Features of the appointment and production of judicial construction and technical expertise

Jungle Cars Trip Multiplayer - Invite your friends!

Game: Perform tasks and rest cool.9 people play!

Play game

Judicial construction and technical expertise in civil proceedings should be appointed at the request of any of the parties (conditionally mandatory appointment provided by law) in the event of a dispute between the construction customer and the contractor regarding the shortcomings of the work performed or the reasons for their occurrence (clause 5, article 720 of the Civil Code). If such a requirement is not stated, an examination can be made (the statutory appointment is not provided for by law) when considering disputes between the contractor and the customer regarding the cause of death or damage to the construction object (Art. 741, 742 GK), the quality of the work performed, the causes of the occurrence and development construction, their possible consequences (Articles 710,713, 715, 716, 721, 723, 724, 737, 748,753,754,757,761,762 of the Civil Code).

If it becomes necessary to establish the presence (absence) of deviations from town-planning and construction norms and rules and their nature, the court may seek the help of a construction expert in deciding whether to recognize the right of ownership of a building by the person who unauthorized construction (Article 222). , 263 GK), as well as issues related to the safety of construction work (Art. 751 GK).

It is widely practiced to conduct construction and technical expertise in the consideration of disputes over the ownership of real estate in the housing sector, the resolution of issues related to the division of real estate in shared and joint ownership, and the allocation of a share from it (Articles 252, 254, 258). GK).

Special construction and technical knowledge is necessary when establishing in court the fact of the presence of construction deficiencies, the reasons for their occurrence and development, the possibility of using construction objects (for example, individual houses, cottages) in accordance with their functional purpose and determining the amount of costs necessary to eliminate identified deficiencies.

The list of court situations that require resolution with the help of special construction and technical knowledge is, of course, not exhausted.

On the appointment of an examination of the court makes a decision (Art. 80 GIC). It should be noted that the data necessary for conducting research in the definition of the appointment of an examination in civil cases does not always have adequate completeness. So, sometimes the controversial buildings are not mentioned at all, whereas this indication has not only informational, but also procedural meaning: only in this way can they be presented to the expert. In addition, receiving in the prescribed manner (even indirectly) objects from the court, the expert is responsible for their safety, which predetermines the choice of those or other research methods. If buildings are not mentioned in the definition, the expert is formally free from such liability that is unacceptable.

The definition of the appointment of construction and technical expertise is addressed not only to the expert, but also to the owner (user), tenant of the disputed structure (land plot), it is for him a kind of instruction not to obstruct expert examination and research. At the same time, the definition often does not indicate the address of the household to be inspected, and in cases where only a part of the disputing parties belong to it, it is not indicated in any way.

Common situations include the situation when the definition of the appointment of a building-technical expertise does not indicate the shares, according to which the property should be divided, even if such information is contained in various documents that make up the case materials and often contradict each other. .

Sometimes part of the property to be divided includes buildings erected without the appropriate permits (illegally erected buildings). The determination of the possibility of their section is connected with the consideration of not only technical, but legal aspect - the construction of objects without a building permit is a deviation from the requirements of the legislation of the Russian Federation. In such cases, the court should specify whether such an object should be considered as an element of a household (the court may have only known reasons for it) or not. In practice, the need for such an indication in the definition, as a rule, is ignored, which entails the preparation by the expert and the sending of appropriate petitions to the court. This, in turn, increases the timing of proceedings in civil cases.

In arbitration proceedings, the fact that the procedure for appointing an examination has changed significantly since the entry into force of the existing AIC has been very significant for construction and technical expertise. According to the previously existing AIC (1995) in accordance with Part I of Art. 66 The examination was appointed by the court only at the request of the parties. At the same time, the role of the adversarial principle was clearly exaggerated and there was no provision providing for the arbitration court the right to initiate examination in necessary cases on its own initiative. In the practice of arbitration proceedings, difficulties arose in resolving complex cases when the parties did not make petitions for examination due to economic considerations, and the court could not on its own initiative appoint it because of the absence of a legal norm. At the same time, it was impossible to resolve the case properly without an expert opinion. Created a "vicious circle" situation 1. The new AIC has significantly changed this provision, giving the court the opportunity to appoint an examination on its own initiative (art. 82). At the same time, the legislator listed a number of situations when this possibility is subject to mandatory implementation.

Considering that expert construction and technical studies on cases considered in arbitration, as a rule, are very lengthy, examination should be appointed at the earliest stages of the process, i.e. in preparing the case for trial (Chapter 14 of the APC). Already at this stage, the court has the right to decide on the appointment of the examination and call experts to the court session (Section 3, part 1, Art. 135 of the APC).

In the arbitration process, as well as in civil proceedings, an examination may be appointed and carried out in order to secure evidence and on behalf of the court. Thus, in accordance with Art. 72 APC a person involved in the case and fearing that the submission to the arbitration court of the necessary evidence will be impossible, has the right to apply to the same court with a statement about their security. As applied to the construction and technical expertise, this happens in those situations when, during the construction of a building object, certain aspects (properties) that are essential to the cause may be hidden during the performance of work. First of all, these are foundations, engineering communications, power grids, and so on. Examination in order to provide evidence at a time specified by the court will allow in this case to fix and investigate the results of the completed construction work that is the subject of an arbitration dispute.

The court order to conduct an examination can be given in two cases:

- when the objects of expert research are in the territory of another subject of the Russian Federation:

- when experts or an expert institution, in whose staff there are knowledgeable persons with a narrow specialization, necessary to conduct specific construction and technical studies, carry out their activities in the territory of another subject of the Russian Federation.

Judicial construction and technical examinations are periodically carried out by persons whose main activity is carried out outside the framework of procedural relations. For construction experts who are employees of the KEM of the Ministry of Justice of Russia, the production of construction and technical expertise is the main activity.

Both those and others, as a rule, have a higher education, qualification of a civil engineer, experience in various branches of the construction industry or design and research institutes of the corresponding profile.

In the course of the implementation of expert activities, especially at its first stages, they often face problems caused by the specifics of the work of a knowledgeable person in the judicial sphere. The work of a forensic construction expert — at all its stages — differs significantly from the activities of both the specialist working in the construction industry and the overwhelming majority of forensic experts engaged in the production of “traditional” forensic studies — trasologi, handwriting scientists, materials scientists, etc. In general terms, the following specifics can be said.

1. The questions that are usually posed to a construction expert are extremely diverse, and the knowledge gained during the preparation of a person in a university course on his chosen specialty and acquired in the course of practical activity is often not enough to answer them. This makes it necessary for an expert to master related specialties, expand the amount of special knowledge, and acquire new skills. Realizing the impossibility of accumulation by one person of the entire amount of knowledge required for successful construction and technical expertise, the expert should be able to involve other people with narrow professional knowledge (installation, commissioning, operation and repair of electrical, plumbing and other) to solve problems related to the production of expertise. equipment of buildings, structures and structures, soil mechanics, hydrogeology, construction ecology, dendrology, etc.). Such interaction can be carried out in the form of receiving consultations, reference data, conducting joint research (comprehensive examination), etc.

2. A person knowledgeable in the field of construction as an expert or specialist, unlike his colleague, whose activities are carried out in the construction industry, is subject to procedural restrictions, which implies that he has certain legal knowledge. Procedural norms establish the order of research, the form of their presentation in the expert opinion (including the use of special terminology), have a certain impact on the behavioral side of the expert in the process of work. So, on what issues are raised by the body (person) who appointed the expertise, depends on the amount of upcoming research.

The adequacy of the materials that must be submitted to the expert to conduct the study, their admissibility and relevance to the case is established by the judge. The time of the examination is determined by the time limits of the proceedings established by law. Expand the range of questions and objects under study, extend the study dates if necessary, only if the expert complies with procedural requirements and regulatory departmental documents. The procedural regulation, in particular, forces a selective approach to the question of the possibility of investigating buildings - elements of a disputed homeownership to determine the possibility of their real section; it does not allow the expert to make a judgment about the monetary compensation to the party in the case when, in essence, this action at first glance seems justified. Let us dwell on this in more detail.

Often, property to be divided includes buildings erected without proper permission (unauthorized buildings). The determination of the possibility of their section is connected with the consideration of not only the technical, but also the legal aspect.

According to the established practice, such structures are not investigated by the expert and are not taken into account neither in determining the value of a household, nor in developing options for its division, because the ownership of a building arises from the moment it is accepted for use and legally registered with local authorities. Consequently, prior to the commissioning and legal registration of a dispute on the division of buildings (and this, above all, a dispute over ownership) cannot be resolved by the court, since this right has not yet arisen and may not arise if it is established that the house was erected with deviations from the project or with gross violations of the requirements of building and town planning norms and rules (Art. 222 of the Civil Code).

At the same time, limiting, without any indication of the court’s instructions, to the study of only buildings accepted for operation and legally registered, the expert does not take into account the fact that the court has the right to make a section of an unfinished building (and, therefore, not registered) if "taking into account the degree of its readiness, it is possible to determine individual parts to be separated with the subsequent technical possibility of bringing the house to the end" (resolution of the Plenum of the RF Armed Forces of 10.06.1980 No. 4). The court may decide on the division of an unregistered building, for example, if it is established that "the developer deliberately fails to take measures to legalize the registration of the house in order to avoid a court dispute with family members who participated in the construction."

Thus, independently excluding structures not registered in the established manner from among the objects to be investigated, the expert goes beyond the limits of his competence. In this situation, it seems that he should take advantage of the law provided for by law and file a petition for the presentation of data defining the range of objects to be subject to expert research.

Now about the compensation for the deviation (down) from the ideal share actually allocated to the co-owner of the part of the household. The question of its size is often put before the courts by a construction expert. Experts refer to this ambiguously. One can only understand this question if the notion of “compensation” sees two of its sides: one is the value expression of the difference between the ideal and the actually allocated share (calculated by calculations, the expert performs purely technical work and does not go beyond its competence); the other is a decision making, the essence of which is predetermined by the literal meaning of this concept (“compensation” - compensation, reward).

It is up to the court to decide whether to oblige any of the parties to pay to the other party the amount determined by the expert, and if paid, to what extent (in whole or in part). When making such a decision, the court performs its inherent actions, including a volitional moment in relation to the participants of the civil process, the presence of which predetermines the prohibition of the use of the term “compensation” by an expert. The expert, resolving this issue, should in his conclusion only state the difference between the value expression of the co-owner’s ideal share in the ownership of the house (household) and the value of the part of the disputed property (objects) offered to allocate and determine its value.

In accordance with paragraph 5 of Art. 252 of the Civil Code, the owner, who received compensation for the share, loses the ownership of the household and acquires the right to its value equivalent. In this case, of course, the ratio of shares in the ownership of the property is changing. Along with questions about the technical feasibility of allocating a share and options for its implementation to allow an expert, it is often asked how the ratio of shares has changed after the allocation. In such cases, the expert should determine not the "amount of shares in the ownership of household ownership", but the proportion corresponding to each modified part of the converted building and land, otherwise the expert will answer the "legal" question of legal significance. The expert also has no right to draw conclusions about the compliance of the developed options with the interests of the disputing parties, about the expediency of one or another section option, since the solution of these issues is exclusively within the competence of the court.

3. Due to their specificity, the definition of the main objects of construction and technical expertise deserves special attention. These are buildings, structures, structures, engineering communications and territories functionally associated with them, the procedural status of which is not legally defined.

In the epistemological (cognitive) terms, these objects of construction and technical expertise, as already noted, play the role of material evidence (sources of evidentiary information), but for objective reasons they cannot be attached to the case file. Even their inspection sometimes difficult to hold. This is explained primarily by the contradictions in the current legislation: for example, on the one hand, the resolution (definition) on the appointment of an examination is mandatory for all citizens to perform without exception, and on the other hand, in accordance with the constitutional principle of inviolability of the home (the most common object of construction and technical expertise) никто не вправе нарушать его против воли проживающих в нем лиц, за исключением случаев, предусмотренных законом, либо при наличии судебного решения, вынесение которого на практи ке часто преследует цель обеспечить доступ эксперта к спорному объекту недвижимости. Если сделать это не представляется возможным, эксперту, как правило, не удается провести натурные исследования (судебные осмотры с участием эксперта-строителя традиционно не проводятся).

Таким образом, следует сказать о том, что влиятельности экспертов-строителей имеет место весьма значительный, но никак не отрегулированный законодательно этап производства экспертизы - экспертный осмотр на месте. Отсутствие процессуальной регламентации его проведения создает много проблем. На практике они находят свое разрешение, однако до тех пор, пока данный вопрос не будет решен законодателем, позиции эксперта останутся в этой части уязвимыми.

С такого рода проблемами сталкиваются обычно эксперты-строители и отчасти эксперты, занимающиеся производством пожарно-технической, автотехнической и товароведческой экспертиз; представителям других экспертных специальностей эта проблема незнакома, так как в их распоряжение объекты исследования поступают непосредственно, а не путем указания их адреса в постановлении (определении) о назначении экспертизы.

4. Принципиальная отличительная черта исследований, проводимых экспертом-строителем по гражданским делам, связанным с реальным разделом домовладений между совладельцами, состоит в том, что в процессе их проведения он получает информацию, использование которой предполагает преобразование объекта экспертизы в будущем. Таким образом, преобразовательные задачи носят прогностический характер, тогда как перечисленные выше исследования, проводимые в рамках строительно-технической экспертизы, впрочем, как и исследования, проводимые в рамках судебных экспертиз других родов, либо имеют ретроспективный характер (получение знаний о прошлом на основе знаний о настоящем или другом прошлом событии, факте), либо предполагают установление свойств, состояния и отношений материального объекта на момент его исследования.

О преобразовании исследуемого объекта экспертами других специальностей идти речь может только при подготовке профилактических предложений, однако это элемент экспертной деятельности, а не процесса решения экспертной задачи, поставленной органом (лицом), назначающим судебную экспертизу. Несколько особняком стоят случаи, когда эксперт, реализуя свое право на инициативу, излагает профилактические предложения непосредственно в заключении эксперта (процессуальная форма профилактической деятельности); при этом формально они являются частью решения экспертной задачи.

5. Следующей особенностью деятельности судебного эксперта-строителя, привлекаемого судом при разбирательстве гражданских споров о возможности и вариантах реального раздела домовладения между его собственниками, является то, что на него не распространяется общее положение, в соответствии с которым при надлежащем "производстве экспертизы как процессуального действия эксперт полностью может работать в "заочном" режиме, т.е. не участвовать непосредственно в судебном заседании".

В тех случаях, когда экспертиза назначается для установления сведений о фактах, имевших место в прошлом либо существующих в настоящем, рассматриваются лишь конкретные реалии и потребность в допросе эксперта может быть вызвана лишь недостаточной ясностью изложения их хода и результатов исследования в заключении, отсутствием должной обоснованности выводов либо неполнотой исходных данных. Это позволяет сделать вывод о невысоком качестве заключения эксперта и как следствие - о невозможности в полной мере использовать его в соответствии с той ролью, которая ему отводится в ходе судебного доказывания.

Задавая вопросы эксперту на суде, участники и субъекты процесса уясняют детали происшедшего (происходящего) события (явления): его причины, механизм, условия и обстоятельства становятся более понятными, информация о подлежащих установлению фактах (фактических данных) - более полной. Таким образом, при определенных условиях могут быть решены практически все проблемы, связанные с "расшифровкой" результатов ретроспективных и актуалистических экспертных исследований, ибо прошлое и настоящее реально и одновариантно.

Иначе обстоит дело с прогностическими исследованиями - разработкой вариантов реального раздела объектов недвижимости. Это форма суждения о будущем, а оно всегда многовариантно, и стороны по делу, стремящиеся разделить имущество, часто склонны к предложению и рассмотрению все новых и новых вариантов преобразования спорных жилых домов, участков земли и пр., что побуждает судей привлекать экспертов к участию в судебном заседании. Существует, кроме того, и чисто психологическая подоплека этой проблемы - желание и потребность судьи, предвидящего значительную эмоциональную нагрузку, обусловленную накалом человеческих страстей, который сопутствует судебным слушаниям дел данной категории, найти опору в лице эксперта.

6. Задачи, решаемые экспертом-строителем при судебном разбирательстве гражданских споров о праве собственности на домовладения, не согласуются с некоторыми общими характеристиками "неидентификационных" задач. Так, по мнению Ю. Г. Корухова, "одна из первых задач всякого (курсив мой. - А. Б.) неидентификационного исследования - установление причинной связи между наблюдаемым результатом и возможными причинами его наступления". Примерно то же находим мы и у А. К. Педенчука: "Заключение судебного эксперта... является способом опосредованного представления информации о происшедшем событии".

Из сказанного следует, что неидентификационные исследовании всегда находятся во взаимосвязи с тем или иным событием, которое влечет за собой определенные изменения его вещной обстановки. Что же касается таких исследований в строительно-технической экспертизе, то вещная обстановка (элементы домовладения) здесь не претерпевает никаких изменений, связанных с событием, повлекшим за собой судебные действия, в том числе назначение экспертизы, поскольку этим событием является спор о праве собственности (вещном праве) и происходит он в сфере не материальных, а правовых отношений. Иначе говоря, объекты экспертного исследования (жилые дома, земельные участки и пр.) не могут содержать ту информацию о событии в "скрытом виде", которую выявляют и осмысливают судебные эксперты иных специальностей в процессе исследования. Эксперт-строитель при исследовании объектов недвижимости в ходе производства экспертиз собирает лишь ту информацию, изучение которой позволит ему решить вопросы, связанные с возможностью раздела (определения порядка пользования) строений, земельных участков между их совладельцами в соответствии с заданными судом условиями.

7. When appointing examinations in cases involving disputes over the ownership of real estate, the courts orient experts to multivariate answers, and here a question such as "develop possible options for the division of contentious household" is often found, which fundamentally distinguishes construction and technical expertise from forensic examinations. other genera (species), where, in accordance with the objectives of the expert study and the tasks to be solved, preference is given not to multivariate (alternative), but to unambiguous conclusions. For example, A. K. Pedenchuk, for example, associates an unambiguous solution of an expert task with the notion of truth of an expert’s conclusion: "The truth field ... we understand as a local zone of solutions of an expert task (against the background of the whole area of ​​its possible solutions), in which the conclusions objectively reflect circumstances of the case with an accuracy sufficient to make an unambiguous decision. " It can be explained as follows: one of the main tasks of the court proceedings is to establish the truth of the case, and expert research is focused on this. The truth is unequivocal in nature, therefore, the substantive and unambiguous answer of the expert is in essence satisfying the requirements of legal proceedings. However, “judicial proceedings cannot be completed only by stating the truth, some decision must be made in each case. Establishing the truth is only a prerequisite for such a decision, a necessary condition for its correctness. Therefore, knowing the truth in the case is not an end in itself, but only a means of achieving others, more broad objectives (common tasks of legal proceedings). "

When considering civil cases on claims regarding the division of real estate, truth is a prerequisite for litigation, and its purpose is effective resolution of a civil dispute, the achievement of which is largely determined by how fully the opinions of the parties are reflected in the expert opinion - their views the result of a section of homeownership or apartment building. These opinions may be diametrically opposed, mutually exclusive, but when developing variants of a section in any case, they must meet the requirements of technical and social norms.

Solve the tasks of this type only by a person who has the ability to predictive modeling - mental creation, and then graphic reproduction of the household to be transformed in accordance with the developed versions of its real section, which is absolutely not required from experts of other specialties, since they are engaged only in retrospective modeling i.e. recreating the events already occurred. This aspect of the activities of construction experts should not cause any particular problems for most of them, since they get design skills already during their studies at the university and fix them in the course of production activities (almost any builder dealt with project documentation).

8. When considering civil cases of this category, the participants in the judicial process (the parties to the case) may in some way influence the results of the expert study, i.e. they are entitled, in the manner prescribed by law, to state their vision of a transformed home ownership (residential building), and the expert should take this into account when developing options for the division of real estate between co-owners.

9. The specificity of the tasks considered in the framework of the construction and technical expertise determines the form of conclusions of the expert opinion. The fact is that if, when assigning examinations of other types, only questions are raised before an expert, then when assigning a building-technical expertise, apart from deciding questions (for example, "Is the real section of a dwelling house between co-owners possible according to their ideal ownership rights ? ") The expert is invited to develop options for such a section.

Depending on the results of the study, the answer may be given in a positive or negative form. If the answer to the question is positive (there is a possibility), the expert should graphically reproduce the object of the dispute - draw the boundaries, display the structural changes that the structures undergo as a result of the re-equipment provided by this version of the section, and accompany the graphical models with appropriate calculations. To concisely formulate the results of such studies is extremely difficult, therefore, in the final part, called "Conclusions", it is advisable to use the reference form of the answer, which reports that the expert has developed section options, and indicates the relevant pages of the conclusion. This form of conclusions seems to be optimal for the conclusions of the forensic building expert in the cases of this category.

This is in general terms the specifics of the judicial construction and technical expertise and, accordingly, the activities of the forensic construction expert.

Ответы на вопросы для самопроверки пишите в комментариях, мы проверим, или же задавайте свой вопрос по данной теме.