Ðóñ Eng During last 365 days Approved articles: 1918,   Articles in work: 327 Declined articles: 645 

Grudtsyna, L.Y., Lagutkin, A.V. Legal problems regarding recognition of proprietary titles to underground construction objects in Russia.

Published in journal "Administrative and municipal law", 2014-5 in rubric "ADMINISTRATIVE AND MUNICIPAL LAW AND PROPERTY LAW", pages 461-468.

Resume: The object of studies in this article involves social relations regarding legal regulation of recognition of proprietary title (including private property) to the underground construction objects in Russia, and first of all in its megalopolises. Before mining mineral resources, there is need for the survey and development of the deposit of mineral resources (open, underground, combined, or underwater means). Development of deposit with the open method is implemented from the land and includes strip mining and actual mining. Development by underground means includes underground digging, such as crossing, galleries, pit shafts, etc. The underground development mostly concerns preparatory work, excavation support, actual mining. However, without exploring the underground territories, which is implemented by the constructors of underground objects (underground constructions) it is not possible to mine mineral resources. In fact, an investor (a business) invests large money to preliminary and detailed exploration, including digging, use of deep pits, shallow mines and pit shafts, then underground drill holes, etc. All of those seemingly complementary preparatory important technological works guarantee the success in mining and excavation of mineral resources from the subsoil. The result of these preparatory technological works is quite specific. Object of underground construction serving the shafts and mines are built underground and they are in use for many years (usually the entire term of existence of the mining enterprise. They include cameras, tunnels (for transportation, utilities, special purpose, etc.), shaft insets, crosses, air pits, etc. All of these objects for the purpose of their more caring and economic use may be privatized and registered as property of natural persons and legal entities, which have built them and are using them. Another argument in favor of introduction of the regime of private property for underground buildings and constructions is the constant need for their repair and technical maintenance (including the technology for the lengthening of the life cycle of the used underground constructions), and only the owners would provide for them. The state often fails to efficiently manage underground objects, which due to their complicated character, working conditions and difficulties in access require scientifically substantiated and even unique repair technologies, and the state represented by its competent bodies often does not adequately provide for them. The article contains arguments in favor of legislative regulation of the possibility to privatize (to obtain public registration of property title) the objects of underground constructions in general, and, more specifically, in the megalopolises. The most efficient development of underground territory in the future shall be possible with the union between state and business, for which there shall be a legalized opportunity to register proprietary title to the underground construction objects, which shall serve as a sensible argument in favor of economic and careful attitude of the geological resources of our planet.

Keywords: geological resources, underground construction, subsoil, natural resources, mineral resources, undergrounds territory, capital underworking, private property, environment, business.

DOI: 10.7256/1999-2807.2014.5.11372

This article can be downloaded freely in PDF format for reading. Download article

D Cadastre. Jantien E.Stoter. – NCG, Nederlandse Commissie voor Geodesie, Delft, July, 2004. 342 p.
D registration of real property in Denmark. J.E. Stoter, E.M. Sorensen, and L. Bodum. In Proceedings of FIG Working Week, Athens, Greece, May 2004.
Developments of the 3D Cadastre in Norway. Tor Valstad. In Proceedings of FIG Working Week, Munich, Germany, October 2006.
Tor Valstad. «How Is the Development in the World of Cadastre towards More than Two Dimensions?». In Proceedings of FIG Working Week, Eilat, Israel, May 2006.
Geoekologiya Moskvy: Metodologiya i metody otsenki sostoyaniya gorodskoy sredy / Otv. red. G.L. Koff, E.A. Likhacheva, D.A. Timofeev. – M.: Media-Press, 2006.
Kartoziya B.A. Vvedenie v gornuyu nauku «stroitel'naya geotekhnologiya» i problemu «osvoenie podzemnogo prostranstva». – M., 2008.-S. 59.
Kartoziya B.A., Korchak A.V., Lagutkin A.V. Nekotorye nauchnye, proizvodstvennye, pravovye i obrazovatel'nye zadachi stroitel'noy geotekhnologii i osvoeniya podzemnogo prostranstva. K XX-letiyu Pervoy Vsesoyuznoy nauchnoy konferentsii po problemam osvoeniya podzemnogo prostranstva. – M.: Moskovskiy gosudarstvennyy gornyy universitet, 2013. – S. 23.
Kartoziya B.A., Nasonov I.D., Shchuplik M.N. Sostoyanie i zadachi nauchnykh issledovaniy pri osvoenii podzemnogo prostranstva gorodov // Gornyy zhurnal 1995. ¹ 8. – S. 43-47.
Klyukin B.D. Razvitie zakonodatel'noy bazy gornogo prava RF: problemy i puti sovershenstvovaniya / Aktual'nye problemy gornogo prava: Nauchnaya konferentsiya. Sbornik dokladov. – M., 2010.-S. 9.
Lagutkin A.V. Kontseptsiya stroitel'stva gornogo zakonodatel'stva Rossii / Materialy zasedaniya kruglogo stola po teme Gornoe pravo Rossii (30 maya 1994 g.).-M.: RAEN (gorno-metallurgicheskaya sektsiya), MGGU, 1994.-S. 7.
Perchik A.I. Problema pravovogo regulirovaniya nedropol'zovaniya na sovremennom etape / Materialy zasedaniya kruglogo stola po teme Gornoe pravo Rossii (30 maya 1994 g.).-M.: RAEN (gorno-metallurgicheskaya sektsiya), MGGU, 1994.-S. 19.
Shakhtnoe i podzemnoe stroitel'stvo. Uchebnik dlya vuzov. 3-e izd. V 2-kh tt. Tom 1 / B.A. Kartoziya, B.I. Fedunets, M.N. Shuplik i dr. – M.: MGGU, 2003.-S. 8.
Gulyaikhin V.N. Pravovoy mentalitet rossiyskikh grazhdan // NB: Voprosy prava i politiki. - 2012. - 4. - C. 108 - 133. URL: http://www.e-notabene.ru/lr/article_310.html
Gulyaikhin V.N. Dialektika estestvennogo i pozitivnogo prava kak istochnik obshchestvenno-pravovogo progressa // NB: Voprosy prava i politiki. - 2013. - 3. - C. 221 - 238. DOI: 10.7256/2305-9699.2013.3.559. URL: http://www.e-notabene.ru/lr/article_559.html
Lagutkin A.V., Grudtsyna L.Yu. O priznanii prava sobstvennosti
na ob'ekty podzemnogo stroitel'stva // Administrativnoe i munitsipal'noe pravo. - 2013. - 6. - C. 662 - 667. DOI: 10.7256/1999-2807.2013.06.10.
Zhidkikh A.A. Pravovoe regulirovanie i praktika uchastiya zarubezhnoy prokuratury v pravotvorchestve // NB: Voprosy prava i politiki. - 2013. - 10. - C. 104 - 130. DOI: 10.7256/2305-9699.2013.10.807. URL: http://www.e-notabene.ru/lr/article_807.html
Babin B.V. Pravo sobstvennosti narodov: mezhdunarodnoe i natsional'noe izmereniya // NB: Voprosy prava i politiki. - 2013. - 10. - C. 12 - 34. DOI: 10.7256/2305-9699.2013.10.9469. URL: http://www.e-notabene.ru/lr/article_9469.html

Correct link to this article:
just copy this link to clipboard