Питання практики судового захисту прав суб’єктів, щодо яких здійснюється державний нагляд (контроль) у сфері техногенної та пожежної безпеки

Abstract

У статті досліджуються питання практики судового захисту прав суб’єктів, щодо яких здійснюється державний (нагляд) контроль у сфері техногенної та пожежної безпеки. Автори звертають увагу, що на різних етапах механізму здійснення заходів державного нагляду (контролю) посадові особи контролюючого органу вчиняють дії, допускають бездіяльність, приймають рішення, які можуть зачіпати права та законні інтереси підконтрольних суб’єктів, створювати для них певні обов’язки, які, однак, не завжди узгоджуються з законодавчими нормами, що регламентують процедуру здійснення перевірок. Відтак, підконтрольні суб’єкти вимушені шукати шляхи захисту своїх прав та інтересів, зокрема через звернення до суду. The article examines the issues of judicial protection practice of the entities’ rights to state (supervisory) control in the field of industrial and fire safety. The author pays attention that at different stages of the mechanism of state supervision (control) measures implementation, officials of the controlling authority perform actions, allow inaction, make decisions which may affect the rights and legitimate interests of the controlled entities, and impose certain obligations on them, which, however, are not always consistent with the legislative provisions regulating the inspection procedure. Therefore, controlled entities are forced to look for ways of their rights and interest protection, in particular by going to court. Based on the data analysis from the Unified State Register of Court Decisions, it is concluded that in practice, in order to protect their rights and interests, controlled entities file lawsuits with various claims (in particular, to declare unlawful the actions of the controlling body to deter- mine the degree of risk from conducting business activities; to declare unlawful the decision of the state supervision (control) body to include of the controlled entity to the annual plan for the implementation of state (control) measures and cancel the relevant paragraph of the plan; to declare unlawful and cancel the order to conduct an inspection; to declare unlawful actions of the controlling body regarding the inspection compliance with the requirements of laws and regulations in the in the field of civil protection, fire and industrial safety; to declare unlawful and cancel the act drawn up on the basis of an unscheduled state supervision (control) measure on compliance with a business entity to comply with the requirements of the legislation in the field of industrial and fire safety; to declare unlawful and cancel the order to eliminate violations of the legislation requirements in the field of industrial and fire safety; to cancel the resolution on imposing an administrative penalty). However, such claims do not always bring the result that a complainant expected. This is due to the fact that only the violated rights or legitimate interests of controlled entities are protected in administrative proceedings, and not all of the listed remedies in specific relationship may be considered appropriate and effective. The author makes a conclusion that in order to determine the appropriateness of applying certain remedies to protect the rights of entities to state supervision (control) in the field of industrial and fire safety, it is necessary to determine whether by making a decision an official of a supervisory body may act or allow inaction which is being appealed, violate the rights and legitimate interests of the controlled entities, and whether the chosen remedy is effective. For this it is important to correctly understand the legal nature of such decisions or actions (inaction). Summarizing, an act, drawn up as a result of a state supervision (control) measure on compliance by a business entity with the requirements of legislation in the field of industrial and fire safety, cannot be an independent object of judicial control, and orders to conduct control should be appealed only when the inspection was not carried out.