What’s happened?

In the Moscow region, near the village of Khlyabovo, a problem that occurred earlier has arisen again.

At one time, the Non-Commercial Partnership "Monakovo Club" registered ownership of the land under the roads in the village.

To guarantee public access and passage, the local administration established a public easement in June 2024. This confirmed that the land beneath the roads and sidewalks is public space for an unspecified number of persons.

Thus, the Administration has systematically rectified a situation where an unscrupulous developer, and then his successor, retained private ownership of the land under roads, using them as a means for financial gain. This practice by local governments is not new, but it is effective and has proven itself. A similar Resolution of the Mytishchi Urban Administration exists in the neighboring village, and other settlements in the Moscow Region also have similar regulations that normalize socio-economic situations.

As one resident writes: “For me, as the owner of a house in Khlyabovo, establishing a public easement is the only legal way to guarantee stable, safe, and unimpeded access to my property.

Currently, the road leading to my house is legally no one’s property—it’s not listed as a public road in the cadastral register, and therefore, formally, access to the house is always at risk. The security guards hired by the Monakovo Club non-profit partnership can block access at any time (this has already happened), demand money for non-existent services, or simply refuse entry without explanation.

This situation makes me, my family, and our guests completely dependent on the decisions of the Monakovo Club non-profit partnership and the actions of the security guards. And yet, we’re talking about the most basic right—to get home.

A public easement is a way to resolve the issue once and for all. It makes access to the house legal, permanent, and indisputable. An easement guarantees that anyone permitted to access it (be it relatives, couriers, ambulances, or emergency services) can access it safely. No permits, no conflicts.

Moreover, only with the establishment of an easement can one demand official recognition from the authorities, including its inclusion on maps, the organization of normal traffic, and so on. As long as the road "actually doesn’t exist," and everything depends on personal relationships with the non-profit partnership, I can’t feel protected.

This easement isn’t just about "passage." It’s about security, stability, and respect for property. It eliminates conflicts, arbitrary actions, and the endless tension that now accompanies simple things like calling a taxi or entertaining guests.

In response, the owner of the land beneath the roads, the Monakovo Club non-profit partnership, filed a lawsuit demanding that this executive regulation be overturned.

All vertical levels of power are interested in preserving the state regulation, which systematically enshrines two years of efforts to normalize the negative socio-economic situation in the village of Khlyabovo.

The risk of destroying these efforts exists only in the judicial system, where it is possible to cancel a ruling in the so-called "lawyer corridor": under the management of the Mytishchi City Court by the Chairperson (Zimina A.E.) - the judges are lawyers, under the patronage of the Deputy Chairperson of the Moscow Regional Court (Gatsenko O.N.) - also the judges are lawyers, and: the first wife/business partner of the Chairperson of the Non-Profit Partnership, Magonya E.G. - a judge of the Moscow Regional Court - the panel for administrative cases (the case is in the right hands?), the mother of the Non-Profit Partnership representative - lawyer Rossinskaya M.V. - the chairperson of the panel for criminal cases of the Moscow Regional Court. 

The uniqueness of the situation is that the government regulation enforcing citizens’ rights and the law is protected. However, the trial court in Mytishchi is clearly acting against the law, siding with an unscrupulous non-profit partnership.

Now, a group of residents who advocated for maintaining the easement have filed an appeal, considering the court’s decision unfair and illegal. The appeal hearing will take place on October 22. Will the panel of judges be able to conduct the trial fairly and lawfully? After all, they are challenging a state regulation that ensures citizens’ rights of passage and access to homes and the reservoir.

What is the essence of the residents’ complaints about the court’s decision?

Residents point to a number of what they consider gross errors made by the court. The question arises: is this simply a judicial error that can be corrected on appeal, or is it a patently unjust decision? ("Who said corruption?")

1. The court ignored the provisions of Resolution No. 50 of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated December 25, 2018, which stipulates that courts are not entitled to discuss the advisability of adopting an act by a government body, as this falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of these executive bodies. However, the trial court assumed the functions of land surveyor. Six expert studies on land surveying issues were conducted, and the court, according to residents, clearly selected the expert opinion most convenient for the desired decision. Moreover, the judge deemed the expert opinion of the Institute of Expertise under the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation insufficient without questioning the expert. 

This situation confirms the relevance of the initiative of Supreme Court Chairman Igor Viktorovich Krasnov, who proposed legislatively strengthening judicial discipline in terms of enforcing decisions of higher courts.

2. The court ignored experts and evidence.

• The first expert assessment (by the Research Institute of Expertise under the Ministry of Justice) showed that the established easement was the only and optimal way to ensure people’s access to their homes and water. The experts concluded that the land beneath the roads has the status of "public areas," and the easement does not infringe on the rights of the owners.

• Despite all parties, including Monakovo Club, requesting that this expert be called for questioning, the court refused. Instead, an expert assessment was commissioned from another organization, GeoService. Coincidentally, GeoService is located in Pushkino, where Anzhelika Yevgenyevna Zimina began her judicial career and later became the chairperson of the Mytishchi City Court. GeoService was previously mentioned in more than 10 court cases involving her.

• Residents believe the new assessment was conducted with violations: the experts failed to notify all stakeholders, and in their conclusions, they suggested people access the water not directly, but through a nearby forest, "climbing over a fence." This is not optimal, safe, or barrier-free access, especially for the elderly and those with limited mobility.

3. The court didn’t even consider the findings of its own expert review. In its final decision, the court ignored the fact that even the GeoService expert review recognized the roads as public spaces. Residents provided documents proving that the land beneath the roads, according to urban planning documents, was allocated for the street and road network—that is, by law, for public spaces. Even the prosecutor’s office argued that the non-profit partnership, as the owner of these lands, is obligated to ensure their safety. The court ignored these arguments.

4. The plaintiffs claim no actual infringement of their rights. Residents are asking: what exactly did the easement violate? Monakovo Club and the residents who supported it were unable to clearly explain to the court how establishing public access to the roads infringes on their personal rights on the adjacent properties. The easement has been in effect for over a year, but no evidence of actual harm has been presented, other than a hypothetical loss of investment appeal.

The judge, in accordance with Article 213, paragraph 8 of the Code of Administrative Procedure of the Russian Federation, was obliged to find out:

• Have the rights, freedoms and legitimate interests of the administrative plaintiff been violated?

• Were the requirements of the regulations establishing the authority’s powers, the procedure for adopting the act, and the procedure for its publication complied with? The administration confirmed compliance with all procedures, but no actual evidence of rights violations has emerged.
  

5. The court made its decision without inviting key participants.

• One of the legal grounds for the easement was provided by the Ministry of Property Relations of the Moscow Region, but it was not involved in the case, and its rights were affected by the decision.

• After the trial began, part of the land through which the easement runs was sold to new owners, including an underage girl (the non-profit partnership sold part of the road to her!). By law, this person should be brought to justice with the appropriate social worker, which is a serious procedural violation.

What do residents want?

The complainants: the Administration, the Prosecutor’s Office, and residents are asking the appellate court to overturn the Mytishchi court’s decision and remand the case for review within the legal framework, rather than in the "lawyer’s corridor."

Residents believe the trial judge was pressured and forced to distort the case’s arguments. They hope that their appeals, previously sent to I.V. Krasnov during his tenure as Prosecutor General, will help keep the appellate process on track.

The speed with which the appeal hearing was scheduled (9 days after the prosecutor’s office filed the motion) shows that the "lawyer corridor" is clearly in a hurry.

Will the panel of appellate judges be able to maintain the purity of their robes and faith in fair justice?

The uniqueness of the situation is that a government regulation protecting citizens’ rights is being challenged. The easement was established by the executive branch within its authority, and the right and the law are protected by the prosecutor’s office. On the other side is an unscrupulous non-profit partnership, whose chairman is a lawyer and, according to residents, is exploiting its established connections in the Moscow region courts. And patrons in the judicial system ensure this. 

And who are the judges...? In the Court of Appeal? We’ll see on October 22nd.

To be continued