguments, the lists of candidates for arbitration managers to the Moscow Arbitration Court for the bankruptcy proceedings of PromKomStroy LLC in case No. A40-60824 / 06-95-1132 “B” were sent on 31.08. 2006, within 5 working days after receiving the ruling of the Moscow Arbitration Court dated September 18, 2006 in case No. A40-60824 / 06-95-132 “B”, because September 30, 2006 and October 1, 2006 are non-working days.
Violation of the five-day deadline for filing lists with the Moscow Arbitration Court in relation to Expoline LLC in case No. A40-53727 / 06-YUZ-Yu71 “B” and in relation to RP Instal RU LLC in case No. A40-74013 / 06-123- 1147 “B” is due to the difficulties in obtaining the consent of arbitration managers to be appointed as an arbitration manager for bankruptcy proceedings in the above cases.
At the same time, when assessing these violations arbitration court taken into account that these 3 violations of paragraph 3 of Art. 45 of the Federal Law of October 26, 2002 No. 127-FZ “On Insolvency (Bankruptcy)” did not interfere with the legal proceedings and the appointments were made. In addition, as follows from the circumstances of the present case and the arguments of NP “Avangard” on the fact of the above violations of paragraph 3 of Art. 45 of the Federal Law of October 26, 2002 No. 127-FZ “On insolvency (bankruptcy)”, the partnership sent a warning to the head of the Moscow branch to prevent repeated violations. At the same time, by the decision of the board of NP “Avangard” dated 10.08.2007, the arbitration manager Lychagin A.M. brought to disciplinary responsibility in the form of exclusion from the partnership.