Significant violations of the minutes of the general meeting snt. What are the grounds and procedure for declaring the decision of the general meeting of SNT invalid? The procedure for recognizing the general meeting of SNT invalid

Any member of the organization can be chosen as chairman. Election is made by a simple majority. In order to exclude the influence of an unscrupulous chairman of the board on the general meeting, he and the members of the board can be deprived of the right to chair such a meeting by prescribing an appropriate clause in the regulations or charter. This legal nuance will help to re-elect the chairman without any problems.

Any citizen can be a secretary, even if he is not a member of the partnership. This position can be elected by general vote or appointed by a decision of the board.

Conducting a meeting is the following sequence of actions:

• handling of the opening speech;
• speakers' speeches;
• discussion of each report;
• vote;
• reading of the adopted decision and closing remarks.

Protocol

The most important document confirming all decisions of the meeting is the minutes. Particular attention is paid to the correctness and clarity of its filling.

The document displays the following items:

• what the meeting is about;
• the date, time and address are recorded;
• information about the participants is given (the so-called turnout list) and total members;
• clearly describes the agenda;
• the names of speakers and persons who criticized or supported;
• voting statistics are recorded for each of the questions;
• decisions made are recorded;
• followed by a record of the closing of the meeting;
• the document is signed at the end by the elected chairman and secretary (not board members!).

The finished protocol is deposited with the current chairman of the board.

It should be noted that inaccuracies in the information part are not taken into account even when citizens go to court, since they are not important for making a general decision. Therefore, many experts advise not to enter the names of all the members who took part in the debate. It is much more important to correctly spell out the decision made.

At the meeting itself, it is quite difficult for the secretary to avoid mistakes when drawing up the minutes. Therefore, in most cases, the document is drawn up after the meeting, in a calm atmosphere, with correct wording all items excluding contested in court.

Power of attorney

A member of the partnership has the right to send his representative to the meeting, to whom a power of attorney is pre-written. The document is certified by the chairman of the board (notarization is not required). Under this power of attorney, a citizen is allowed to vote.

A power of attorney can be issued to a family member, or to any person who is not a member of the organization (in this case, a notarized document is required). Cases are widespread when one member of the NST issues a power of attorney to another member. In some cases, one representative (participant of the partnership) may have several votes at once, received by proxy.

A member of the partnership is a person who has the right to own a plot. It is he who draws up the power of attorney.

Access to documents

In the event of a disputable situation, an ordinary member of the partnership may need to obtain a copy of the protocol or get acquainted with its contents. In most cases, the chairman of the board conducts just an introduction - he shows the paper, then the person signs on the card and leaves, barely remembering the contents. Formally, the law is respected, however, there is little benefit for the applicant from such familiarization.

To obtain a copy, you will need a request on behalf of the organization that needs the document. For example, a request can be filed by a court. But for this it is necessary to submit a statement of claim to the courts. The court will oblige the applicant to expel written request with acknowledgment of receipt (via mail), and the chairman will have to send a copy of the document, certified by the seal and personal signature.

Lawyers recommend that this issue be covered in advance in the organization's charter and clearly spelled out the mechanisms for providing documents for review by any of its members. Then it will be possible to avoid going to court due to the ambiguous interpretation of the law.

Going to court

There are frequent cases of challenging decisions taken by the general meeting, by one of the members of the organization or several of its participants. Basically, claims are made to the inaccuracy of the minutes - the document does not reflect the essence of what happened at the meeting. Decisions taken or violations of gardeners' rights are also contested.

Article 66 of the Federal Law provides for individual farming within horticultural partnership... An individual (as people who carry out gardening activities on their own are most often called) has the right to participate in the general meeting, but his voice is advisory. Such a person does not pay membership fees and does not participate in decision-making. Typically, such gardeners conclude an agreement on the use of the common infrastructure.

The user fee cannot be higher than the membership fee for members of the organization. In case of violation of the rights reflected in agreement, an individual must contact the board of the partnership with a statement (the document is sent via mail by letter with a notification of receipt). Knowledge about you may need. Such an application is submitted a maximum of twice and if it is not considered by the board, the gardener has the right to go to court with a claim. The court will only consider the violation of the clauses of the contract concluded between the gardener and the entire partnership.

Members of the organization have much more rights. They have the right to challenge the decisions of the general meeting. You can go to court within the next three years. And in case of violation of rights (for example, disconnecting from the water supply without written notice), a citizen can contact the police, and then turn on the water supply on his own, keeping the receipts for payment for the work of plumbers. And only after that, file a claim with the court, attaching checks (receipts), an agreement with a repair organization, an act on the performance of work. The purpose of such an appeal is to compensate for moral and financial damage. If a claim is filed against SNT in connection with an illegal decision, a copy of the minutes of the meeting is attached to the application and the clause of the organization's charter that was violated is indicated.

R E H E H AND E

In the name of the Russian Federation

<дата> Voskresensk Moscow region

Resurrection City Court of the Moscow Region consisting of:

presiding judge Kretova E.A.,

with the participation of lawyer A.A. Zanozina,

under the secretary Gulyaeva S.E.,

having examined in open court a civil case on the claim of FULL NAME12 against the chairman of the Gardening non-profit partnership<данные изъяты> FULL NAME1 on recognizing the minutes of the general meeting of SNT members invalid and restoring the right to the extent that existed before the violation of the right,

installed:

FULL NAME12 applied to the Voskresensk city court with a claim against the chairman of the Gardening non-profit partnership<данные изъяты> FULL NAME1 on the recognition of the minutes of the general meeting of members of SNT<данные изъяты> from<дата> completely invalid and restoration of the right to the extent that existed before the violation of the right. Motivated his claims by the fact that<дата> a general meeting of SNT members was held<данные изъяты> by the address:<адрес>, which addressed the following issues: election of members of the board of SNT<данные изъяты>; election of the chairman of the board; election of the audit commission. Following the consideration of the agenda items, the meeting made the following decisions: FULL NAME1, FULL NAME2, FULL NAME3, FULL NAME4 (not a member of SNT), FULL NAME5 (not a member of SNT), FULL NAME14 (not a member of SNT) were elected to the board. The plaintiff believes that the meeting was unauthorized and its minutes were invalid on the following grounds: the meeting was held in violation of Art. 21 p. 2 para. 6 of Federal Law No. 66-FZ dated<дата>(notification of the general meeting ... is sent no later than two weeks before the date of the meeting. The notification of the general meeting ... must indicate the content of the issues to be discussed); Of the SNT Charter, clause 6.4 (notification of the members of the partnership about holding a general meeting with the content of issues to be discussed can be carried out in writing "postcards, letters", by means of appropriate messages in the media or by calling by phone, as well as by placing appropriate announcements on information boards located on the territory of the partnership). The plaintiff, his neighbors and many other members of SNT were not properly notified of the meeting and learned about it after it was held. The plaintiff is a member of SNT and has the right to participate in the general meeting of SNT members and influence, through his participation, in decision-making. Thus, the plaintiff's right to participate in the life of the partnership and other members of the SNT in case of non-compliance with the legal procedure and the procedure for holding a general meeting in the SNT turned out to be significantly violated. The meeting was held in violation of Article 21, Clause 2, Section 7 of Federal Law No. 66-FZ dated<дата> and the Charter clause 6.4.1 (the general meeting of members of SNT is competent if more than 50% of the members of such an association are present at this meeting). The meeting was not attended by 51% of members of SNT, which is necessary for the competence of the meeting. According to the plaintiff, the number of SNT members present at the meeting, indicated in the extract from the minutes of the general meeting, is overstated by about three times. Persons who are not members of the partnership were elected to the board, which contradicts clause 1 of Art. 22 No. 66-ФЗ dated<дата> (the board of a horticultural, vegetable gardening or dacha non-profit association is elected by direct secret ballot from among its members ... unless otherwise provided by the charter). According to the SNT Charter<данные изъяты> p.6.5.2 The Board is elected from among the members of SNT for a period of 2 years by the general meeting. (ld 6-7, statement of claim).

In written explanations (ld 35-36) FULL NAME12 indicated that at the meeting<дата> 51% of SNT members were not present, this fact is not disputed by the defendant in the response to the statement of claim. The defendant did not provide a list of SNT members present at the meeting in the amount of 250 people; in the minutes of the general meeting of SNT members from<дата> the data of the voting results on the election as the chairman of the board of SNT are presented<данные изъяты> FULL NAME1: “for” - 243; Against - 3; "Abstained" - 4. In the extract from the protocol, which was submitted to the RF Federal Tax Service Inspectorate for<адрес> when registering name1 as chairman of SNT<данные изъяты> indicated: "for" - 238; Against - 9; "Abstained" - 4. There is no protocol of the counting commission, which must reflect the results of the vote and the composition of the counting commission itself, which must be elected by the general meeting of SNT members. Under these circumstances, it is impossible to establish how the voting took place, who carried out the counting of votes, the protocol was not signed by the secretary FULL NAME2, from the protocol it is seen that non-members of SNT were elected to the board and members of the audit commission. The procedure and procedure for preparing the general meeting of SNT members have been violated. The plaintiff was not properly notified about the place, time of the meeting and about those issues that were submitted to the meeting of SNT members<дата>, thus, the right of the plaintiff to participate in the meeting, the right to elect and be elected was violated. The defendant recognized the fact that the general meeting was incompetent, in connection with which the decisions made and passed at it are illegal, including on the election of members of the board, chairman, members of the audit commission, and the minutes of the general meeting from<дата>, in which these decisions are reflected, cannot be recognized as consistent with reality (ld 35-36).

At the hearing FULL NAME12 stated requirements supported in full, previously given to the court explanations confirmed. At the hearing<дата> explained that at the meeting<дата> was not present because he was not notified of this meeting. He explained that he comes to the garden on 20-25 May, earlier about the meetings held by his comrades verbally, about the meeting<дата> he was not notified. He explained that the secretary is obliged to keep the minutes of the meeting, however, the secretary's signature is not under the minutes or under other documents. Currently, OBEP according to<адрес> Completed check on misappropriation money members of SNT, in relation to abuse by the chairman of SNT. (p. 37-41). At the hearing<дата> explained that there are 81 members of SNT, many nonresident from<адрес>... There were no announcements of the meeting, no announcements by phone calls, postcards, or through the media. The fact that the announcement of the general meeting was posted at the gate of SNT cannot serve as a justification for properly notifying the members of SNT about the meeting, since it turns out that the plaintiff must appear in the garden in order to find out if the announcement was posted there. Considers that the defendant's statement that at the meeting is not true<дата> attended by 450 people. At this hearing, he explained that the defendant did not provide lists of registered persons at the meeting<дата> During the court hearing, the defendant recognized the absence of a quorum at the meeting<дата> The meeting was attended by non-members of SNT who took part in the voting. Non-members of SNT were elected to the board and audit committee. Signatures under the protocol from<дата> in the column "secretary" and in the extract from the minutes of the same meeting in the same column "secretary" are different from each other, which gives reason to assume that the signatures were made by different persons and different time... In the minutes of the general meeting of<дата> in the column "secretary FULL NAME2" signature is absent to date. Considers that under such circumstances, the minutes of the general meeting of SNT<данные изъяты> cannot be recognized as legal and having any legal consequences.

According to the response of the defendant to the statement of claim, as of February<дата>... SNT<данные изъяты> consists of 490 members of the SNT. Collection from<дата> on election as chairman of the board of SNT<данные изъяты> FULL NAME1 was indeed, like all previous meetings, illegitimate. Due to the lack of initiative of SNT members, holding general meetings in the off-season, when about a third of gardeners living in<данные изъяты> or other districts of the region, do not have the desire or ability to come for 2-3 hours, reluctance to attend general meetings regardless of previously posted announcements indicating the date and time of the meeting, do not make it possible to ensure a quorum of the present SNT members during general meetings. Collection from<дата> was organized in the same way as other meetings. The announcement of this meeting, indicating the date, place, time and agenda of the meeting, was posted at both entrances to SNT two weeks before it was held. On the election of the new board in May<дата> the decision was made at the general reporting and election meeting<дата> Plaintiff FULL NAME12 was not at the meeting<дата>, the plaintiff believes that he has the right to defiantly not comply with the decisions of the meetings of SNT, for 2010. FULL NAME12 membership fees in the amount of 3600 rubles and land tax in the amount of 450 rubles have not been paid. (ld 11-13). In written objections (ld 27-29), the defendant indicates that in accordance with the text of the contested protocol, 250 members of SNT took part in the meeting<данные изъяты>... The notification of the members of the partnership about the holding of the general meeting was carried out in writing by means of the corresponding messages on information boards located on the territory of SNT. The defendant indicates that the general meeting of SNT members<данные изъяты> <дата> was carried out in full compliance with the current legislation. The plaintiff's arguments are not consistent and do not contain circumstances indicating a violation of the current legislation, which can serve as an unconditional basis for recognizing the decision of the general meeting of SNT members<данные изъяты> from<дата> invalid in full and actually boil down to a formal disagreement of the plaintiff with the decision of the general meeting. SNT Chairman<данные изъяты> is responsible for all obligations of the SNT only from the moment of election, which excludes the possibility of answering disputes related to the procedure for holding general meetings held before the election as chairman. (ld. 27-29).

In the response to the statement of claim (ld 53-54), the defendant indicates that the general meetings of SNT members are the supreme governing body of such an association and has the right to consider any issues of the activities of such an association and make decisions on them. Notification of a general meeting of SNT members can also be carried out by placing appropriate announcements on information boards located on the territory of such an association, unless a different notification procedure is established by its Charter. In SNT<данные изъяты> the procedure for organizing a general meeting has developed, according to which a meeting of the Board of the Partnership is held 2.5 - 3 weeks before the General Meeting, at which the agenda of the upcoming meeting and the decisions proposed by the Board are determined, which are submitted for approval to the general meeting. Then on the information board, gates, pillars, appropriate announcements are posted. In addition, the Board, if possible, organizes telephone information. Personal notification of each member of the partnership is not provided for by either the Charter or FZ No., except in cases of exclusion of members of the partnership. Thus, FULL NAME12 had the opportunity to get acquainted with the announcement of the meeting. According to the minutes of the general meeting of SNT<данные изъяты> from<дата> of the 455 gardeners on the payroll, 250 were present at the meeting, that is, 54.94%. The absence of a quorum does not correspond to reality, since the secretary of the meeting is counting the members of the SNT present at the general meeting. Neither the Law on Horticultural Non-Profit Associations nor the Charter provides for mandatory registration of those present at the meeting. The board of a horticultural, vegetable gardening or dacha non-profit association is elected by direct secret ballot from among its members for a period of two years by a general meeting of the members of such an association (a meeting of authorized persons), unless the Charter of such an association provides otherwise. Neither the Charter nor Law No. contains a categorical prohibition on the election to the board of non-members of SNT, whose election was an expression of the will of the gardeners present at the meeting, was carried out in the interests of the entire SNT<данные изъяты>... Indicates that partially recognizing the claims in the court session<дата> the defendant was delusional about the legality of the choice of members of the board of persons who are not members of the gardening partnership, in addition, indicates that she recognized the fact of elections to the board of the above persons in accordance with paragraph 2 of Art. 68 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation and the indication in the protocol on the partial recognition of the claim is a technical error. (ld 53-54).

Defendant - Chairman of SNT<данные изъяты> FULL NAME1 - in the court session the claims FULL NAME12 did not recognize on the grounds set out in the objection to the statement of claim, previously the explanations given to the court confirmed, at the court session<дата> explained that the meeting<дата> was legitimate according to the protocol, but in fact the lists were written, but she could not confirm the number of participants in the meeting, she explained that the lists seemed to be written down, but she could not explain what went where. Announcements were posted on billboards at two entrances about the meeting, and partly announced orally. There are many SNT members and there is no way to call everyone, she explained that about a third of gardeners from the region and<данные изъяты>who did not attend the meetings in March more often. Explained that the ineligibility of the meeting<дата> expressed in the fact that non-members of SNT were elected to the board, the defendant acknowledged this fact. The meeting was attended by 250 people, who was engaged in the counting of votes - I could not explain. She could not explain how many people actually attended the meeting, pointing out that "the meeting was numerous." (l.d. 37-41). At the hearing<дата> FULL NAME1 showed that the frequency of the meetings - once a year is mandatory, which is most likely written in the Law, in the Charter of SNT, an additional meeting can be held on necessary issues. Announcements about the meeting will be posted in plain sight, at the entrances, and those who do not live in the area, i.e. citizens from other cities, they cannot be forced to come to meetings, therefore, a reference is made to 51%. (ld. 71-81).

The defendant's representative lawyer FULL NAME16 objected to the stated requirements, the defendant's arguments in support of the stated objections supported, argued that the witness FULL NAME6, interviewed at the hearing, has a personal hostile relationship to the defendant, since Order No.<данные изъяты> from<дата> FULL NAME6 dismissed from office due to incompetence. The witness concealed this fact when giving testimony at the hearing<дата>

Witness FULL NAME6 at the hearing<дата> testified that she was the chairman of the meeting<дата>, does not have hostile relations with the parties. She showed that the meeting was attended by 100 or over 100 people. She did not count the people present at the meeting, she did not have lists of those present at the meeting, but judging by the people, there were no 450 people. There was no quorum at the meeting, but the gardeners decided to hold the meeting, because they thought that more would come to the next meeting. fewer people... She explained that she did not have the minutes of the meeting, but most likely it was kept. The secretary of the meeting was FULL NAME2, her duties included keeping the minutes, drawing up an extract from the minutes. She showed that she was engaged in drawing up an extract from the protocol, since she asked FULL NAME1, with whom they agreed, that she came to the witness in the morning and began to negotiate the extract. FULL NAME1 asked "how many people are needed", and offered to write how much is necessary, the witness agreed. The minutes indicated 250 people, and there were 100-150 people at the meeting. She showed that the secretary is obliged to sign the minutes of the meeting. At the meeting<дата> secretary FULL NAME2 was present. She showed that the protocol was executed by a witness (FULL NAME6), as it required FULL NAME1, after a month and a half from memory. The protocol made by the witness was signed by the secretary FULL NAME2 and the witness. She showed that the duties of the chairman of the meeting include running the meeting, there was no counting commission. She showed that the documents for the meeting are prepared by the secretary of the meeting, brought to the chairman for signature, the secretary of the meeting also issues documents. An extract from the protocol is prepared and issued immediately, since the registration period with the tax office is limited, and the protocol can be made later. The witness was not aware of the timing of the production of the protocol, she explained that she should not sign the protocol, which is kept by the secretary. The chairman is responsible for the meeting management system. The chairman of the meeting is not responsible for the preparation of the document. The chairman simply leads the meeting, the secretary writes the minutes. She explained that she knew about the meeting, as an advertisement was posted. At the hearing<дата> witness FULL NAME6 showed that hostile relations with the parties does not have, everything said earlier confirms. Showed that<дата> was relieved of his post as an accountant, this issue was decided on the Board in the presence of members of the board and full name 1, which said - "either I or she." The witness said that she could not leave the garden without a chairman and left. She showed that she got acquainted with the order after<дата> and the order is not her signature. She does not remember on what grounds she was fired, but not in accordance with her professional incompetence. The witness asked FULL NAME1 why there are no checks, no waybills, and the defendant “quickly dismissed her”, showed that the board had a fight. She showed that she didn’t know if she was legally fired; for 9 years of work as an accountant, she had no comments on the work. When asked by the court, she testified that the signature in the order was not hers and the order was not handed to the witness by the chairman. Before the order was issued, the note to the order was not introduced, and at the board meeting, when the order was issued, the note was not read out. When asked by the plaintiff, she showed that labor agreement and an employment contract with SNT<данные изъяты> did not conclude, was selected as an accountant at the meeting and worked as an accountant for 9 years. On the question FULL NAME1 showed that the note on the board was not announced and FULL NAME1 did not give an opportunity to answer all points. To the question of the court, the witness explained that she had no hostile relations with the parties, personally with FULL NAME1 there were no hostile relations.

Witness FULL NAME3 at the hearing<дата> <дата> attended, learned about the meeting by the announcement, there was also a call with a message about the meeting from FULL NAME21. She showed that the chairman of the meeting was FULL NAME6, I did not see the secretary at the meeting. Registration of those present was not carried out, since the witness was not registered. She showed that there are only about 580 members of SNT. At the meeting<дата> there were 50-70 people, no more. The counting of votes was carried out as follows: they read out all the candidates, decided to vote with the list. One person nominated candidates for board members. None of those present nominated a candidate. The lists were already ready. The list was suggested by the chairman of the meeting, whether there were any other proposals - he does not remember. She showed that she could not offer full name 1 to the chairpersons of SNT, as indicated in the protocol, since she met her only at the meeting<дата> She explained that the number of those present at the meeting was determined “by sight”.

Witness FULL NAME34 at the hearing<дата> showed that there are no hostile relations with the parties, at the meeting<дата> attended, found out about the meeting by the announcement, passed by in a car and saw the announcement. She does not remember who was the chairman of the meeting, she showed that there are only about 500 members of SNT. At the meeting<дата> there were 70 people, which I identified visually. She showed that the announcement of the meeting did not indicate the agenda, but simply current issues, showed that they were not going to elect the chairman. I did not see the secretary of the meeting.

Witness FULL NAME8 at the hearing<дата> showed that she has no hostile relations with the parties, was present at the meeting<дата>, which I learned about from the announcement at the substation, permanently lives in SNT<данные изъяты>... She showed that there are more than 500 sites in SNT, at a meeting<дата> there were not 500 people, but there were 200, "maybe more, maybe less." There was no registration before the meeting. There was a table on which people were recorded and from which site. She does not remember who was the chairman of the meeting, she explained that in August<дата> the husband was at the meeting, at which meeting she was herself - he does not remember. Showed that at the meeting<дата> was present, and was elected a member of the audit commission, and at this meeting the defendant was elected as the chairman of SNT. At a meeting from<дата> there was a registration led by two people, the witness is on the lists. Voting was open, everyone raised their hands, the chairman, accountant and secretary FULL NAME2 were counting.

Witness FULL NAME9 at the hearing<дата> showed that there are no hostile relations with the parties, attended the meeting<дата>, is a member of SNT, plot no. She showed that there were about 500 SNT members, 50% of SNT members were at the meeting, I found out about the meeting through an announcement, she lives in SNT almost constantly, in<дата> lived in the summer. The meeting announcement was hung a week before the meeting, at the meeting<дата> 230-240 people were present, registration was carried out, there were tables and there was a magazine, they wrote down the numbers of the precinct, registration was at almost all meetings. Showed that at the meeting<дата> the people were more than usual, the chairman of the meeting was FULL NAME21, whether there was a secretary, could not explain. At the meeting, when voting, the counting of votes was carried out openly, all raised their hands, considered FULL NAME21, FULL NAME2. The counting commission was elected. The counting commission was FULL NAME25. What was at the meeting, does not remember, it was noisy, there was a proposal to elect FULL NAME1 chairman. The majority of votes elected FULL NAME1

Witness FULL NAME10 at the hearing<дата> showed that he has no hostile relations with the parties, is present at all meetings at which announcements are posted. At the meeting<дата> was, learned about the meeting through the announcements. One was from the side<данные изъяты>, the other at the pump station. At the meeting<дата> there were many people, almost half of all SNT gardeners. The question of appointing the chairman of SNT was decided. Before the meeting, we registered, but cannot say for sure. The chairman of the meeting was an accountant - FULL NAME21, who recorded something and was the leader of the meeting. The new chairman was elected by an open vote, everyone raised their hands, the count was led by FULL NAME21, at the meeting<дата> there were more people than usual, it was a day off and the issue of a new chairman of SNT was being decided. There were always 150-200 people at the meetings, I could not explain exactly, from one site it happened, 3-4 people came. Witness section no.

Witness FULL NAME11 at the hearing<дата> showed that he is a member of SNT, plot number, there is no hostile relationship with the parties. I was constantly at meetings. At the meeting<дата>When the new chairman was elected, I was not sick, but if I had not been ill, I would have come to the meeting, as I saw the announcement that hung at the pumping station. He has been living in SNT permanently for the second year. I knew from the announcements that all meetings would be held and was a member of the board.

Witness FULL NAME2 at the hearing<дата> showed that she is a member of the board of SNT with<дата> There is no hostile relationship with the parties. At the meeting<дата> I was present as a secretary, was elected secretary, but did not write the protocol because when she was elected, she said that she would not do paperwork. The witness was told that she would be a secretary, but she would not write the protocol, read and sign it. Showed that<дата> registration of members of SNT was, there was a table and lists were written. He doesn't know where the lists are. She showed that the meeting was attended by about 150 people approximately, as the witness counted people. She signed the minutes in a week, maybe in two and in the minutes of the general meeting from<дата> her signature is on, her signature is also on the extract from the minutes of the general meeting. On the question FULL NAME1 showed that the chairman of the meeting was FULL NAME6, which appointed her secretary. At this meeting, the board was elected, the issue of electricity was decided, there were many questions. The wishes of the gardeners were expressed. She explained that in Order No. according to SNT<данные изъяты> there is her signature, that there was a meeting of the board on the dismissal FULL NAME6 On the board was raised the question FULL NAME1 about whether she is the chairman or FULL NAME21 accountant. All were against FULL NAME6, since before that the audit commission was held and saw how the statements were kept. On the question of the lawyer FULL NAME16 showed that it was noisy, the witness constantly persuaded FULL NAME6, was in an agitated state and something said FULL NAME1 showed that FULL NAME6 left quietly. When asked by the court, she explained that the board raised the issue of dismissing the accountant from office and everyone voted for dismissal.

After hearing the plaintiff, defendant, lawyer, interviewing witnesses, examining the case materials, The court considers claims FULL NAME12 subject to satisfaction due to the following:

By virtue of Article 19 of the Federal Law of<дата> N 66-ФЗ "On horticultural, vegetable gardening and dacha non-profit associations of citizens", a member of a horticultural, vegetable gardening or dacha non-profit association has the right: to elect and be elected to the governing bodies of such an association and its control body; to receive information about the activities of the management bodies of such an association and its control body; ... apply to the court to declare invalid decisions of the general meeting of members of a horticultural, vegetable gardening or dacha non-profit association or a meeting of authorized persons, as well as decisions of the board and other bodies of such an association, violating its rights and legitimate interests ;

A member of a horticultural, vegetable gardening or dacha non-profit association is obliged: ... not to violate the rights of members of such an association; ... to participate in general meetings of members of such an association; to comply with the decisions of the general meeting of members of such an association or a meeting of authorized representatives and decisions of the board of such an association;

By virtue of Art. 20 ФЗ № the governing bodies of a horticultural, vegetable gardening or dacha non-profit association are the general meeting of its members, the board of such an association, the chairman of its board.

The general meeting of members of a horticultural, vegetable gardening or dacha non-profit association is the supreme governing body of such an association.

According to Art. 21 of the Federal Law of<дата> 66-ФЗ "On horticultural, vegetable gardening and dacha non-profit associations of citizens", the following issues fall within the exclusive competence of the general meeting of members of the horticultural, vegetable garden and dacha non-profit association (meeting of authorized representatives):

1) amendments to the charter of such an association and additions to the charter or approval of the charter in a new edition;

2) admission to membership of such an association and exclusion from its members;

3) determination of the quantitative composition of the board of such an association, election of members of its board and early termination of their powers;

4) election of the chairman of the board and early termination of his powers, unless otherwise provided by the charter of such an association;

5) election of members of the audit commission (inspector) of such an association and early termination of their powers;

6) election of members of the commission for monitoring compliance with legislation and early termination of their powers;

7) making decisions on the organization of representative offices, a mutual lending fund, a rental fund of such an association, on its entry into associations (unions) of horticultural, vegetable gardening or dacha non-profit associations;

8) approval of the internal regulations of such an association, including the conduct of a general meeting of members of such an association (meeting of authorized representatives); the activities of his board; the work of the auditing committee (auditor); the work of the commission for monitoring compliance with legislation; organization and activity of its representative offices; organization and activities of the mutual lending fund; organization and activities of the rental fund; internal regulations of the work of such an association;

9) making decisions on the reorganization or liquidation of such an association, the appointment of a liquidation commission, as well as the approval of the interim and final liquidation balance sheets;

10) making decisions on the formation and use of the property of such an association, on the creation and development of infrastructure facilities, as well as setting the size of trust funds and the corresponding contributions;

11) setting the amount of penalties for late payment of contributions, changing the timing of making contributions by low-income members of such an association;

12) approval of the income and expense estimates of such an association and making decisions on its implementation;

13) consideration of complaints against decisions and actions of members of the management board, chairman of the management board, members of the audit commission (auditor), members of the commission for monitoring compliance with legislation, officials mutual credit fund and rental fund officials;

14) approval of reports of the board, the audit commission (auditor), the commission for monitoring compliance with legislation, the mutual lending fund, the rental fund;

15) encouragement of members of the board, the audit commission (auditor), the commission for monitoring compliance with the legislation, the mutual lending fund, the rental fund and members of such an association;

16) making a decision on the acquisition of a land plot related to common property, into the ownership of such an association.

The general meeting of members of a horticultural, vegetable gardening or dacha non-profit association (meeting of authorized representatives) has the right to consider any issues of the activities of such an association and make decisions on them ...

Notification of members of a horticultural, vegetable gardening or dacha non-profit association about holding a general meeting of its members (a meeting of authorized persons) can be carried out in writing (postcards, letters), through appropriate messages in the media, as well as by placing relevant announcements on information boards located on the territory of such an association, unless a different notification procedure is established by its charter. A notice of a general meeting of members of such an association (a meeting of authorized representatives) shall be sent no later than two weeks before the date of its holding. The notice of a general meeting of members of such an association (a meeting of authorized representatives) must indicate the content of the issues to be discussed.

A general meeting of members of a horticultural, vegetable gardening or dacha non-profit association (meeting of authorized representatives) is legally competent if more than fifty percent of the members of such an association (at least fifty percent of authorized representatives) are present at the said meeting. A member of such an association has the right to participate in the voting personally or through his representative, whose powers must be formalized by a power of attorney certified by the chairman of such an association.

The chairman of the general meeting of members of a horticultural, vegetable gardening or dacha non-profit association (meeting of authorized representatives) is elected by a simple majority of votes of the members of such an association present at the general meeting ...

The decisions of the general meeting of members of a horticultural, vegetable gardening or dacha non-profit association (meeting of authorized representatives) shall be brought to the attention of its members within seven days after the date of the adoption of these decisions in the manner prescribed by the charter of such an association.

A member of a horticultural, vegetable gardening or dacha non-profit association has the right to appeal to the court against the decision of the general meeting of its members (meeting of authorized representatives) or the decision of the governing body of such an association that violate the rights and legitimate interests of a member of such an association.

According to Art. 22 ФЗ №, the board of a horticultural, vegetable gardening or summer cottage non-profit association is collegial executive body and is accountable to the general meeting of the members of such an association (the meeting of delegates).

In its activities, the board of a horticultural, vegetable gardening or suburban non-profit association is guided by this Federal Law, the legislation of the Russian Federation, the legislation of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, regulatory legal acts bodies of local self-government and the charter of such an association ....

Meetings of the board of a horticultural, vegetable gardening or dacha non-profit association are convened by the chairman of the board at the time established by the board, as well as as necessary. Meetings of the board are competent if attended by at least two thirds of its members.

Decisions of the board of a horticultural, vegetable gardening or dacha non-profit association are binding on all members of such an association and its employees who have concluded employment contracts with such a union.

The board of a horticultural, vegetable gardening or dacha non-profit association, in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation and the charter of such an association, has the right to make decisions necessary to achieve the goals of such an association and ensure its normal operation, with the exception of decisions that relate to issues referred to by this Federal Law and the charter such an association is within the competence of the general meeting of its members (meeting of authorized representatives).

According to Art. 27 of the Federal Law of<дата> 66-ФЗ "On horticultural, vegetable gardening and dacha non-profit associations of citizens", minutes of general meetings of members of a horticultural, gardening or dacha non-profit association (meetings of authorized representatives) are signed by the chairman and secretary of such a meeting; these protocols are certified by the seal of such an association and are kept in its files permanently. Minutes of meetings of the board and the audit commission (auditor) of a horticultural, vegetable gardening or dacha non-profit association, the commission of such an association for monitoring compliance with the law shall be signed by the chairman of the board or deputy chairman of the board, or, respectively, the chairman of the audit commission (auditor) and the chairman of the commission of such an association for monitoring compliance with legislation ; these protocols are certified by the seal of such an association and are kept in its files permanently. Copies of the minutes of general meetings of members of a horticultural, vegetable gardening or dacha non-profit association, meetings of the board, the auditing commission (auditor) of such an association, the commission of such an association for monitoring compliance with the law, certified extracts from these protocols are submitted for familiarization to the members of such an association at their request, as well as the local government body on the territory of which such an association is located, state power the corresponding constituent entity of the Russian Federation, judicial and law enforcement agencies, organizations in accordance with their requests in writing.

According to clause 4.1.1. Part 4 of the Charter of the Gardening Non-Profit Partnership<данные изъяты> a member of a horticultural non-profit partnership has the right to elect and be elected to the management and control bodies

By virtue of clause 6.1 of the Charter, the governing bodies of the Gardening non-profit partnership are the general meeting of the members of the partnership, which is its supreme body, and in the period between meetings - the board of the partnership and its chairman. The competence of the general meeting of members of the partnership (meeting of authorized representatives) includes the following issues: ... Determination of the quantitative composition of the board, election of board members by open vote and early termination of their powers (by decision of the meeting, the board can be elected by secret ballot), election by open vote (or by secret ballot by decision respectively, meeting or board) chairman of the board and early termination of his powers ....

According to clause 6.4.1. Of the Charter A general meeting of members of a horticultural non-profit partnership is legally competent if more than 50% of the members of the partnership or delegates are present at the general meeting or meeting of authorized representatives.

By virtue of cl.<дата> Of the Charter, the minutes of general meetings (meetings of authorized representatives) are drawn up within seven days, signed by the chairman and the secretary of the meeting, certified by the seal and kept in the affairs of the partnership permanently.

FULL NAME12 is a member of SNT<данные изъяты>, which is established by the plaintiff's explanations, is not contested by the defendant and is confirmed by a copy of the receipt for the cash receipt (ld 10).

<дата> in SNT<данные изъяты> general meeting of SNT was held<данные изъяты>, the protocol of which is available on case sheets 64-66, extracts from the protocol on case sheets 8,9, 25, 26. Decisions taken and the minutes of the general meeting are contested by the plaintiff.

Arguments FULL NAME12 in support of the stated requirements the court finds consistent, confirmed by the investigated materials of the case and the testimony of the witnesses interviewed in the case. In the minutes of the meeting of the horticultural non-profit partnership<данные изъяты> from<дата>, represented by FULL NAME1, a copy of which is available on ld.64-66, listed composition of gardeners 455 people, at the meeting are present - 250 people. In an extract from the minutes of the general meeting of SNT<данные изъяты>, signed by the defendant, states: the list of gardeners is 450 people, 250 people are present at the meeting (ld 8). SNT member lists<данные изъяты> and lists of registration of meeting participants<дата> the defendant's side in support of the arguments of the objections to the stated requirements are not presented, the defendant FULL NAME1 explained that the lists “were recorded, but that did not know where it was”. Witness FULL NAME2, showed that she was the secretary of the meeting, however, she did not keep the minutes, showed that the number of members participating in the meeting was approximately 150 people. Witness FULL NAME6, chairperson of the meeting, also showed that 100-150 people were present at the meeting, witness FULL NAME3 showed that 50-70 people were present at the meeting, in addition, denied the fact that at the meeting proposed the defendant FULL NAME1, explaining that before meeting was not familiar with her, which did not find objections from the defendant. Testimony of all interviewed witnesses about the number of members of SNT<данные изъяты>, as well as about those participating in the meeting<дата>, are contradictory and do not prove with certainty about the presence of a quorum. Evaluating the testimony of the witness FULL NAME6 the court finds them reliable, since the absence of a quorum at the meeting was confirmed by the testimony of other witnesses interviewed during the trial, and also confirmed by the defendant in a written response (ld 11). The testimony of the witness FULL NAME6 is confirmed by the testimony of the witness FULL NAME2, which did not deny that the minutes of the meeting did not keep, did not make it later. This witness (FULL NAME2) also showed that the number of those present at the meeting was approximately 150 people and she kept counting those present.

In extracts from the minutes of the meeting of a horticultural non-profit partnership<данные изъяты> per l.d. 25, 26, signed by the chairman of the board FULL NAME6 and the secretary FULL NAME2 there are discrepancies in indicating the voting results at the choice of the chairman of the board: in the extract from<дата> on case sheet 25 it is indicated: voted: “for” - 243 gardeners; Against - 3 gardeners; “Abstained” - 4 gardeners. In an extract from the protocol of the reporting and election meeting of SNT gardeners<данные изъяты> per l.d. 26, submitted to the IFTS for<адрес> and also certified by the signatures of the chairman FULL NAME6 and the Secretary FULL NAME2, it is stated: “for” - 238; Against - 9; “Abstained” - 3. In addition, the signatures of the secretary FULL NAME2 in extracts on ld.25 and ld.26 are different. Also, the signatures of the secretary FULL NAME2 and in the minutes of the general meeting differ visually from<дата> (ld 64-66) and in the extract for ld 25.

The plaintiff indicates that he did not participate in the meeting<дата>as it has not been properly notified. Witnesses FULL NAME8, FULL NAME9 and FULL NAME11, who informed the court that they learned about the meeting from the announcements on the SNT billboards, showed that they permanently or predominantly live in SNT. The court finds consistent the plaintiff's arguments about his improper notification of the upcoming meeting, and thereby violating his rights as a member of SNT to take part in the meeting and to be elected, since the plaintiff does not reside permanently in SNT, but arrives in May 20-25, which is not contested by the defendant. In addition, the defendant FULL NAME1 at the hearing explained that about a third of the gardeners live in<адрес> and area. In this way, The court considersthat the procedure for notification of the meeting<дата>provided by Law No. and the Charter of SNT<данные изъяты>was not properly respected, informing only by placing advertisements on billboards is not enough and is not appropriate for nonresident citizens.

Thus, the arguments FULL NAME12 to substantiate the stated requirements, the court finds that they do not contradict the Federal Law "On horticultural, gardening and summer cottage non-profit associations of citizens", the Charter of SNT<данные изъяты> (l.d. 58-63).

i decided:

Claims FULL NAME12 satisfy.

To invalidate the minutes of the general meeting of the members of the Gardening Non-Commercial Partnership<данные изъяты> from<дата>by obliging the chairman of the Gardening non-profit partnership<данные изъяты> FULL NAME1 within ten days from the date of entry into force of the court decision, transfer the powers of the chairman to the former chairman of the Gardening Non-profit Partnership<данные изъяты>

The decision can be appealed to the Moscow Regional Court through the Resurrection City Court within 10 days.

Judge: E. A. Kretova

Representing the interests of the plaintiff, a decision was made in the case of invalidating the decision of the general meeting of SNT and invalidating the entry in the Unified State Register of Legal Entities on the appointment of the defendant as the chairman of SNT.

Client lawyer Lavrova E.A. applied to the court with the specified claim due to the fact that she is the elected and registered chairman of SNT. However, in the extract from the Unified State Register of Legal Entities, printed from the website of the tax inspectorate, the chairman of the board indicated the defendant on the basis of the minutes of the general meeting of members of SNT Veteran-1. The specified re-election of the chairman of the board was carried out in violation of the requirements of the legislation and the charter of SNT, since the general meeting was not convened, members of the SNT were not notified of the meeting, the required quorum was missing. The list of SNT members presented by the defendant does not correspond to reality: some of the persons who took part in the voting did not have the right to vote, since were not the owners of land plots in SNT. The notice of the meeting must be sent no later than 2 weeks before the date of the meeting, it must contain the issues to be discussed. The decisions made must be communicated to the members of the SNT within 7 days after their adoption, which was also not done.
The defendant objected to the satisfaction of the claim, indicating that the plaintiff had missed a 6-month time limit for appealing the decision.
Having studied the materials of the case, after listening to the opinion of the parties, the court considered the claims to be satisfied. So, according to Article 181.5 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, unless otherwise provided by law, the decision of the meeting is void if it is adopted in the absence of the required quorum.
In this case, according to the contested minutes of the general meeting, 24 people were present, including 20 members of SNT. At the same time, from the list of SNT members presented by the Administration of the Lyubertsy District, it appears that 41 people are SNT members. From the minutes of the general meeting of owners of SNT "Veteran-1" it follows that the members of SNT, according to the attached list, were admitted to 14 people. At the same time, only two of the accepted members of the SNT are listed in the list of SNT members. At the hearing, the defendant did not deny that he had not notified the meeting of persons admitted to SNT members, since he did not know about their acceptance. Thus, the defendant also violated the procedure for notifying SNT members about the general meeting.
The court also established that the ownership of land plots for a number of citizens has not yet been registered on the date of the contested meeting. Since these persons were not yet the owners of land plots, therefore, they could not be accepted as members of SNT and, accordingly, take part in the voting on the agenda items.
Under such circumstances, taking into account, also, that it is not possible to reliably establish the number of SNT members, the court concluded that the decisions made at the meeting were invalid (null and void), since there was no quorum necessary for making decisions.