The Concept of Non-Residential Premises: Public Law Aspect

The paper deals with the concept of premises used by public branches of law from the point of view of urban planning law. The study is original in that that in literature premises are studied primarily considering the possibility to act as the subject of civil law transactions. This paper reveals the meaning invested by the legislator in the concept of premises from the point of view of administrative, urban planning, criminal legislation, norms on safety of buildings and structures, sanitary norms and rules. Can there be premises as part of non-permanent structures? How does this relate to the real estate regime? Can there be one-room premises? It depends, for example, whether a trade pavilion needs to be equipped with a fire alarm, whether it is possible to smoke on the summer veranda of a public catering facility, whether it is necessary to equip the pavilion with air recirculation systems, and much more. How to understand what is in front of us: a separate premises or part of other premises? The possibility of cadastral registration and the technical equipment of the premises depend on this. Can the premises be non-isolated, but passable? This issue has long been faced by the practice of law enforcement in terms of cadastral registration of non-residential premises. The author considers what role the purpose of the premises has: firstly, the possibility of independent use, and secondly, the presence of a functional purpose. So, as an illustration, the question is being investigated, what will happen if you place a nightclub in a warehouse, and a medical facility in a former shop? The paper also compares the legal regime of premises as an object of civil law with the legal regime of premises as an object of public law. The general legal features of non-residential premises, characteristic of many branches of public law, are revealed.

1. Ageenko A. E. Grazhdansko-pravovoy rezhim poetazhnoy (zhilishchnoy) sobstvennosti: sravnitelno-pravovoe issledovanie // Opyty tsivilisticheskogo issledovaniya: sbornik statey / A. E. Ageenko, I. I. Akimova, V. A. Volgina [i dr.]; ruk. avt. kol. i otv. red. A. M. Shirvindt, N. B. Shcherbakov. — M.: Statut, 2018. — Vyp. 2. — S. 6–44.

2. Drozdov I. A. Obsluzhivanie zhilykh pomeshcheniy: grazhdansko-pravovoe regulirovanie. — M.: Statut, 2006. — 236 s.

3. Klinov A. O. Pravovaya priroda i ponyatie nezhilogo pomeshcheniya // Imushchestvennye otnosheniya v Rossiyskoy Federatsii. — 2015. — № 10 (169). — S. 16–24.

4. Kotelnikov M. A. Ponyatie nezhilykh pomeshcheniy v sudebnoy stroitelno-tekhnicheskoy ekspertize // Mezhdunarodnyy zhurnal prikladnykh nauk i tekhnologiy Integral. — 2020. — № 1. — S. 167–171.

5. Panin N. A. Priznaki nezhilogo pomeshcheniya kak obekta dogovora arendy // Akademicheskaya publitsistika. — 2018. — № 5. — S. 234–238.

6. Reshetov F. F. Ponyatie i spetsifika nezhilykh pomeshcheniy kak obektov nedvizhimosti // Pravovoe gosudarstvo: teoriya i praktika. — 2010. — № 1 (19). — S. 122–127.

7. Safonov A. V. Klassifikatsiya nezhilykh pomeshcheniy i ee pravovoe znachenie // Severo-Kavkazskiy yuridicheskiy vestnik. — 2009. — № 3. — S. 53–59.

8. Semenova E. G. Pravovaya priroda pomeshcheniya v zdanii kak obekta veshchnykh otnosheniy // Obshchestvo i pravo. — 2017. — № 3 (61). — S. 197–202.

9. Sklovskiy K. I. Pomeshchenie v zdanii kak obekt prava // Vestnik ekonomicheskogo pravosudiya Rossiyskoy Federatsii. — 2020. — № 4. — S. 57–69.

10. Yani P. S. Kvalifikatsiya khishcheniy s nezakonnym proniknoveniem v zhilishche, pomeshchenie libo inoe khranilishche: pozitsiya sudov // Zakonnost. — 2016. — № 2. — S. 38–43.