Tiraspol city, October 26, 2017.

Translation from Russian into English




Chairperson: First President of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic Igor Nikolayevich Smirnov


Debated issue: „On land relations in the PMR”



The results of 2017: honestly – will not be?


image001 Today are being published the Materials of the Consultative Assembly of the first Pridnestrovian deputies at the Chairperson of the Supreme Council of the PMR, made public   in early February 2018 by the online magazine „ПМРФ – Приднестровье и Россия” („PMRF – Pridnestrov'ye i Rossiya”) (


For the past almost two years from the date of the beginning of the work of the Consultative Assembly, about 40 meetings were held, at which the most current issues of the life of the Republic of one or another period were considered.  Of these, I chose only one meeting, which was held on October 26, 2017; it was devoted to land relations in Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic (PMR). Its full transcript is published in chronological order, without any cuts.

Why namely this meeting? In my opinion, it is, I am not afraid of loud words, a historical and momentous event in the life of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic (PMR).

Historical because it vividly embodies the main trend of Transnistria: free choice and free business of independent people. In fact, in Transnistria, to everything original and new, which was born here for almost three decades of the unrecognized existence of the Republic, was added the social and political discovery of a new form of sovereignty of the people and popular control. The Consultative Assembly may well be called the People’s Tribunal, where it is most fully, objectively and widely, using the norms of the highest quality democracy are impartially considered (and they are given a score) the events, that harmed or could harm the Republic, with the invitation and the hearing of the representatives of all parties included in the agenda of the issue. And the meeting on October 26, 2017 best demonstrates all of the above. 

In the Year of Statist Forces and Affairs announced at the „PMRF”, one can note the important statist orientation of the work of the Consultative Assembly. It does not adapt to the faces of even the highest official position. It smashed E. Shevchuk, today it criticizes V. Krasnoselsky, at least on the issue of the land crisis. At the same time, one thing holds true, the main rule is the statist approach: what is beneficial, useful, and what is not beneficial and harmful to our state, and not to some short-term headmen. It is important to emphasize that such approach is ensured by the participation in the work of the Consultative Assembly of the thirty-eight founders and first builders of the state, headed by the First President of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic (PMR) I. Smirnov.

The Consultative Assembly of October 26, 2017 is significant because on that day the difference of positions on the land issue of the People’s Tribunal and the presidential-government officialdom was finally formed. The issue was considered finally, fully and comprehensively, and to conduct a new trial of the „legality” of lawlessness committed by officials over the land and land users no longer makes any sense.

Here it is necessary to indicate the main watershed moment – the algorithm for solving the land issue (it was considered in 2017 several times by both the People’s Tribunal and the presidential-governmental side).

The Consultative Assembly believes that the land illegally taken away from land users (and the illegality of Shevchyuk’s actions with the land was confirmed by the decision of the Supreme Court of the PMR — there is nowhere above) should be returned to those from whom they were withdrawn(restitution).

 At the same time, from a legal point of view, for restitution, it does not matter what happened to the land AFTER its illegal withdrawal, where it fell, what hands it passed, by which documents it was processed. And also in what condition the land was at the time of the illegal withdrawal – it was well-groomed or not. All this should not interfere with the restoration of the status quo, that is, restitution, since this movement of land was generated by Shevchyuk’s original illegal regulations. The land, illegally taken away by Shevchuk, could make incredible somersaults, go in and out of various funds, change hands, but the whole movement is, from a legal point of view, insignificant. The task of the court during restitution was only to correctly register this nullity of land transactions after its illegal withdrawal and correctly issue the return of the land to the one from whom it was illegally expropriated. At the same time, the court decision could also provide for a direct claim of restitution: to return the land to the use of the one from whom it was illegally expropriated.

One and very short court session, rather than ten months of endless disputes, everything turned into when another – illegal, unfair and corrupt algorithm was elected. 

The president V. Krasnoselsky, when he was promoted to high office, he held the position – to return the land to the one from whom it was illegally expropriated.  But when he received this terrible inheritance of Shevchuk, he apparently let himself be persuaded by various lively persons, they changed the restitution scheme to another, which provided an opportunity to put the land into a new turn, under various pretexts not to return it to former users.

The restitution process was replaced by games with the land redistribution fund, which suddenly turned from a formally registering instrument into an independent participant in disputes.

As follows from the report of the Chairperson of the Arbitration Court A. V. Kiyko, the land illegally acquired by new land users and expropriated from them by the court first got into the redistribution fund (this is normal). But on this the process of restitution was cut short for some reason. The „lively persons” entered then into the matter, who took upon themselves the function of distributing this land from the redistribution fund to third parties at their discretion and under various reasons not related to the subject of the restitution dispute, for example, that the former, injured land user did not pay taxes. 

- What is wrong with the fact that the land turned out to be where it originally was, that is, in the redistribution fund? – asks A. V. Kiyko in his report (see below).

Of course, the official, to put it mildly, is cunning. The land was originally (the status quo) not in the redistribution fund, but in the use of injured farmers. And to them, ultimately, it had to be returned by restitution.  And not to get stuck on the halfway in the redistribution fund, then to quietly be distributed to third parties.

The expression „quietly” was not accidentally used. As follows from the same report by A. V. Kiyko, only 9 land users filed suits with the courts. 9 out of 1,400 farm households tied up in land disputes, according to the testimony of the president V. Krasnoselsky. But at the end of 2017, according to the same V. Krasnoselsky, the land dispute was practically closed (although the court cases of 9 farmers are not finished yet). Only 1 percent of the land, according to V. Krasnoselsky, is in dispute. From this it follows that for 99 percent of the disputed land or for 1391 economic entities tied into the dispute in 2017, the dispute was settled OUT OF COURT. I think it is not necessary to say what it is.

For example, to avoid the examination of the dispute in court with a result that is not guaranteed to the authorities, the Government (Ministry of Agriculture) send the notification on the intention to deprive the firm of V. Pasyutin of the land for its allegedly improper processing to the non-existent address of his firm with the handing on not to the addressee, V. Pasyutin, but to a third person. According to the law, litigation is not required if V. Pasyutin did not express disagreement within 15 days. And he did not express, because he did not even know about the sent notice. And he was deprived of land use rights without any court trial. This did not happen under Shevchuk, but under Krasnoselsky, in November 2017 after many months of Pharisees spells of the officials like that we would be happy, but only the court decides everything.

In this way, the courts actually served only as a screen, behind which the lively persons „under Krasnoselsky” without any court decisions crank out ф new redistribution of land already in favor of third parties.

This is the main thing. And by the end of 2017, instead of really liquidate the dangerous dispute, it was wrapped like a snowball. The situation was not only not simplified, it was extremely and, in my opinion, not without intent became more complicated and confused. Dozens of new land users (third parties) entered into the dispute, who sooner or later will have to regret that they are investing a lot of money in the disputed land.

If to name briefly what happened in 2017 on the land issue, then it will be – OFFICIALESE ARBITRARINESS with the inaction of law enforcement bodies, especially the prosecutor's office, if not to consider the action as participation in the lawlessness of officials. And the materials of the Consultative Assembly, the Decision made at it, convincingly prove it.

„PMRF” wrote a lot about the land dispute. Moreover, the „PMRF” was the one who opened this topic for public review. We will continue to keep an eye on it.

What's next?

The position of the power group was determined long ago. Already in the spring of 2017, when, after the first recommendations of the Consultative Assembly, which did not support the „lively persons” course, the live video broadcasts of the People’s Tribunal were terminated. And today, the people of the PMR are actually blocked the opportunity to learn the opinion of the founders of the republic. From a 4-hour discussion, Transnistrian were shown as much as 126 seconds of the informational message ( about this event. More than four months have passed, and there is no reaction to the decision adopted by the Consultative Assembly.

There is still hope that the course of the lawlessness officials will be changed. And that legality will shift from the concert campaigns of representatives of the government and law enforcement agencies to practical matters.  And the pre-election motto of the president V. Krasnoselsky „It will be fair”, which determined his election and the vector of social development for the coming years, will not turn into the motto „Honestly – it won't be”. 

For this, the PMR president V. N. Krasnoselsky must show the will, fulfill the oath of the President given by him, his constitutional duties to be the guarantor of legality, as well as to fulfill his election obligations on the land issue.  And the people will support him in this.



V. N. Krasnoselsky, when taking office, swore to the people: „I do swear when exercising powers of President of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic… to observe and protect the Constitution and laws of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic”.

(Constitution of the PMR, Article 61).


Publications of the Materials of the Consultative Assembly will serve to provide a more complete and comprehensive coverage of what is happening around the main wealth of Transnistria – the land, showing the role of the participants in the land dispute in various aspects.

I invite all the interested parties, all who understand the importance of land problems, sometimes afflicting states, kings and presidents, to take part in the discussion of the Materials of the Consultative Assembly. 

In the first part will be published reports made at the Consultative Assembly. From the People's Tribunal – A. K. Belitchenko, a member of the Consultative Assembly. From the Government – Minister of Agriculture E. M. Koval. From law enforcement bodies – the prosecutor A. A. Guretsky.  From the Arbitration Court – Chairperson of the Court A. V. Kiyko. Next – the speeches of injured land users, the discussion of reports and speeches, the Decision of the People's Tribunal. Transnistrian find out what the officials have been trying to hide. 

In the text of the Materials, separate lines and words are highlighted by the editor, so that the reader pays special attention to them. The materials are also accompanied by small references clarifying the statements of speakers.





Legality, which should be in all the actions of officials of any rank – this is the question we are now considering.


image003I. SMIRNOV. Good afternoon, dear deputies! Dear invited, please settle down. There is an offer to start our work.


At our Consultative Assembly are invited: the Minister of Agriculture and Natural Resources Koval Efim Mikhailovich. The prosecutor of our state Guretsky Anatoly Anatolyevich.  The Chairperson of the Arbitration Court of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic Kiyko Alexander Vladimirovich. Further Vladimir Sergeevich Rymar – Chairperson of the Supreme Court. Kuznetsov Pavel Nikolayevich – Chairperson of the Republican Public Organization of War Invalids, Defenders of Transnistria. Chairperson of the Public Organization of the Women of Bender City Angelina Ivanovna Ogli. The First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Transnistria – Communist Party of the Soviet Union Lapuhina Lora Aleksandrovna.  Vasilyev Anatoly Borisovich – member of the Joint Council of Labor Collectives.  Gaidarzhi Anna Nikolaevna – member of the Joint Council of Labor Collectives. Vorobyova Natalya Vladimirovna – Chairperson of the Union of Journalists of Transnistria.  Pirozhenko Svetlana Vasilyevna – correspondent of the newspaper „Трудовой Тирасполь” („Trudovoy Tiraspol”).  Buchatsky Nikolai Onufrievich – chief editor of the newspaper „Человек и его права„ („Chelovek i yego prava”).  Pasyutin Vladimir Evgenievich – advisor to the Chairperson of the Consultative Assembly. Cuzmenco Yuri Ivanovich – director of the Limited Liability Company „Агро-Люкка” („Agro-Lyukka”). Union of Moldovans? Present.  Podgorodetsky Alexander Glebovich – lawyer of „Агро-Люкка” („Agro-Lyukka”).  Ananyeva Nina Borisovna – „Палагрос” („Palagros”). Paskar Igor Stanislavovich – „Строенцы” („Stroyentsy”), director of the association.  Momotyuk Vladimir Georgievich – „Агромаг” („Agromag”), director. Ciorba Gennady Pavlovich – entrepreneur. The entrepreneur Nedelko Denis. The entrepreneur Yankovskaya Natalya. The entrepreneur Afanasenko Sergey. Also present are the Deputy Chairperson of the Government on the legal regulation of interaction with public authorities, Head of Government Office Stanislav Mikhailovich Kasap, deputy of the Supreme Council Pasat Petr Semenovich and the Head of Presidential Administration (Belous Sergey Vladimirovich, – Ed.)

We proceed to discuss the agenda.  The agenda offers a question, we considered it with You, the issue of illegal withdrawal of territories (land, – Ed.)  And this has already been established by the Supreme Court. And in any case, it has already become a social problem – a land issue. Therefore, the agenda is proposed, the first: „The land issue”, the second – different. What are the opinions? To agree.

On the first question, I want to repeat once again to all deputies who are not to be taught how the question is prepared.  If it arises, then it is prepared with the help of the rest of our first deputies. We do not have an office to prepare committees and so on. This question was prepared by the deputy Belitchenko Anatoly Konstantinovich, who will make a report. Shall we set the Regulations? Who is for setting, please vote. Few. Who is against the setting? And I – I voted there and there.  Therefore, just remember what you said: the question is serious, so without haste, very thoroughly.  And excuse me, we have torn off from work the statesmen who has a lot of work.  Therefore, in a very clear way, without delaying or chewing, as we say, something like this.  Is it clear?

I would ask: just think; whom this question does not concern.  Think about that for some - this is the fate.  And most importantly – the fate of the state.  Legality, which should be in all actions and officials of any rank – this is the question we are now considering. By the way, I should recommend. In the development of our deputy, Mister Labunsky there is an article on the Internet on the land question. Please read. There are some thoughts that deserve special attention.

Please, on the first question. How much time do You need? Up to 15 minutes, do not mind, we did not set the regulations.  Please, Anatoly Konstantinovich, to the podium. Materials were distributed to all. I remind You, I was so informed that You all have the materials. Who is not clear when he speaks, look in there. The invited have the materials, isn’t it? Yes, they have.

All is ready, let's go start our work.




Part one.




What was done to the Transnistrian land is a crime from start to finish.



image004Dear Igor Nikolayevich! Dear colleagues, invited!

The question that is put on the agenda today, is actually a very important social issue, and we have paid attention to this issue here many times. Based on your instructions, you authorized us – me, Emelyanov and Rylyakov – to deal with this issue, and throughout all these 10 months we have actively participated in many events, including also arbitration courts.


Therefore, I would like to start with how we began to engage in land with the arrival of Evgeny Vasilyevich Shevchuk.  Until this moment, the right to distribute land plots was assigned to the President of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic Igor Nikolayevich Smirnov, and in 2009 in December these functions were transferred to the heads of administrations. And it spread until December 2011. With the arrival of the new President Shevchuk, with the arrival of the new Government, the situation has changed, and the right to dispose of land plots was assigned only to the Government.

But Yevgeny Vasilyevich Shevchuk understood that the earth is a wet-nurse, and it is possible to benefit from it. And where there is profit, there is Evgeny Vasilyevich. Therefore, he actively began to deal with land issues. Fortunately, he had good assistants in the person, for example, of the head of the Directorate of Agriculture of the Ribnita district Kirsta Andrei Borisovich, who knew the situation. And of course, Ribnita district suffered the most from the mayhem that happened on the land issue.

The situation was such that those lands, if someone liked (well, to whom – not to whom, but to the closest circle, the most trusted, dearest ones, and Shevchuk had enough such persons – those that helped him in many of his dirty affairs), Malai Alexandr turned out to be such, who liked the land that belonged to the firm „Палагрос” („Palagros”), this land belonged to the family of Palagnyuk Boris Timofeevich. It is absolutely not necessary to tell you what is representing the person of Palagnyuk Boris Timofeevich. This is the last deputy of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics), it is an active participant in the creation of our republic. The most respected person here in Ribnita. Everyone knew him well.  And despite this, Shevchuk coveted together, which meant with Kirsta, together with Turanskaya and with Malay Alexandr, on their land, and 650 hectares of land was taken from them.  

But in the matters of land withdrawal it was used a very good reception.  So this is the prosecutor's office, which acted as an initiator, the arbitration courts, which make appropriate decisions. The prosecutor's office, law enforcement bodies, the Investigation Committee initiated criminal cases, and this process, we will say, was going up.  The lands were expropriated.

As for Boris Timofeevich. When this process began, his heart, poor fellow, could not stand it, and Boris Timofeevich died.

His work was continued by his family, Nina Borisovna, his grandchildren, who loved the earth very much and did everything so that the earth would bear fruit. But they were accused of badly caring for the land. Although it is completely wrong.  Those who made the decision in their favor – that the land was actually used normally, they were simply fired.

Besides the fact that the land was taken from Boris Timofeevich, the victim of the same raider seizure was „Фиальт-Агро” („Fial't-Agro”). This is the firm of Pisarenko Sergey Andreevich, who ruled this land greatly. He had 3,700 hectares of land, and Shevchuk also liked this land, and he put his paw on it.  This means that, out of these 3,700 hectares, he took 2,500 hectares of land from him, but Pisarenko began to prove: how so, I have 1,400 heads of cattle, I have 6,000 heads of pigs, I have 1,000 heads of sheep. He has five farms in total.  

And the bargaining took place.  With the condition that Pisarenko, being a deputy of the Supreme Council, will raise his hand when there is the need to start making a decision in favor of Shevchuk. I spent five years with Pisarenko at the Supreme Council, and I felt sorry for this comrade, who was forced to make such a deal.  Shevchuk nevertheless had to return 1200 hectares to him, and Pisarenko continues to superbly manage this household there.  Well, the only thing, if earlier he had 370 people working, today it is 130 people. He has big plans, and he certainly expected that the land would finally be returned to him with the arrival of the new composition of the Government and of the Supreme Council. But, unfortunately, things are still there. For ten and a half months, we crush water in a mortar, which means we absolutely stand still.

The firm Строенцы” („Stroyentsy”) was also subjected to the same capture which director is Pascari, where the land was also taken, and the pig farm was also ditched.

The firm „Агро-Люкка” („Agro-Lyukka”), which director is Cuzmenco was also subjected to assaults. This man, this manager had 11,000 hectares of land, but with the arrival of the Government, we saw what means the need to talk to him so that he can share. And they immediately gave him an offer: give back, boy, a part of the land. He voluntarily says: yes, I agree, please officially give an opinion, take three and a half thousand, I give you. No, no! We did not like the land you suggested to us, give us the best land you have. To this he certainly did not go, and the process began from here (the process of land withdrawal, – Ed.).

Then Yevgeny Vasilyevich liked the dairy, which Cuzmenco had. Then all sorts of checks began – from beginning to end, they made the dairy stop.  320 people who worked at this dairy were forced to leave work.  The dairy has stopped and stands to date.

Cuzmenco had an elite herd, a very elite breed, which he brought from Holland, 1250 heads of cattle.  To date, only 100 are left of this herd. So let me just say: how could the President, the Government go to this crime, otherwise it cannot be called. This is from start to finish a crime.




In the picture: the 37th year for the cows of „Агро-Люкка„ („Agro-Lyukka”). At night, when animals cannot be disturbed at all, without a veterinarian, who must give permission for a specific cow, without sanitary treatment of the „good fellows” the cows are being driven into a „paddy wagon”. They selected the best cows, dairy, pedigreed, although they were rated at 3000 rubles. PMR despite the fact that some of the cows cost USD 3000. One cow was pregnant, in the last month of pregnancy, she could abort in the „paddy wagon”, well, if they had not lost the cow. They did not inform the owners on the conditions of the „arrested” cows, their food and care. And this is not „under Shevchuk”, it is „under Krasnoselsky”, December 22, 2017.


We understand that by naming such numbers, where so much is ruined, it means that, today we will be forced to buy all dairy products, and meat on the side, which is done today with success. We carry butter from Belarus, meat – the same. That’s what we came to.  

Therefore, when our farmers appealed to the Supreme Court this was a very correct decision.  The Supreme Court objectively addressed this issue and acknowledged that all Shevchyuk’s actions were completely illegal, law has been broken. As president, Shevchuk had no right to dispose of (state, – Ed.) property.  If someone violated the law – badly used the land, so, yes, but, as I said, in the case of whom the land was expropriated – the situation is not quite simple.  Just think about it, he did everything so that one of his firms (and this is a paradox: he called this firm „Великая Победа” („Great Victory”), this is his victory in achieving the destruction of the land issue), he called it „Great Victory” and allocated 20,000 hectares to it.  

Well, Shevchyuk’s actions – everything is clear. Now the Government is going to, and at its meeting makes a decision on August 4, 2016: everything that Shevchuk did is to be legalized. That is, the government legitimizes his illegal actions.  Today, probably, to a first grader, well, a fifth grade student is all the more understandable: how can be legitimized something which is illegal? This is a big question, but the government had enough mind how to do it.  It made such a decision, and on the basis of this our valiant registration authorities, not having the right to do so, because this decision was not officially published, begin to register these lands. Here is such a paradox.

Well, I understand: Shevchuk, took advantage of the fact that he is the one and all, the greatest lump.  But the Government! How could it, getting money from taxpayers, go on to recognize illegal actions as legal?  And up to day, neither the Investigation Committee, nor the Prosecutor’s office dealt with these issues.  We must know by name: who voted for the decision that was made at the government meeting on August 4.  

Well, the fact that it is not legal.  The Deputy Chairperson of the Supreme Council Antyufeyeva appealed to the Prosecutor’s office (then the duties of the prosecutor were performed by Radchenko), and in his conclusion the prosecutor said: all the actions of the government are absolutely illegal, since they have retroactive effect.  It was impossible to legitimize what was done illegally by Shevchuk.

It all happened again, and the process continues.  Therefore, with such decisions, the question arises: how will we live on?  

Yes, Vadim Nikolayevich decided to create an interdepartmental commission of investigation, such a commission was created in January.  In the composition of this commission were the heads of the administration, the prosecutor’s office, the Ministry of Justice, and others. You recommended three of us to be in the composition of this commission: me, Rylyakov and Emelyanov.  But the Government agreed only for Rylyakov. We were given the right – as an advisory vote. Well, we took an active part in the discussion, and at one meeting (it was the second meeting of the commission, we participate only to it) it was decided by a majority vote – to offer the president of our republic Vadim Nikolayevich Krasnoselsky to cancel all illegal decisions of Shevchuk.  This decision was also duplicated by the Common Pridnestrovian National Forum, which on February 1 of this year made a similar decision. Namely, the same thing: the president to cancel all the illegal decisions of Shevchuk.

Further, at the sessions of the Arbitration Court (a lot of meetings were visited by Rylyakov, Emelyanov, I, sometimes Zagryadsky was at these meetings) we saw how the trials were going, and from our point of view, the courts did not always objectively find the right solution.  In general, the paradox is that the Arbitration Court at the request of land users to cancel the decision of the Government said that the land rights of users are not violated, therefore, what to discuss then?  And then they (land users, – Ed.) still the trouble is that they (according to the court, – Ed.) missed the deadlines for filing a claim.  About what missed deadlines can we talk about?  Yes, the court was guided by the fact that on August 4 this decision was made by the Government.  But at that time, under the Government of Shevchuk, no one dared to go to some sort of courts, to complain of something.  The only thing that they complained to the Supreme Court. And to the Arbitration Court the road was closed, because they understood how our Arbitration Court resolves the issues. In general, as Vitsin said, that our court is the „fairest, most humane”, and so on.  Today, this phrase can be attributed to our Arbitration Court in this regard.  So the situation is such.

Therefore, the land question is generally set up in a circle. Today time passes, there is no solution, there is no real solution, a practical one.  Those ideas that the land shall be returned back to the redistribution fund and then to look – they will like you or not, and so on. In part, if they wanted to resolve the issue, they probably got together and agreed: Cuzmenco, you have a lot of land, listen, share, give at least 50% – and that's all!  But they did it this way: tried to do everything, to create such an image of Cuzmenco, that he was ashamed to even go outside.  That this is the most dishonest, the most deceiver of such a one who sold the land, took 500.000 for selling the land to Paga (this is an entrepreneur) and so on.

I think that my presentation on this issue will be complemented by those land users who have suffered irreparable damage.  Now, restoring what was destroyed is not so easy today. Therefore, we expect even greater tests. So the question is: what are we going to buy in stores and whose products? Therefore, the slogan: „Everything should be Transnistrian”, unfortunately this is not our slogan. Our slogan: go there, where you can buy on the side.

That is the essence of our problems. Thank you.


I. SMIRNOV.  Hold up, you, the speaker, somebody may have questions to you. Dear participants of the meeting, please ask questions.  


FROM PLACE. Anatoly Konstantinovich, in your report you very narrowly outlined the state of affairs in land relations, using only Ribnita district as an example. And what is the situation throughout the country? You worked on it?


A. BELITCHENKO. In general, these issues have affected one thousand five hundred land users. Unfortunately, some of them were passed through arbitration courts, through the prosecutor's office, and some – were simply created such conditions that people had to give up the land.  Give up, for example (there are no such who do not know who Dzernovich is), he was deprived of land.  And there are very many of such persons. Today, they do not go to the prosecutor’s office or anywhere, because they „voluntarily” refused, or rather, voluntarily-forcibly. Or we will put you in jail, or give the land – that's all.  Therefore, 20,000 hectares only „Great Victory” – speaks for itself.  There are many offended in the Republic. Here is a man sitting who highlighted in the press that a criminal group headed by Shevchuk was organized to expropriate the land – and no reaction. But at that time – it was 2016, then it was clear. What prevents to initiate these criminal cases today? Who interferes?  There is no desire. Therefore, I just wonder: why do we go like that.


FROM PLACE. Anatoly Konstantinovich, maybe there are their own issues? After all, take a look. Turanskaya – Ribnita.  Shevchuk – Ribnita. Maybe there they had some sort of problems between them themselves? Something we don't know about.


A. BELITCHENKO. Nikolai Mikhailovich, there are not only land affairs, there are many other enterprises affected by the raider seizure. But people resigned. They do not yet see today any resolution of the issue. That is, our actions do not say the opposite, so they are silent for now. But it is very disappointing that the very good firm „Радикал” („Radical”), which Shevchuk simply destroyed, took this firm under him, because he simply liked it.


FROM PLACE. But there was also the dairy plant – the same, they destroyed everything there.  


A. BELITCHENKO. Nikolai Mikhalych, I said about the dairy plant.  Shevchuk laid eyes on it, then a buyer came to Cuzmenco on Baitaziev’s behalf.  Well, Cuzmenco broke down and did not sell. Rather, he did not sell, and failed to defend the dairy plant.  Today it is with him, but it stays.  


FROM PLACE. What do you think, who is directly to blame for this, that it is impossible to return everything back that was illegally taken by Shevchuk from land users – enterprises and the like? Who's stopping it all: the President, the Government, the prosecutor's office? Who else we have?


A. BELITCHENKO.  Our president, Vadim Nikolayevich came to the conclusion that everything should be decided through the court.  The decision of the Supreme Court was not sufficient for these purposes, therefore, we went to the Arbitration Court. The arbitration court, by its decision, also declared Shevchyuk’s actions illegal. The government, I have already said, legitimized what Shevchuk did illegally, and the process, we will say, went.  If you wanted to resolve this issue, it was necessary, in my understanding, to bring together the offended persons. Today, out of one thousand fifty persons, will probably be 300-400 people, who would agree to return to this, to their land, taken from them.  But today there are units, I repeat, units that have addressed to court, the rest have given up and are waiting for what will happen next, with these, who are currently judging.


FROM PLACE. So you want to say that those who have been deprived of them cannot contact anyone at all и and cannot yet realize that they can return the lands – or will they not return anything at all?


A. BELITCHENKO. Well, as the events happen to be …10 months without solution, then when it appears, I do not know. We spoke about this during a year, this, 2017 year.  2018 is not far off, sowing is not far off, and they have no land today, from whom it has been taken away, and whether it will be returned – is a big question.  This question is not to be addressed to me, probably. But to the President, the Minister, the Government – those who are in power today and to whom we have entrusted our fate today.


I. SMIRNOV. Thank you. Dear deputies, I would ask, in line with the speech of Anatoly Konstantinovich, to still look at the group that prepared the draft decision-disposition, what and how, so that we would immediately indicate in our speeches so that they would not return a second time.  Clear? You have it on hand, I recommend, open it, please.  Let’s work. Let's consult how we will do: we will hear first, and then we will discuss? Is it so or not? Who are „for” please vote. 



Although the court refused to „Палагрос” („Palagros”) to return the land, we will give Ananyeva everything that is possible, because I knew her father well.


I. SMIRNOV. Word is given to the Minister of Agriculture of our state, Koval.


image006E. KOVAL. Dear Igor Nikolayevich! Dear deputies of the Consultative Assembly!

Today one of the questions is posed – this is the land issue, which, according to the speaker, has dragged out a lot, and this issue is not being resolved. And today, a stunning figure – 1500 affected persons. Excuse me, behind these loud numbers that you call, there are not such a number of people.  It was about 1,500 in 5 years, these were decisions – on withdrawal, on the allocation of land plots.  But you say there were 1500 affected persons. Why do you call this number when it is not even close to this number? No, these are decisions that were made in five years. The decisions were made on land allocation, on land acquisition. But this are not affected people.


(Reference to the question of the reliability of the figures and facts reported by the Minister of the PMR Government. President of the PMR V. Krasnoselsky: „At the initial stage there were proposals to cancel all the decisions taken in the previous five years and redistribute the land plots. But I did not agree and offered to count the rights of how many people were violated. It turned out that this is 1400 farmer households.”  From the speech at the press-conference following the first year of the presidency, November 30, 2017.   – Ed.)


And now I want to say to Anatoly Konstantinovich (Belitchenko, – Ed.)  - let's say the commission did not work well and did not accept that decision. And the decision that Anatoly Konstantinovich wanted us to accept that we, without trial, without investigation – waved his sword – to distribute land to whom?  Return it to Vladimir Evgenievich Pasyutin. Return it to Yuri Ivanovich Cuzmenco.  Without trial, without investigation. The Commission did not take that decision.


(Reference to the question of the reliability of the figures and facts reported by the Minister of the PMR Government. The government commission on the land issue held three final meetings, all the time in different compositions. In all three cases, the results were different. The representatives of the Consultative Assembly did not participate in the first meeting. In the second meeting with the participation of the representatives of the Consultative Assembly, it was decided to propose the President of the PMR to cancel all the illegal decisions on the land issue, which means that the land should be returned to those from whom it was illegally taken away (restitution). At the third meeting, no decision was taken, a rating vote was taken on several options of what to do. The voting results were reflected in the final protocol, i.e. the commission did not fulfill its task, but naming 4 possible options, it transferred the decision of the land question to the discretion of the Government and the President. – Ed.).


And another solution was proposed by the same Anatoly Konstantinovich, so that we would cancel all the decisions, these 1500 decisions, according to which people received two, three, ten, fifteen hectares of land. There are different numbers. Not all received thousands of hectares. So, we did not go for it. Therefore, we were dissatisfied with the commission.

The commission decided to appeal through the courts, made a decision – the courts should decide all these things. There are 30 such cases in the courts, but not 1,500 offended people who sued.

Yes, I spoke at the meeting with the President of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic Vadim Nikolayevich Krasnoselsky, and before that I told you that, of course, there are agrotechnical terms of tillage, there are agrotechnical terms of sowing. About this, and not once I spoke with Anatoly Anatolyevich Guretsky, here he sits side by side and says, and then he told me: you have agronomic terms, and I have legal terms of consideration. Those whose lands are expropriated, wait when all deadlines are over, they file on the last day a cassation appeal, and there – again the review process. All this is delayed.

Of course, this is a long process.  But on those decisions that are made by the commission, when the registration chamber already take off from the register, the land is immediately provided to new land users in order for the land to be processed efficiently and rationally.  

A decision was taken on the Parcani land „Великая Победа” („Great Victory”) – 1933 hectares, it is withdrawn, given to another user. It was also decided on Hirjau and Crasnencoe.  We will consider and provide land plots.  These decisions came on this week.  A decision was also made on Limited Liability Company „Агромаг” („Agromag”), we considered and provided already it to three land users mentally, so that it would not idle, so that these people, who received land, could sow, could cultivate.

Speaking at the podium, Anatoly Konstantinovich Belitchenko said that Yuri Ivanovich Cuzmenco has 1250 (heads, – Ed.) elite herds.  Excuse me, why are you deceiving everyone: there has never been an elite herd. And he never had so many cows. This is all the livestock that was exaggerated.  Now you also call numbers.

Yuri Ivanovich Cuzmenco has 85 forage cows at his farm. 24 calves born, 24 calves died in the current year. Here is the chairperson of the kolkhoz, to be so in the Soviet era – how this could be? For all the time, those 85 cows gave 72 tons of milk, 720 centners, or 3 liters 130 grams per day.  You will ask me, is that – sheep or goats?  And they talk about prosperity.  I cannot appear in the villages of Camenca and Ribnita districts, because Yuri Ivanovich Cuzmenco, buying milk from these people, has not yet paid off with them. These are ordinary people who gave him milk in bulk in the village.

One says – „buy from Transnistria”.  I am only for this; I am only for buying Transnistrian. But the dairy plant worked on cream, on butter, which were imported from New Zealand, and here it was only packed.  So whose are these products?  So, it was ours?  No not ours. Only in this way was the enterprise was loaded, the products sent. That was the work of the enterprise. They covered the shortage of milk due to this. So it is necessary to speak frankly and honestly that the main share – it was foreign.  

As for the „Палагрос” („Palagros”). They had 792 hectares of land, 144 hectares of land remained, 648 were expropriated and transferred to the Limited Liability Company „ТриМ” („TriM”) and the Limited Liability Company „Агролига” („Agroliga”).  The right of these economic entities to use land plots (meaning Limited Liability Company „ТриМ” („TriM”) and the Limited Liability Company „Агролига” („Agroliga”) – Ed.) has not yet been terminated.  Representatives of „Palagros” came, I will not now call by name, patronymic.  I talked with them about when these land plots will be withdrawn and redistributed to the state reserve fund.  I said to the representatives of „Palagros” that as much as possible everything that is there, we will give them this in memory of his father, whom I knew well.  And in memory that they did all this, and so brazenly it was taken from them.  

There is Igor Pascari here, sitting.  He visited me several times on the „Stroyentsy” issue to return the land to him. But the land has not yet been withdrawn, how can I return that land that has not been withdrawn and is not represented in the land redistribution fund. There is a land commission, dear colleagues, in the region, and even here we provide this – this is only through the district land commission. In order not to say that somewhere, on the sidelines, this land was distributed.

And so on for others. About Vladimir Evgenievich Pasyutin, they also say to me: how is it that they took the land. But that he wrote a voluntary rejection for 1933 hectares.  


FROM PLACE. We know how they voluntarily refused.


E. KOVAL. I do not dispute now how it was there – I was not witness there.  Now this land has been expropriated and transferred to another economic entity, which has already managed to sow 1000 hectares of land and continues to cultivate this land plot.

As for, they say, Koval is doing something specifically against Pasyutin. Let's get a look. We have land legislation, there is the law on payment for land, there is an order for how to use the land: taxes should be paid for land, a share should be paid for land, land should be used efficiently and effectively, wages should be paid. What happened with Vladimir Evgenievich? For over four years, neither land tax nor share has been paid by him. Earth has been cultivated by other people the last time. I know a part of land users who work the land for him, I communicate with them. Two years in a row, two years in a row he did not pay wages to people.

FROM PLACE. Not true.

What is not true? I personally went to you, I wanted you to pay the wages to the people. Because this is my constituency – Parcani and Tirnauca.

Further. Children's benefits. Now these declarations are received – he also did not pay them.

Tell me please, and the land – is for what? It is given for what? First of all, the government should use it rationally and efficiently, the state should receive: you paid the taxes, you paid a share, as well as for food security, you received a certain harvest – so sell it. So please tell me what is it? And I look now, mostly, those who have the most comments, they are considered the most affected.




In the photo: two such planes „Bekas” processed the fields of the „inefficient” land of the user V. Pasyutin, until the state got into his business both „under Shevchuk” and „under Krasnoselsky” in order to „take away and divide”. At the end of 2014, the land user was awarded at the republican competition in the nomination „Transnistrian quality”. But then he was forced to „voluntarily return” one third of the land „under Shevchuk”, the other two thirds were taken away „under Krasnoselsky”. The land user quickly went bankrupt, they made a forced debtor of him, and he began to be accused of not paying taxes and other payments.


I want to say that after the courts make decisions, the land will fall into the land redistribution fund, and we, in a commissioned way, not only Koval himself, but in a commissioned way, along with the heads of state administrations of cities and districts, representatives who are included in the land commission – this land will be distributed to economic entities that wish to receive this land. And we will do it. Exactly.

Here Yuri Ivanovich (Cuzmenco, – Ed.) came to me, wrote an application, he did not write an application, but showed the paper that he wants 6331 hectares of land to be returned to him. So he thinks. Tell me, please, and from what calculation do you want it that way? Oh, his rights? The court did not recognize these rights. The trial was, in the court, and it did not recognize these rights.

I want to tell you; I want to read on „Palagros” (I also did not want to talk about it). „In 2017, the Arbitration Court of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic found that the rights of the Limited Liability Company „Palagros” in granting land plots to other persons were not violated” (we are talking about providing land plots in the amount of 648 hectares illegally taken from „Palagros” to other persons, which is more than 80% of all „Palagros” land, – Ed.). The courts give me information. Based on this, I draw conclusions. This is not my conclusion, but this paper comes from court.

I told Yuri Ivanovich, I told all the walkers who walk on his behalf behind me: the most that for Yuri Ivanovich is possible is 2,000 hectares of land. And he has the technique for this power, and it can be processed. They say: there is a farm. In order for the farm to be per thousand cows, a thousand hectares of irrigated land is needed. Thousand. A (another, – Ed.) thousand – please buy cereals, provide it with mixed fodder. And so it can be managed. Pay taxes, keep people, and that's it.

But many believe that the land will be sold. I'll explain why. Because I communicate with land users. And they say: the land will be sold, they will someday enter a certain price for the land, and everyone who has had these huge hectares, thousands of hectares, they everyone, like the eyes of Donald Duck, duckling, have their eyes clicking: how much profit did they lose or how much can they earn. You excuse me. As long as the land belongs to the state, if we see that the land is not used rationally, effectively, the taxes are not paid, the shares are not paid – there is a law: you did not pay one year, we take the land. This land is not for everlasting use. It was issued to the kolkhozes for perpetual use, and it was taken back because they did not cultivate the land. Therefore, dear colleagues, I say: as far as solving legal issues on land withdrawal, on transferring it to the redistribution fund, in the future we will provide this land, and as soon as possible. Not stretching time, because we have a lot of applications received from economic entities that want to use the land, have the power, have the means, have the capacity. And many of them have proven that they can do it.

Here I have, in short, everything on earth.


I. SMIRNOV. Thank you. I have one question. Tell me clearly on our state. How many controversial issues, how many hectares, how many of them are under legal consideration in the Arbitration or the Supreme Court, I do not know where else – the prosecutor? And when it's all over, the most important thing?  


E. KOVAL.   I have already mentioned the litigation on 30 economic entities. 14186 hectares, it was on that date, the problems have not been solved yet, and already 1933 hectares, minus 495 hectares, and by that we still have to take away, about 12 thousand hectares of land – that's all. The rest of the land is used and sown by economic entities.


I. SMIRNOV. This is only for Ribnita district? 


E. KOVAL. No, it is for the republic.


I. SMIRNOV. Can you spread them? So I know what it is in Slobozia, it seems, no, in the Slobozia district. And where else are there disputes?


E. KOVAL. In the Slobozia district there are the disputes:  this is to the Limited Liability Company „Гаспар” („Gaspar”).   It uses for 10 years not rationally, not effectively the land, does not pay taxes, transfers the land to other economic entities, they earn money on it, pay rent for the use of land.  Controversial issues on „Агростиль” („Agrostyle”), and now the commission is working on „Калиюга плюс” („Kaliyuga Plus”). 2628 hectares and more than 55% believe that it is black steam. Black steam, weeds are taller than me, and nothing has been sown for a whole year. And so he thinks it's a black steam, proves on the phone that these are black steams. He doesn’t pay money for land use, he doesn’t pay share contribution. And he took the money for the uprooting of the gardens. And he did not make the uprooting and did not return the money.  Now there is litigation in the courts on this issue.

Tell me. Nothing personal to this person. Well, how it is possible with such lands, Slobozia district along the route, when to go – on the right side, in the direction of Nezavertailovca, 2628 hectares.  Something is sown – the rest is all in weeds. Photo, our commission went to the place, filmed it all. How can the land be left on to this man so that he manages it?

I. SMIRNOV. Efim Mikhailovich, I'm sorry. Last: when will it all end?


E. KOVAL. Well, when the courts decide, I don't know.


I. SMIRNOV. Oops! And who?


E. KOVAL. No … I just … there are higher court there … No complaints … Because, really … I tell you … I have not been in contact with the courts …


I. SMIRNOV. Wait! Efim Mikhailovich, stand! Now only you taught me: the land cannot walk. It must be public. The land is of the state. It must work. Sowing, terms, are compressed, everything else. And when, I ask, when will these twelve thousand hectares start working for the state, ultimately, paying taxes there and so on, you say: I don't know. Who should say the first word there?


E. KOVAL. When I spoke, I said: I am in favor of considering everything in the shortest possible time. Because there is the need to sow, there is the need to cultivate the soil so that not to grow there … But there is a legal process. I can't jump over it …


I. SMIRNOV. Thank you. Please, ask questions.


 FROM PLACE.  So it turns out that „Gaspar” and „Kaliyuga” did not suffer when others were injured, including a little Martyn suffered in our district. It was some isn’t it? Why did „Gaspar” and „Kaliyuga” not suffer when the normal ones in our district suffered?


E. KOVAL. Why they did not suffer, it is not a question for me. I do not know why the land was not withdrawn from them.


FROM PLACE. And tell me, please, here is the selection of lands under Shevchuk – was in court at least one trial? That is, there was not a single trial there, everything was chopped up, distributed. Now the courts have declared it not legal. What's the reason?  The government, on the basis of these decisions, has already decided to give these (other – Ed.) people the land.  That is, on what basis to these (victims – Ed.) people was taken the land: that is, they did not pay taxes, inefficient use or so on? There is nothing of that kind, there was simply a volitional decision, the Government issued this volitional decision by its resolution.  Although it was not eligible. That is, all these actions are illegal, and they have been dragging on for several years. When will it end?


E. KOVAL. Let me answer you. Just like that, to withdrawal without any decision, there is no such.  There exist the irrational and inefficient use of land. There is the failure to pay taxes. There is a voluntary refusal in all those decisions that were. And of course, why did they expropriated so easily, because the land was not registered in the Registration Chamber. They considered this as the main motive. And now why?  All those lands are registered; their rights are registered. Therefore, it is the judicial system that is needed. But when the land was expropriated, it was written down in the decision in this way: irrational, inefficient.  


I. SMIRNOV. Thank you. Please – Vladimir Markovich Rylyakov, Tiraspol.


V. RYLYAKOV. In the development of the received question, I specifically want it to be said: the land withdrawal was carried out on the basis of what regulatory documents? We very often hear: everything must pass through the judiciary system. And now we hear that the withdrawal was carried out, because of the inefficient use. What's the difference! There is a court decision on the withdrawal or not, or there was also lawlessness on the part of judicial bodies or administrative bodies. We need to come to a clear understanding of this issue.  


E. KOVAL. Most likely, they applied some decisions. Of course, there was psychological pressure on these people to refuse, not to go anywhere, to the courts for example. I talked with Pisarenko, yes, as an example. I know well how they persuaded him. That you will remain without anything at all if you will … But now we win everything through the courts.


V. RYLYAKOV. Very nice, Efim Mikhailovich, to hear that you understand this situation. But my question is: are there any court decisions? It is not necessary then to say (if there are no court decisions, – Ed.) that these people (victims of the organized criminal group of Shevchuk, – Ed.) violated administratively the law.  There is the court decision that these administrative violations were present: inefficient use of land, failure to pay taxes, and so on and so forth. That is, it was necessary for them (offenders, – Ed.) to go to court and expropriate the land by court.  It is how we understand.  


E. KOVAL. Well, I understand it in the same way.


V. RYLYAKOV. Well, so the court trials were or not?


E. KOVAL. Shall I say as it was written in the decisions? The decisions say that these are the conditions on which I said … You said that they were simply withdrawn, no, they wrote the motivation (why they made such a decision).  


V. RYLYAKOV. I just want to draw a line: there were no court decisions on land withdrawal, and we’ll put an end to this.  The next question will be to the judicial authorities, the supervisory authorities.  


I. SMIRNOV. Thank you. Please – deputy Labunsky.


V. LABUNSKY. Tell me, please, on the basis of which regulatory documents the land was expropriated? That is, on the basis, as I understand it, of presidential decrees and government orders, isn’t it?


E. KOVAL. That's right.


V. LABUNSKY. Please tell me how much this complies with the land code and other legal regulations?


E. KOVAL.   The presidential orders did not comply with the land code, so the court cancelled, the Supreme Court when it interpreted; it cancelled this decision. This was still under Yevgeny Vasilyevich Shevchuk cancelled. Therefore, in a hurry, there quickly all this, that they provided the land, the decision was made … Government Decree 588. All-all-all, to whom the land was provided, was, as a single resolution, duplicated. Backdating, yes.  


V. LABUNSKY. I ask once again: were the orders of the Government, decrees of the President lawful, do they corresponded to the land code and the existing legislative acts that regulated the rights of disposal, possession and use?


E. KOVAL. The court issued the decision that it was illegal. Here the current court decided that neither the decision of the president nor the government’s decision was legal. The present court, I mean.


V. LABUNSKY.  Then there will be a question to the prosecutor: how the court adopted, and why it does not enter into force?


I. SMIRNOV. Thank you. Do you still have questions, no? Please – Bender, Angelina Ivanovna Ogli.


A. OGLI. I am a graduate of the institute; I am a graduate of the technical school. I do not understand. If the Supreme Court decided that Shevchuk illegally took away all these lands, why the court officials did not return these lands to the first owners? And the second owners, to whom Shevchuk gave (the land, – Ed.), may now lodge a suit. And then we have punished these people first time (from whom the land was taken away, – Ed.), and now they must defend their rights in the courts a second time. That is, they mock on them.  And I do not believe the Government, not a gram … In general, I have a question for Efim Mikhailovich. Did you know that at the (General Pridnestrovian People – Ed.) Forum you were shown distrust as the Minister of Agriculture? They didn’t even bring this to You.


E. KOVAL. No, they brought. I know. Back in Ribnita Anatoly Konstantinovich Belitchenko raised this issue …


I. SMIRNOV. Angelina Ivanovna, let's speak in essence. It's about land. Out of disbelief, they are, sitting here, who appoints (ministers, – Ed.). Please, ask another question.


FROM PLACE. It is analyzed, really, a difficult question.  I have a question for an earlier period. You were the chairperson of the Supreme Council Committee on this issue. These affected people appealed to you, and what measures did the Supreme Council take in order to repay it all in the bud?  


E. KOVAL. Yes, these people addressed to the Council. We conducted what was possible in the framework of the Supreme Council. The meeting with these people at the session of the Supreme Council.



(For reference. Obviously, the minister is talking about a session of the Supreme Council of the PMR, where parliamentary immunity was lifted from V. Pasyutin so that he could be put on trial for allegedly not paying taxes, not paying wages and other things. And the main denouncer at the session was the deputy E. KOVAL. The courts then went in shoals, but all the accusation are falling apart. If under Shevchuk, one third of the land was illegally taken away from the land user V. Pasyutin, then under the Minister E. Koval, the last two thirds of the land was „legally” expropriated – nothing personal, – Ed.).


We listened to them, made an appeal to the president on this issue, to remove this negative. Then, when there was appointed the Minister of Agriculture, along with the legal services – this is the prosecutor’s office, the courts – we worked to legally return this land to the economic entities.


FROM PLACE. And what, it was impossible to legislate somehow this …


E. KOVAL. And how do you imagine this? Where did you see …


FROM PLACE. What was your parliamentary initiative to consider this issue?


E. KOVAL. Please tell me where the Supreme Council has the right to cancel the presidential decree or show me the article. Legally, where it is possible. Only a written appeal and this is all, nothing more.


I. SMIRNOV. We talk too much. Let's ask the question very clearly. We have agreed: we work all the way until we resolve all ambiguities in this matter, without touching on management decisions, judicial decisions … well, we cannot cancel them there, but we can say that this and that, and so on, that's all. As it should be in the Consultative Assembly. Therefore, please ask more questions.


FROM PLACE. Efim Mikhailovich, such a question. Although you are heading the ministry for a short time, in your opinion, are there any serious problems in the legislation on this issue? Why? Because now we break our heads: was there a trial, wasn’t the trial. If the law would clearly state that this, this and that is not fulfilled, even in the volumes that we say (well, what kind of land user is this if he has more than ten thousand hectares, excuse me) … Sorry, I worked for a long time and I know; therefore, in your opinion, the land legislation does not require changes and additions with a clear reservation of all those nuances that relate to the use of land.


E. KOVAL. The land legislation also regulates the procedure for granting land for short-term use, for long-term use, and the procedure for expropriating land plots. In what cases for state needs the order of withdrawal. If a person has not paid land tax. In the case of irrational, inefficient use of the land. All this is spelled out in the Land Code. That is, something new to be prescribed there – no. If you mean, by area you named 10,000 hectares of land; to limit the area of representation, then no, there are no such regulations. Upper ceiling, how much land is offered, such information is absent. Just like the bottom ceiling. There are only terms. Long-term is 99 years, long-term rent is 25 years, short-term rent is up to 5 years.  Here it is all spelled out. And the order of regulation is also registered.


 I. SMIRNOV.  Do you have any questions more? Please, Vilor Nikolayevich (Ordin, – Ed.)


V. ORDIN. You, as a minister, of course, are responsible for the development of agriculture in our state in general so that we are fed and that everything is normal in this matter. I would like to hear in your speech a comparative assessment of the work of these households in question. Speaking today, Anatoly Konstantinovich (Belitchenko, – Ed.), spoke about 1300 cows – it turns out that there were 80, and they give 100 grams per day of milk.  So, if you don’t have it today, it seems to me, such an analysis (you also have commissions, that must submit reports specifically for each district, that these households, that previously owned the land, they gave to the state and was given by those who replaced (them – Ed.)). And who is the best of them, you must also give an assessment, probably. Therefore, the question: the commission on this issue works for you, on information support – specifically, on the effectiveness. Not just words: we are talking in one line – about effective, not effective.  This is not enough; you need to decipher it.


E. KOVAL. It is deciphered, this is efficiency. This is the yield, which is obtained from a hectare, this is the productivity from animals, this is gross cash proceeds, from net profit … We have all this; we also get …


V. ORDIN. We need household statistics and specific indicators.


E. KOVAL. So this is on the basis of statistics that we work.


V. ORDIN. So, specifically, do that, i.e. that today there are 30 households from which the land was taken, from 15 they were rightly taken away, but to 15 they must be returned. That's what it is about.  


I. SMIRNOV. Thank you. Please ask more questions. Please, Pasyutin.


V. PASYUTIN. Efim Mikhailovich, now we all know that President Shevchuk, during his time of management, did a lot of illegal actions.  Did you apply to our prosecutor’s office, the Investigation Committee, to initiate a seventh criminal case against him? Because six have already filed for his abuse.  And I think on the land should also be initiated investigations, because with this he caused damage not only to the households from which he took the land (he ruined them), but also to the state.  Because it is mainly an export commodity, and the state has missed income in the form of dollars and other money. That is, was this issue raised before the prosecutor's office?




In the photo: one of the prominent functionaries of the organized criminal group of the E. Shevchuk, the head of the bailiffs of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic L. R. Bakradze (now on the run outside the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic). She reports to the chief about the results of the next raids on land users: about the arrests of the harvest, about the sale of equipment for a pittance, about the bans to work the land… Land users and the state suffered enormous damage, but the criminal case against the head of the organized criminal group and his accomplices has not yet been initiated. Moreover, E. Shevchuk „under Krasnoselsky” was given six months of quiet life in the PMR, so that he could get rid of his property and freely leave the PMR. Perhaps the case is not being initiated because in the course of a criminal case on the ground civil claims from land users may be lodged, for which the state will be obliged to compensate them for damage caused by officials by tens of millions of dollars.


E. KOVAL. Are you have in mind the President… So you mean the previous president.  When land users contacted us, there is my personal appeal to Deli Alexandr Fedorovich, the prosecutor. And we received an answer – according to the archive, all this can be found, the letter has gone, the answer came with a number, where it is stated that there are no violations on the part of the republic’s leadership on the withdrawal (of land – Ed.). All this is spelled out; these letters must be in the general department of the Supreme Council. I personally addressed with.


V. PASYUTIN. So if the prosecutor's office said that there are no violations, then what do we want – they took the land and it’s good.


E. KOVAL. So now, the courts are engaged on the basis of the appeals of those land users. And the courts make decisions. I am telling you, I even read to you what the court decided.  If the court believes that the rights of the previous land user were not violated, such a decision goes to us, the Ministry of Agriculture. Shall I have to decide on my personal opinion: the court made the wrong decision, or no, how do you think?


V. PASYUTIN. If the Supreme Court decided that Shevchuk had no right to dispose of the land, and he did it, then he exceeded his authority. So, he must be judged. Let's open the seventh criminal case.


E. KOVAL. If we entrust and trust the judicial system and say that the courts make decisions, so I say: I got a court decision, I see what decision was made, then I make a decision. If the land after the decision (and there is a recommendation to transfer it to the land redistribution fund), we will transfer it immediately, and to not let the land to walk and stand idle, the land plots are provided to economic entities.


V. PASYUTIN. I did not ask this question. I am interested in punishing President Shevchuk for his abuse while in office. It is possible to be done also in absentia.


E. KOVAL. There are claims (criminal cases, – Ed.). Six points, what he did there, Shevchuk. There are going investigative measures. And when they will finish, I do not know ….


I. SMIRNOV. Thank you. There is a suggestion to thank …


V. EMELYANOV. I have another question, if possible. Efim Mikhailovich, it is clear that the roadmap for resolving this issue has already been defined, and no matter how much we fight here, it will be as agreed.  But by the decision of the courts, the land will be returned to the land fund and distributed from there. How would you think, can our Consultative Assembly propose to nominate its representatives in the composition of the committee for the distribution of land in this fund?


E. KOVAL. I want to say that I will react negatively, because there is legislation that regulates these rights, and it is written who should make a decision and make recommendations.  There are district land commissions, there is the Ministry of Agriculture.  And – meeting on that or what … You can ask for someone to be assigned, there are such cases. That's what we can take into account.  But I still consider it inexpedient to expand the commission in order to make decisions.  


I. SMIRNOV. Thank you. Please, Nikolai Mikhailovich (Shestakov, – Ed.)


N. SHESTAKOV. Tell me, please, when the lands were distributed, the courts distributed the lands or the lands were distributed by the government, there…


E. KOVAL.  When? Earlier? No, not through the courts, but by the decision of the President and the decision of the Government. But up to 100 hectares of land – by the decision of the Ministry of Agriculture.  


N. SHESTAKOV. Tell me, please, here you are now with your power, that's who does not cultivate the land – „Gaspar” there, and other. You can take this land with your power?


E. KOVAL.  No, I can't take it away with my power …


N. SHESTAKOV. In court order only?


E. KOVAL. Only in court order.  


N. SHESTAKOV. You see. This is also a flaw in the Land Code.


I. SMIRNOV. Thank you, Efim Mikhailovich. You stayed here for a long time.  I once again ask the representatives: who wants in the form of a report and to answer questions?  I remind you that we have the Supreme Court, the Arbitration Court, the prosecutor, the leadership of the Government, and the Pasat from Supreme Council present here.  Who wants instead of a report? Here were the statements there, Anatoly Anatolyevich (Guretsky, – Ed.), to the prosecutor's office. I would ask only to finish what we are trying to achieve: when this issue will be resolved, because Efim Mikhailovich because of your legal work, sorry for sarcasm, cannot answer this now.  Please, Anatoly Anatolyevich. Now we will „shake” you a little.



Leave emotionality and lobbying – only our Law!


image009A. GURETSKY. Dear Igor Nikolayevich! Dear deputies, invited!

I would like to say the following. First of all, we must get rid of emotional approaches and some individual preferences. And rely, first of all, on the law.




Dear deputies, the prosecutor's office is not a landowner, land user, latifundios, and somehow you can say. And when considering certain disputes, doesn’t import do we want or no, we rely on the circumstances that are established and the requirements of the law that exists, which regulates the appropriate procedure for resolving disputes. As a matter of principle, I have already spoken about this, once again I want to note that no commissions, no matter how we treat them, with some respect, will not consider disputes when there is the Constitution of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic, when there are relevant legislative acts that regulate legal procedures concerning a dispute.

When will these disputes be considered? Well, I will say such a thing, which may even perturb you. Land disputes will never cease, they were, are and will be. Naturally, we will rake the debris that has been formed over the past 5 years, we are doing this, and I will repeat what I said at the meeting of the General Pridnestrovian National Forum, when the forum representatives spoke with the President, I attended there.  I am, frankly, hurt and even outraged by the wording and terminology used by Anatoly Konstantinovich (Belitchenko, – Ed.): „things are right where they started”, and „we still go on spinning the wheels in the same rut…”

Listen, dear deputies. Over the past 10 months a tremendous amount of work has been done. The fact that someone does not like something is a different situation.  

Here are representatives of the judiciary system. I'll tell you as a prosecutor. Both in civil and criminal cases, when at least two parties are involved, in any case, some will remain unsatisfied. So it was, is and will be. Therefore, I think it’s absolutely un-pro-duc-tive to give some kind of emotional tinge and express some kind of indignation, and now in any case we cannot and should not replace the body considering this or that dispute in any case.  

I spoke at the previous meeting in the same composition almost.  I say that, yes, the prosecutor's office, the prosecutor, in particular, does not always agree from a legal point of view with the decision of the Arbitration Court. So the chairperson of the Arbitration Court will confirm that during this year I sent cassation submissions on certain cases and supervisory submissions, where I argued, expressed my point of view, to which I have the right, the law gave me that right. But the last word remains for the court. And this is right, it cannot be otherwise, dear deputies.

As for the specific amount of work, I want to tell you that well, to those thirty, even a little more, arbitration cases that have already been considered today, and, by the way, I would like to tell you that – on my initiative, given the public resonance, we took part in almost all cases, the representatives of the prosecutor's office took part…  I also know there were emotional evaluations, the name of the head of the Directorate Cerchez was often called and often exaggerated there, because the parties do not like the way she behaves in this or that process. Because you do not like, Anatoly Konstantinovich (Belitchenko, – Ed.), Cerchez and her position … You know, we are based on law, not on preferences. If – according to the law, then – according to the law. Excuse me, make it, let's turn the consideration of these issues into something chaotic.

What are you offering? Let's select the top three, some kind of courts like triples that existed. You know, this is the way to nowhere, dear deputy. This is the path to nowhere. We already went through all this, and it will not be. And you should understand this perfectly. And the fact that somewhere someone does not like something, this or that decision, well, excuse me – there is an order.

And I will tell you that, in addition to more than thirty cases that were reviewed with the participation of the prosecutor, more than 20 cases were added to this, when I directly initiated lawsuits, more precisely, first a statement of invalidation of non-regulatory acts, and further applications for recognition of absent rights (of land use, – Ed.).  Sorry, „Great Victory” is among our first.  We made relevant statements, claims to these land users.  We also made statements regarding such land user as „Avalon Plus”. In the Grigoriopol district – Belan, such a land user was, where there are also signs, as you say, of a raider seizure. And in some cases the Arbitration Court agreed with us, and in some cases did not agree, as I already said. And what, we will dramatize the situation and we will throw out some emotions.

I ask you, do not idealize, dear deputies, first of all, Anatoly Konstantinovich (Belitchenko, – Ed.), Vladimir Markovich (Rylyakov, – Ed.) such land users like Cuzmenco, or the same Pasyutin.

There are established facts, against which, sorry for such an expression – rudely, you will not trample.  If Cuzmenco really has facts, when on his lands, which were attached to him, acacia grew like this, and which can naturally grow not in one year, it is a fact.  How will you oppose to this, and what will you say?  I'm not talking about these herds of fat cows there and so on.

And dear Pasyutin? He is our birthday boy. There you demand to bring Shevchuk to justice, and he will be held responsible, I am sure of it.  But you must answer, for what, for the fact that you and your … No, you do not enter into polemics with me. Why? Because there are problems with the payment of wages.  Are these problems present? Therefore, it is necessary to answer.  In each case apart, specifically, not in general, not by slogans, not by emotions. It is necessary to answer for the fact that you, I will say this, has allowed, including from the point of view of not rational use of the land.  


(For reference. The prosecutor does not confirm by any evidence his allegations. Simple pumping up of emotions. Given that at the time of the Consultative Assembly on October 26, 2017, the „birthday boy” V. Pasyutin did not have wage arrears. And on the „irrationally used land” knee-deep winter crops stood, unnoticed by the Ministry of Agriculture's commission only because it specially made its own check and opinion on the irrational use of the land in the summer when there were no winter crops. Calling for abandoning the idealization of some land users, lobbying for their interests, emotionality, the prosecutor actually confirmed that the authorities, wounded in their ambitions, simply pursue some land users for their obstinacy, for not perishing, for criticizing the authorities. For the sake of ambition, the authorities are ready to stake on the credibility of themselves and even the fate of the state. – Ed.)


As for the distribution of the subsequent, we have done our work, badly or well, you, let's say, need to draw conclusions, first of all the president, the Supreme Council. Well, I want to tell you that the prosecutor’s office is now in these 10 months (I dispute the thesis about „things are right where they started” from the mouth of Anatoly Konstantinovich (Belitchenko, – Ed.), I will say that we even allow an unjustified heel in our work due to the fact that we are forced to deal with land issues even more than, by and large, we need. But we are engaged, we understand the importance and public response.  But making such assessments is wrong.

Then, we did our work, the Arbitration Court ruled, the subsequent allocation of land is the state’s business, there are authorized bodies that exist, which are appointed, elected. And, by the way, I was hurt when Anatoly Konstantinovich (Belitchenko, – Ed.) spoke, he said that the land belongs to „Palagros”. No, the land does not belong to it. It does not belong to anyone. We do not have private ownership of land. But this nuance, he knows how such a reservation, which says a lot.  People considered themselves land owners. The state is the owner of the land. While we do not have any changes in the Constitution in this part.  


(For reference. About catching fleas, instead of presenting arguments and evidence that have never been heard in the speech of the prosecutor. Unfounded allegations of land and tax violations of land users would have „rolled” on trust to the prosecutor, on respect for his position, but as early as June 2017 mistrust was expressed to him at a high level, collectively from the General People Forum.  Now, due to A. K. Belitchenko’s fiddle clause (of course, he knows that the state owns the land), the prosecutor is trying to cast doubt on the facts cited by A. K. Belitchenko in the report. Interestingly, A. A. GURETSKY makes the same exact reservation: „We also believe that where we are talking about the three owners of these 792 hectares, which „Palagros” used to use, there are questions.” (see his speech below).  But Belitchenko is not a lawyer, not a prosecutor, not a judge, to monitor legal accuracy. Unlike, for example, the judge, moreover, the Chairperson of the Arbitration Court A. V. Kiyko (see below), who, nevertheless, stated: „It was also necessary to file a claim on the loss of land ownership rights by third parties”. And what, this reservation of A. V. Kiyko also says a lot to the prosecutor? – Ed.)


Therefore, I urge you to escape emotions. To get away from, you know, such, I would say, idealizations of individuals who previously used the land and now at any cost they need to return this land. It is necessary to examine each particular case.

And the last. May be, this is not very pleasant to hear, but I will say this. Dear deputies. Not all, but separate ones, please, get rid of such a trend – lobbying someone's interests. I repeat once again that the prosecutor’s office, as long as I represent it here, is not engaged in lobbying and, so to say, expressing preferences in relation to individual land users.  There is the material, we are engaged in specifically this or that issue. 

And to illustrate this moment, I want to say.  Here the name of „Palagros” Limited Liability Company sounded here, which the Arbitration Court refused in June or July to satisfy the claims, based on the omission of the statute of limitations for appealing to the Arbitrage for a disrespectful reason. We discussed this issue (so that you understand that we do not formally approach these issues).

But in the near future I will send an application to the Arbitrage on behalf of the prosecutor. If one, I will say this, applicant receives a refusal, we turn to the Arbitration.  Let Arbitrage consider the request; this is allowed by law. And we will argue the request by the reason for missing the deadline. The Arbitrage shall consider these reasons to be respectful or not, will restore, will take into consideration or not… We also believe that where we are talking about the three owners of these 792 hectares, which „Palagros” used to use, there are questions.  But I repeat: the last word in this case is of the Ar-bit-ra-tion.


I. SMIRNOV.  Thank you, Anatoly Anatolyevich. Will we there ask questions? We will, necessarily. Therefore, please, Vladimir Markovich (Rylyakov, – Ed.)


V. RYLYAKOV. Anatoly Anatolyevich, with deep respect for you, but you made statements to me and to Belitchenko „do not idealize Cuzmenco” and so on. You are a lawyer. This is an indirect accusation of the fact that we, and it sounded in your speech, are lobbying someone's interests. This is an attempt on our image.  We do not lobby anyone’s interests. We do not idealize anyone.  

You understand that we have heard these expressions repeatedly from various authorized persons. And the people heard. And they even ask us questions. This is the first. What do I want to say? You must be careful in such statements, and have facts and arguments. This is first. The second. I have to ask you, Anatoly Anatolyevich. You said we need to rely on the law. You absolutely correctly said. Therefore, I have a question for you as a lawyer: your opinion, the withdrawal of land was legal or not?  The role of the supervisory authority in this, in particular, the prosecutor's office at that time, and how would you recommend, as a person as a lawyer, to act to people who consider themselves offended?


A. GURETSKY. Regarding idealization and lobbying.  These expressions are not offensive; this is my opinion. This is my point of view. I really think that in this case there is an excessive idealization of land users.  I called arguments for such a conclusion.  I mean a lot of materials that relate to illegal actions from the part of Pasyutin. I mean also the decision of the Arbitration Court, which concerns the conclusion about the bad faith of such a land user, as Cuzmenco. Why am I talking about idealization, because here, in contrast to the presence of documented facts, there are words from the tribune that these land users are offended, unhappy, and they were absolutely not rightly deprived of the right to use those or other land plots.

 As for lobbying interests, I want to say, as long as you put the question this way. Well, Anatoly Konstantinovich (Belitchenko, – Ed.) knows perfectly well how he tried to influence me together with Cuzmenco, they came and literally in such an imperative plan demanded a solution of the issue not in this way. I do not change my position; I spoke about this from the very beginning. Dear, there is the court, Arbitrage. The law did not allocate to the prosecutor a mantle, we are not engaged in the resolution of the dispute, Arbitrage does this.  Here you have the argument, in favor of the conclusions that I made.

As for the decisions that were made earlier on the withdrawal of land plots.  If these decisions, Vladimir Markovich (Rylyakov, – Ed.), were legal, Koval already told you about this, then there would not be these decisions now.  There would not be these decisions of the Arbitration Court at the present time, now. Decisions of the Arbitration Court, which invalidate the non-regulatory acts of the president, the government, adopted during the rule of Shevchuk, it only confirms that those decisions were illegal. And now we confirm it. What's the question? The fact that this process is not going on right now, as you say, „things are right where they started”? We already have dozens of decisions on this issue, and those decisions that were taken under Shevchuk were recognized as not legal, not valid.

FROM PLACE. You urge us not to show emotions here, to be an amoeba and so on. We are not mammoths, sorry. We also understand all these matters.

Now you are talking about legality and so on, now what did you say? I mean, that if the courts find some actions illegal, the prosecutor’s office should initiate criminal proceedings. Against whom criminal proceedings have been initiated on the illegal distribution of land – the government, the president, and so on?  This is the first question. And the second question: the timing of examination.  It can't be forever. The land does not wait, it must be processed and give birth – it has its own time.  So, it has already passed … you said, 30 cases are being considered in the Arbitration Court, considered, a decision was made on them.  How many land users who were illegally expropriated of the land got it back?  


A. GURETSKY. This question is not for me.


FROM PLACE. All is well – there is no question!




In the photo: apparently, one of the „effective” land users – the former Prime Minister of the PMR T. Turanskaya (now – on the run outside the PMR). Limited Liability Company „Агро-Лига” („Agro-Liga”), affiliated with T. Turanskaya, received illegally the withdrawn land from „Palagros”, which was leased out at $ 100 per hectare to one entrepreneur from Ribnita. This land still remains with T. Turanskaya. Probably, the prosecutor A. GURETSKY declares about such a case: „This question is not for me”.


I. SMIRNOV. We have narrowed the problem in terms of: decided – it was illegal.  Now on the court was confirmed. But they return not to those who owned, but return to the state fund, as I understand. And then this outraged the owners, those from who they were taken away, once they were punished, as they said.  And why not them (the land is returned, Ed.)? This is the question as I understand? About this.  Therefore, from this point of view let's see again.  But let's remember the words of the prosecutor: everything must be done according to the law. But you did not answer, Anatoly Anatolyevich for one question, and I just have to show my harmfulness. Please tell me, the system of public administration provides for – even the great president, anyone, the control of subordinates in office when making decisions, for they must be governed only by law. Therefore, the question is natural:  and then, when making an illegal decision, there was a decree from Deli that this was not legal? I remember you wrote to me when I worked as president. Was this, Anatoly Anatolyevich? It was. So I ask. 

Further, the land distributor, sorry, there the land commission is also illegal, that? And now what punishment it has suffered?  This is the meaning of mutual control. You may have authority.  But that is why they break up so that later there is control, we are talking now – People’s control. In this regard, what the prosecutor's office thinks about the wrong, already socially significant, violation of the Constitution and, what you want, by the president or by anyone - this fact does not change the essence? Who are the executors? How will they respond? Or a question like this: what could they do? Yes, or no?  Then something needs to be legislative, you hear, comrade deputy, a little bit to do.


A. GURETSKY.  Well, firstly, it has already been mentioned here, as regards the facts of illegal redistribution of land during Shevchyuk’s rule, referring to the response of the acting prosecutor Radchenko, who worked in the same period, who, let's say, reported the illegality of certain decisions.  As for what happened next, is actual for now. I repeat once again, our entire work during the 10 months of this year, when we applied to the Arbitration with declarations to invalidate the non-regulatory acts of the president, of the government, and also stated claims to recognize the missing rights (land use, – Ed.) for this or that land users – this is the answer to your question. We did this work, and we applied, and decisions were made. I will say once again that they did not always satisfy someone, these decisions, but I repeat once again: the law was observed in this case, the decisions were recognized illegal.  I do not see at the moment, in principle, other possibilities of influencing this situation.  


I. SMIRNOV. One more question. Labunsky, deputy.


V. LABUNSKY. Tell me, please, you are already dealing with this issue for 9 months, this is a burning issue, and it certainly will not end, you answered correctly.  Please tell me, based on your experience, your practice as a lawyer: how far our land legislation is in accordance with today's needs or, I’m not talking about world standards, how far the law enforcement practice, what Igor Nikolayevich tried to tell you, is relevant and corresponds to ours needs, that is, our standards.  


A. GURETSKY. Well, the legislation, of course, cannot be called perfect, and at present, the Supreme Council of our republic is considering a number of legislative acts on introducing amendments to the same Land Code.  And this is in principle, what I can answer to this question.  In addition, I want to say the following, that, of course, there are questions about the procedure for the allocation of land.  For example, I can say my point of view. In my opinion, such a principle of land distribution as, let's say, tenders at an auction or something has the right to life. Although our land is not for sale, but each of those who claim to use land efficiently, in its turn, must also, let's say, demonstrate its capabilities, including. So that we don’t have such a situation that the land is distributed only to those that one likes and for whom there is someone to speak or support someone.

I think that the question of a more objective redistribution of land, it needs to be improved.

I. SMIRNOV.  Thank you. There are no questions any more. Thank you, Anatoly Anatolyevich, both for the report, and very thorough answers to the questions.  A break of 10 minutes is announced. Please, comrades invited, I ask you not to leave until the solution of this issue.  

(AFTER THE BREAK) Dear deputies, dear guests, please settle down.  And I draw the attention of deputies – do not be offended by the joint upbringing of each other.  We are trying … there the Prosecutor and the Minister … We must not forget the child himself so to not throw it out with water. This is a complicated question, generated by the illegal actions of an official OR A NUMBER OF OFFICIAL PERSONS (now, this should never be forgotten). Therefore, our task as a Consultative Assembly was: to develop recommendations, I emphasize again – recommendations for the Supreme Council, Government, President. There are no questions – they are readable and conversational with us, and therefore, please, I speak for a very long time that you do not repeat my mistakes – do not speak too long.  Very clear and specific when discussing. 

We still have: the government, the minister, the prosecutor, two judges from above observe how we behave, so what are the proposals further? To discuss?  We are discussing. Who is for stopping the reports and starting to discuss this problem with the purpose, I emphasize, to make namely recommendations and to the legislation, and to make management decisions, recommendations, I emphasize, on land issues or just by land, please vote.  Against – one. Well then we will continue, we still have democracy. Who do you want, please, your offer?


FROM PLACE. Igor Nikolayevich, in many speeches there were questions not only to the prosecutor, but questions that the courts decide the cases too long. We would like to hear them too on this issue. Maybe there, really, Anatoly Konstantinovich (Belitchenko, – Ed.), we said, he blames everyone, but in fact they work. Here to hear them too.


I. SMIRNOV. Probably you heard that before this I said – who else wants to make a report. You see, I can't order judges. Is there any?  Raises his hand.  The word is given to the chief judge, and how correctly he is called here, the Arbitration Court, – to the chairperson. You see, how good it was, and also, when the Republic was created, our President’s office was called the Chairperson. Please.




After „certain state bodies” expressed their opinion on the filed land claims, we immediately began to work on these claims. 


image011Dear Igor Nikolayevich! Dear deputies of the Consultative Assembly!   

I am very grateful for the opportunity to attend this event. I feel a certain awkwardness from the point of view of legal correctness, because all the same there is a discussion about some characteristic of judicial activities – the activities of the Arbitration Court, while there are still a number of cases in production, and I really would not want me to be asked questions according to which you asked me to comment on this or that court decision, this or that judicial act. Since you understand perfectly well that there is a law on the status of judges.  I am not only a nominal figure, but also an acting judge. I have the right to consider appeals, I have the right to bring a protest in the exercise of supervision, and therefore I ask, dear attendees, to be extremely correct and to understand me if you suddenly find that I cannot answer a specific question. Thank you.



Now I would like to provide your attention with the following information, which, in my opinion, will help you subsequently make the right decision. Maybe this is a strong word – the right decision.  Well, at least, an informed decision to recommend to some or other government bodies of our republic on the first issue on the agenda.

So what I want to say?  I prepared some kind of statistical reference, I will leave it to the distinguished Igor Nikolayevich. In March, I took up the duties of the Chairperson of the Arbitration Court of this year, about 6 months ago. For this period, I discovered that the Arbitration Court has a number of cases, roughly speaking, frozen.  I apologize, I will express myself simply, clearly, without legal slang. Several frozen cases are suspended, we will say so, which were suspended due to the fact that the materials were sent to certain government bodies to give conclusions about the legality of the actions of previous authorities. I mean the actions of the president and accordingly the actions of the government.

After the Arbitration Court received conclusions on these issues (the conclusion, strictly speaking, contained a recommendation to consider the case on the merits without conclusions about legality-illegality, we made such a decision, and you please comply with the requirements of the current legislation, dear Arbitration Court, and consider cases by law) we have resumed these cases.


(For reference. After the recognition of the chairperson of the Arbitration Court of the PMR that some cases before the consideration were sent by the court to certain state bodies (as follows, the state bodies are already after Shevchuk) for giving conclusions on the legality of the actions of Shevchuk and his Government, there is no need to talk about the independence of the Arbitration Court of the PMR with the deification of this judicial institution by Guretsky and Koval. There is no need to talk about the supremacy of the court in resolving disputes, with all the tales spoken at the Consultative Assembly about the legality of decisions taken by the court. In this case, the court received instructions from some government agencies to consider cases without conclusions about the legality and unlawfulness of the actions of Shevchuk and his Government (???). That is, it was provided direct intervention of some state bodies in the final decision of the Arbitration Court on the issue, which is in the exclusive competence of the court. – Ed.) 


What i want to say?  They were resumed and began to consider. Here were pronounced the numbers of one thousand five hundred people.  30 parties involved in the processes. I want to tell you the number of the plaintiffs or applicants, namely, how many entrepreneurs filed an arbitration claim with the court. Today, nine entrepreneurs filed a large number of lawsuits with the Arbitration Court.  I will not list their names, but I repeat once again: Igor Nikolayevich will look at the list if he will desire.

To date, the Arbitration Court has received 59 lawsuits on the land. 37 claims were examined. I apologize, 59 lawsuits were received, 37 were examined in the second instance. 59 lawsuits in total were received. Of these 59 decisions were made and appealed in the second instance, that is, another examination took place, but at the cassation appeal stage, 37.  That is, in fact, 59 cases were received, 37 were considered in the first instance, in the second instance.  At present, at the moment, in the first instance, 50 cases have been examined and only 9 cases that have not been examined remain in the proceedings of the Arbitration Court.  


(For reference. For the examination of lawsuit of only 9 injured land users with an incredible, as stated, rush and terrible priority of land affairs, the Arbitration Court spent 10 months and had not finished yet.  The question is how many years would it take for the Arbitration Court to consider the claims of all 1,400 (President V. Krasnoselsky) or 1,500 (A. Belitchenko) farmer households involved in land disputes? This is first. And the second: since, as stated at the very top, the land issue was practically resolved by the end of 2017 (only 1% of the disputed land remained, they say), it follows from the statistics of A. Kiyko that all other land disputes of land users (1391 by A. Krasnoselsky or 1491 by A. Belitchenko) were resolved out of court. That is, by all the same „certain state bodies”. With such statistics, the influence of courts on land disputes is virtually zero, and the courts are used by „certain state bodies” only as a screen to conceal the „straining” of land affairs between themselves. – Ed.).  


At the same time, I want to emphasize that claims to protect the rights were filed, I am talking about my activity, they were submitted in March, and in April and May, and in June and July, and in August and September.  And the last two were filed on this Friday. That is, I want to say that this case review activity is not so: at the end of 2016 they were filed, and so we have so far dealt with these cases. Not at all, the cases were received and we examined them.  Arbitration court has become a kind of pipeline for the examination of land disputes.  And you yourself are well aware that the judicial procedure is quite a long process. Nevertheless, there were such cases when on Monday the lawsuit was lodged, and on Friday of the same week the court considered this case and finished its examination. Because the courts, too, as respected speakers have said here, the land requires care, it must work.

Now, as for the procedure itself, or, let's try to put it correctly, a story with the court making certain decisions.  It was absolutely correct to say that the Land is the property of the state, the land was once transferred to the use of certain entrepreneurs, then the second president of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic issued orders, and expropriated this land from some entrepreneurs. Then the government working under this president transferred these lands to third parties, let's call them so.  Here, strictly speaking, how did the process take place, which is now called illegal withdrawal of land in the media. From a legal point of view, entrepreneurs whose lands were taken, did absolutely right.  They initially appealed actions related to the withdrawal of land from them, then they appealed actions related to the transfer of land that was in their use to third parties.  And after that it was necessary to still file a claim on the loss of land ownership rights by third parties (land use rights, not property rights, – Ed.). It is this decision of the court that gives the right for the Registration Chamber to cancel the record that third parties have a right to land, and this land, in fact, should be given to the person to whom it should be given.

At the same time, I want to note that when they say that the land was taken from Ivanov and given to Petrov, perhaps, in fact, it looks like this. But from a legal point of view, it is not quite.  The land was withdrawn from Ivanov, got into the redistribution fund, and then the government gave the land to Petrov. That is, this situation occurred in this way, and not directly: go Ivanov to … Petrov – get it.

Therefore, restoring the procedure back, exactly the following occurs. It is initially declared illegal the order on the withdrawal of land. This gives reason to seek protection for own rights. But as Anatoly Konstantinovich (Belitchenko, – Ed.) said very correctly here, there are deadlines.  There is a jurisprudence, there are rights that must be protected in the time established by law.  At the same time, when these 9 businessmen filed lawsuits, having already received a court decision recognizing unlawful the decisions on land seizure, they filed a lawsuit declaring decisions of the government to transfer land to third parties illegal, the Arbitration Court (the decision was given to the parties) the Arbitration Court made decisions based on the current legislation, namely: having established that yes, the land was illegally transferred to third parties, at the same time the court refused these entrepreneurs, referring to the fact that they actually missed deadlines or did not prove their right to use this land.

There are nuances here, I would not like to talk about them now, because, there are so many opinions as many lawyers. There is a court decision, it has entered into force, this must be considered. And here, the dropped out, so to speak, the prosecutor picked up the banner from the hands of an entrepreneur, and in the interests, including of the state, and even, perhaps, these entrepreneurs, the prosecutor appealed to the court to declare the order illegal.  And the prosecutor did not have the obligation to prove that this regulatory act somehow infringed upon his rights, and these claims which were addressed by Anatoly Anatolyevich (Guretsky, – Ed.) were so far satisfied. The land, respectively (after that, the prosecutor filed a lawsuit for the termination of the right of third parties to use the land, these claims were satisfied), the Land got into the redistribution fund, and precisely there it, strictly speaking, is now.

That’s all. This is the situation. Today, we still have 9 other cases not considered. And as I understand, claims will continue to come. At least, Anatoly Anatolyevich (Guretsky, – Ed.) said today that some more suits are being prepared. And so, in fact, we are working.

I want to say that I see absolutely nothing wrong with the fact, that … I'm not talking about legality now. If the decision came into force it is already law.  But from the point of view of the philistine, what's wrong with the fact that the Land turned out to be where it originally was, that is, in the redistribution fund?


I. SMIRNOV. Thank you very much. How about questions? But bear in mind – this is a judge. Any questions? No questions.  


Part two.




 It seems that the Government simply wants to redistribute these lands again. And how is it then different from Shevchuk? Yes, by nothing.


I. SMIRNOV. Dear participants of the meeting, let's start the discussion. I think, that this information, which was brought to all of us, reveals more and more how to legally do it, isn’t it? To take away, to give away. So, what is next? And everything is legal. Therefore, there are people who recorded a speech here at me, while they are only six. Well, we will still be raising our hands.

I present the word to Podgorodetsky Alexander Glebovich. Lawyer of the „Agro-Lyukka”. Well, I understood that the lawyer will now clarify to us the legal eligibility. 

Yes, well, do you remember Podgorodetsky? This is his son.


image012A. PODGORODETSKY. Many thanks, Igor Nikolayevich, for giving me the word. I would like to briefly touch upon the process technology, to highlight some important and some glaring factors. And also touch on the role of the republic’s prosecutor’s office in this whole land issue.  I will also try to get away from special terms so that everyone can understand everything.

I will begin with the decision of the Supreme Court, which established that President Shevchuk does not have the appropriate powers (for the distribution of land, – Ed.). Why did President Smirnov have these powers, and President Shevchuk no longer had? It's all very simple. President Smirnov had these powers due to the fact that he had a deliberative body of the Cabinet of Ministers, and he directly used his powers indicated in the Land Code.  And under President Shevchuk, in 2011 before he took the office, there were changes to the Constitution, to the constitutional law on the government, and all powers on property, in general, and on land issues, in particular, became the prerogative of the government.


Well, we must begin with the consideration of the Supreme Court, we all know how it ended, we know the court’s decision.

The position of the prosecutor’s office in the Supreme Court: Shevchyuk’s issue of land management orders (for which he had no right to issue), no one’s rights and legitimate interests are violated, therefore this decision cannot be made. Of course, the Supreme Court ruled otherwise that they are violated and are still violated, hence the decision of the Supreme Court. 

Further, the Arbitration Court recognizes by its decisions invalid the Land Administration Directives of Shevchuk E. V. concerning each of the economic agents who spoke here (the current legislation is arranged in such a way that the end-to-end decision of the Supreme Court alone is not enough for everyone, a separate decision of the Arbitration Court is needed for each economic agent separately).

And again – the position of the Prosecutor’s Office in the Arbitration Court in the absolute majority of cases: no rights were violated by the issue of the obviously illegal orders of Shevchuk, from the point of view of the Prosecutor’s Office.

The Arbitration Court did not take into account this position of the Prosecutor's Office and satisfied all the applications of the economic agents.

Now let me move on to more interesting and entertaining things.

On August 4, 2016, as was already said here during the consideration by the Supreme Court of these cases, which were called, and during the consideration by the Supreme Council of the resolution on the interpretation of the Land Code, the Government issues the Ordinance Number 588р, which attempts to legitimize absolutely all of the Ordinances of President Shevchuk in the field of land relations.  This Ordinance is a creation of the then Deputy Prime Minister Kisnichan, and the logic of accepting this Ordinance is simple. The President had no authority, and the Government therefore had to issue a legal act of the Government, by one Ordinance, to arrange all the Shevchyuk's Ordinances and everything is hush-hush.

They were ordered for giving them retroactive effect, which I will also say in one phrase by the current legislation is prohibited.  

On paper, it seemed to be smooth, but the „ravines” were forgotten.

On October 18, 2016, in order to verify the legality of the publication of Government Ordinance Number 588, Galina Mikhailovna Antyufeyeva sends a request to the prosecutor's office of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic, and on December 5, 2016, that is, on the last day of Shevchyuk's government, the acting prosecutor Radchenko replies that yes, indeed, the Ordinance number 588 is contrary to Article 35 of the Law „On Acts of Legislation”. That is, the prosecutor’s office as the supervisory authority, for its part, has determined: the said ordinance is obviously illegal.  

After this, under the new government, we write a letter to the distinguished Anatoly Anatolyevich (Guretsky, – Ed.).  Dear Anatoly Anatolyevich, will you deign to take measures to respond quickly, maybe, go to court, as the Ordinance is illegal, and the prosecutor’s office has already established this. In response, silence. A few weeks later, we remind you, Anatoly Anatolyevich, the three-month deadlines pass, which are procedural, please appeal this order or make some other prosecutorial response measures to the government if it ignores you.  Silence. Instead, right after the new year, on January 5, 2017, under the number 001 comes the letter signed by Anatoly Anatolyevich Guretsky personally, which is not quite typical for him, usually the answers, to say, the discussion questions follow the signature of the heads of department …


(5.01.2017. A. Guretsky made a supervisory submission on the Supreme Court decision, which established the lack of authority for President Shevchuk on land transactions, with a request that the said decision be cancelled!!! The newly appointed prosecutor, with his first appeal to the court, tried to protect Shevchuk in his affairs with the land. What upholding of legality in the subsequent consideration of the claims of victims could be expected from the prosecutor, who initially believed that Shevchuk did everything right? – Ed.)  


I. SMIRNOV. Alexander Glebovich, stop a little, a little. We are not judges. To us – very clear and specific, you know what this is about? If again – all this will repeat. (Says to the hall – Ed.): Vladimir Ivanovich, or what, you take on yourself to decide instead of a judge? Not?  Then I want you, as a lawyer, to say very clearly: I consider, as a lawyer, the plaintiff’s interested person, that this – that is why a decision was not made. I wrote a complaint primarily to whom? To the prosecutor. Yes, Anatoly Anatolyevich, am I saying correctly? I don’t know.

You understand what the essence is. I tell you this … We have a Consultative meeting, which should help find a fair way out of the wrong decisions of the former president, nothing more. Therefore, let us now speak specifically.

I would ask, I now see here even in the reference note, which Alexander Vladimirovich (Kiyko, – Ed.) gave, it says that for Number 588 to refuse satisfaction, I don’t know for what reasons.  Probably, this is not the Arbitration Court who decides. I don't know just. Yes, and here, by the way, we have here Anatoly Konstantinovich (Belitchenko, – Ed.), everything is based on the recognition of the 588th, our draft decision, which was prepared that the 588th is illegal.  But there is no such, there is absent in the Arbitration Court, there is no such or …


A. PODGORODETSKY. Igor Nikolayevich, well, the prosecutor's office cannot, in the course of the prosecutor's supervision, search for individual laws…


I. SMIRNOV. Alexander Glebovich, one minute … according to the procedure.


FROM PLACE. Sorry, according to the procedure, it is out of the procedure.  I want to remind the Regulation on the Consultative Assembly. Two little points. First, the discussion of the most important issues, isn’t it correct? And second, making proposals to the Chairperson of the Supreme Council aimed at improving the current legislation, as well as proposals for the interaction of public authorities – this is our task. And who is right that the prosecutor wrote and so on… Therefore, you can help the Consultative Assembly here in this regard (we have no other powers) what do you suggest that we adopt.


A. PODGORODETSKY. Vadim Nikolayevich (Krasnoselsky, – Ed.) recently publicly said that new land users also can apply to the Arbitration Court, whose lands were illegally granted by Shevchuk. It really is. But I want to focus on one of the most important nuances, which for some reason no one focuses. It is impossible to legally take land into the land redistribution fund from land users to whom this land, though not lawfully was provided by Shevchuk. Since, with the help of the prosecutor's office and the Arbitration Court, they did not protect the rights of the old land users, let's say, new, Shevchuk land users had a preferential right to register land for themselves. (Clause 1, 2, of Article 40 of the Land Code).  After all, they are not to blame for the fact that they didn’t draw something wrong there, because they used the land in good faith, openly and continuously.

So what's the result? They have done lawlessness over some, now over the second, and so on to infinity? But the Government has already prepared the next changes to the Land Code, which relate to investment commitments and prescribe their conditions in land use agreements.   

Do not you think that you build on a swamp? Therefore, I urge to once again weigh and assess the situation. It is not too late to return everything to the framework of laws. For this, the chairperson of the Arbitration Court is entitled, as Alexander Vladimirovich (Kiyko, – Ed.) has already said, to make supervisory protests on the decisions of the Arbitration Court that have entered into legal force, to return the land to those land users which was took by Shevchuk from them, and, I will say in Russian, all the desires and nuances can be settled by voluntary refusals of these old land users from a part of the land, and often – from a significant part. Then these lands will be transferred to the land redistribution fund completely legally with a written voluntary refusal, because, again, no one focused attention, and the prosecutor stepped aside from the unlawful withdrawal of these lands (Article 86 of the Land Code, where is clearly spelled out how land can be withdrawn: this is a voluntary waiver, this is for an irrational use of these lands, and all this must be fixed by a special act of the state body, on the basis of which the land will be withdrawn. None of this was done.)

Therefore, since the old land users are the first after the collapsed kolkhozes and the fact that they can voluntarily give up part of the land (they, Ed.), this is the solution for you. Yes, it is a more difficult way, but it is a legal way. Because otherwise it seems that the Government simply wants to redistribute these lands again. And how is it then different from the Shevchyuk’s? Yes, by nothing. Thanks you for your attention.


(We strongly recommend that you read the full text of the speech by A. Podgorodetsky (, who was unsuccessfully interrupted by the Chairperson. It was submitted to the Consultative Assembly and published on the „PMRF”. – Ed.)


I. SMIRNOV. Thank you. Please. Pascari Igor Stanislavovich is here? Will you speak? And then, sorry, you signed up, maybe everything is already clear, no? Please to the podium. Limited Liability Company „Строенцы” („Stroyentsy”).

And I would like your speech to end with a proposal to the Consultative Assembly — write this in the Decision. Clear? As a party meeting I say, is it clear?




With the beginning of the presidential election campaign in 2016, we saw the light at the end of the tunnel.  People believed that Vadim Nikolayevich would be able to restore justice and return the land to the true workers of the fields. But they take away the last from us. 


image013I. PASKAR. Dear Igor Nikolayevich, dear deputies, dear invited!

Today we are discussing the issue: the situation that has developed in the agricultural sector of our republic after the rule of ex-President Shevchuk.   I want to talk about some of the problems that our LLC „ Stroyentsy” specifically encountered, which director I am.  

In 2006, in April, the President of Smirnov Igor Nikolayevich allocated to the LLC „Stroyentsy” a land plot of 1047 hectares, including 994 hectares of arable land, 53 hectares of garden. For 99 years. Immediately after the paperwork, that is, the land lease agreement without registration at the Registration chamber, since the Registration chamber required geodesy data at that time, geodesy was worth the money, and at that time no one demanded that it is registered with the Registration chamber. The household began to work: we began to buy agricultural equipment, agricultural implements, warehouses, the construction of new barns and warehouses began.  


By 2009, the household already numbered: three combines, 18 tractors, nine cars and 25 units of other agricultural equipment.  593 heads of cattle were raised on the dairy farm.  The total area of all buildings at that time was 18,686 square meters.  LLC „Stroyentsy” became one of the leaders in the production of cereals, cereal grains of the first and second groups, as well as in forage for cattle.  The dairy farm of the household also achieved high results in milk yield per fodder cow.  And our gardeners harvested at the level of intensive gardens.  All this is confirmed by letters and high awards. So the state assessed the work of the workers of the LLC „Stroyentsy”.  

By 2013, the enterprise reached the following indicators: the average number of employees is 84 people, in a season – 115, the average salary is 3800 rubles or 350 dollars, the annual turnover of the enterprise is 11 million rubles or 1 million dollars, gross milk yield 900 tons.  There were 605 heads of cattle in the household, including 220 heads of dairy cattle, pigs – 332 heads.  For grain yield, I’ll give you a table: winter wheat in 2013, average yield for LLC „Stroyentsy” – 53 centners, for the region – 45, corn for grain – 76, for the region – 76, sunflower for LLC „Stroyentsy” – 29, for the region – 22, fruit by LLC „Stroyentsy” – 50, in the area a half, milk from a forage cow by LLC „Stroyentsy” – 4 500 kg., in the area – 3 800. Manure application – 4500 tons, the district did not make manure at all.  

But, despite all the results achieved, the state represented by the prosecutor of the republic, Deli Alexander Fedorovich, who acted on Shevchyuk’s orders, considered that President Igor Nikolayevich Smirnov provided the land plot of 1047 hectares to LLC „Stroyentsy” illegally.  And all our results were considered as irrational use of land. 

And then it began. Numerous checks of all state structures (by all state structures, – Ed.), pressure on employees and managers of the firm with their inherent (state structures, – Ed.) methods, initiation of ordered criminal cases in which searches were conducted with the seizure of documents. Only at the form this happened three or four times: all documents were loaded into bags, and when they were returned to us, a very large number of documents was lost. House searches were also conducted by the specialists of the firm. Personally, at my home passed two times such searches. And all in the evening and at night. Well, like in the '37th year.  

As a consequence of all these events, the culmination was the decision of the Arbitration Court, chaired by Melnic Maria Borisovna of September 25, 2013, declaring completely invalid the order of the President of the Transnistrian Moldavian Republic (I. Smirnov, – Ed.) of April 18, 2006, under the number 235 Articles 86 and 89 of the Land Code of the PMR.

The land plot was first transferred to the Bender Bread Products Plant, which immediately signed a lease agreement with us, because it did not need it (the land, – Ed.).  But it was a conclusion from September to December. In December the Bender plant refuses the land, and the land is transferred to the newly formed Subsidiary limited liability company „Санди-Карьер” („Sandi-Kar'yer”) (the future „Great Victory”, Ed.), which had neither equipment, nor tractors, nor a land plot where it all would stand, nothing was.  Again, this company gives us, under $ 27 of rent, it gives us saying – take, even work it a couple of months until spring. You see, they imposed on us. We took because there was no other option.

We work until May. In May, the land is transferred to the newly formed firm „Great Victory”. The „Great Victory” began in 2014 the construction of the tractor brigade on the land plot, which according to bondability has 95 – 96 percent (bondability is the indicator of land quality, 100 points or percent is the land of highest yield, – Ed.) And it was built on an area of 2 hectares. It was removed from the field, count it yourself, the meter of chernozems is about 20,000 cubic meters of earth, the chernozems was removed and taken out, well, it lies somewhere nearby, but there is not much of this black soil, and it was filled with slag from the MMP there.

But this did not break our workers. We continued to work on the dairy farm and the hay farm.  We had to handle 279 hectares located in the neighboring village of Vadul Turcului at a distance of 10 km from the household.  But the collective of LLC „Stroyentsy” was also saved, and in 2014 we were given in the village of Valea-Adinca, Camenca district, a land plot of 371 hectares, including 314 hectares of arable land, 45 hectares of decommissioned garden.  This land plot also contained 30 hectares of uncultivated land, which we introduced into crop rotation over two years.  For information, I want to say that this land plot is located at a distance of 35 km from our household. 

According to the lease agreement LLC „Stroyentsy” invested in the village of Valea-Adinca 100,000 rubles. which is 270 rubles on 1 hectare. At the same time, the well-known „Great Victory” invested, according to the agreement, in the villages of Camenca district Caterinovca and Sloboda-Rascovo, too, at 95 rubles per hectare. That is three times less.  

But, despite the fact that our company does not have land in the village of Stroeisti, the administration of LLC „Stroyentsy” regularly provides sponsorship for the village.  For the period 2015 to 2017, funds were allocated in the amount of about 100 thousand rubles. Basically, for the repair work of the school, kindergarten and other socially significant buildings, as well as we provide the equipment to the residents of the village, the equipment for the maintenance of their personal subsidiary households.  Anyway, people turned to us. Although the „Great Victory”, when they were given the land, promised that „we will do everything”.  But it turned out to be completely different. They bought large tractors and said that we could not provide you with services – you have small lots, please contact Paskar. So it was.

With the beginning of the presidential campaign in 2016, we saw the light at the end of the tunnel.  People believed that Vadim Nikolayevich would be able to restore justice and return the land to the true workers of the fields.  

On December 26, 2016, LLC „Stroyentsy” administration submitted an application to the Arbitration Court to declare invalid the non-regulatory legal act – ordinance of the President of the PMR (Shevchuk, – Ed.) Number 214 of May 13, 2013.  On March 31, 3 months later, the Arbitration Court satisfied our application. In April LLC „Stroyentsy” lodge the following application for the recognition as partially invalid of the ordinance of the PMR government number 588 of August 4, 2016.  On June 22, 2017, the Arbitration Court decided to leave without satisfaction the requirements of LLC „Stroyentsy”.

And here we were at an impasse, not knowing what steps to take next. We expected that by the summer of 2017 the land would be returned to us, and we will begin the new agronomic year on our fields.  In parallel, we developed animal husbandry, made plans to modernize this industry, because at the time when we were allocated land in Valea-Adinca, it was not at all rational to develop animal husbandry, and we reduced some of the animals. And as the previous speaker said, after Vadim Nikolayevich seemed to inspire us, we began to develop animal husbandry and pig breeding again.  But in practice it is clear that the famous „Great Victory” still works on this land plot.  

Moreover, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that on October 27, the Arbitration Court, that is, tomorrow, the question of canceling the decision on granting LLC „Stroyentsy” to the long-term use of a land plot of 371 hectares in the village of Valea-Adinca, Camenca District will be considered. And again we have to use – how much? – 270 hectares.  Tell me, is it possible to keep on this area, at the moment we have 570 head of cattle, of which 180 are dairy herds, 310 heads of pigs and provide with work 67 people working today on the farm?

What we should hope for next, and how can I explain this situation to the collective?  Because I am addressing you on behalf of the LLC „Stroyentsy” collective as quickly as possible to resolve the protracted land issue, because, as the saying goes, one day, well, not spring, but autumn, feeds one year. We are already late with the work. Why do I say that we are late? Because the „Great Victory” (all of you, I think, travelled to Camenca and saw it), what is their method of processing land plots.  Back in February-March, they harvested corn of 2016 and in 2017.  And this year, I suppose that the same will happen, because out of 1047 hectares, which they withdrawn from us, 800 hectares of corn, and they haven’t started harvesting corn, and corn, well, let's say that, has one and a half meters in height only, when the average yield even at our enterprise in Valea-Adinca was about 70 centners per hectare.



In the picture. Corn in the snow. Fragment of the ТСВ program of February 19, 2017. This is how the effective „Great Victory” land user, according to officials from the PMR Government, is working. And it continues to own the right to the land of the LLC „Stroyentsy” up to date.


I would also like to say to you for reference that in the „Great Victory” only 7 people from the village of Stroeisti work, and the firm is actually legally controlled by the citizens of Ukraine – the manager, the agronomist and some tractor drivers from Ukraine. Combines, tractors, cars (some tractors and cars) are also registered in Ukraine, they are not registered in our republic. And I can call companies like „Great Victory” as economic vampires who work only for their own benefit.   

That's all that I wanted, basically, to tell about our economy. And the proposal, as I voiced. Please, resolve the issue of allocating land for WORKING workers, well, within a reasonable time frame.  Thank you for your attention.  


I. SMIRNOV. Thank you. Efim Mikhailovich (Koval, – Ed.), You write. Then I will give you for reference.


V. RYLYAKOV. Yes, everything is clear! Courts are governed by the 588th ordinance, you clearly heard here. Therefore, it is necessary to include a proposal in the draft decision – a recommendation to land users for the victims – to jointly collectively submit it to the Supreme Court in order to declare the ordinance null and void and that the Arbitration Court should not be guided by this resolution.   


I. SMIRNOV. It's clear. Ananyeva Nina Borisovna, please. Yuri Ivanovich (Cuzmenco, – Ed.), I present as is written, there is no violation of democracy. Please, Nina Borisovna. Introduce yourself, and go on. Do not forget the final words: please enter this and that in the draft decision of the meeting.



Kirsta said: you must give the land, first half. I say: how can I give the land if it is a share land? Then we will take all the land.


image015N. ANANYEVA. Dear Igor Nikolayevich! Dear members of the Consultative Assembly of the first Transnistrian deputies. In general, I would say, the outstanding people of our Republic, because it is not the first time in this hall that I am very pleased to communicate and hear clever sayings.

I am the director of „Palagros” LLC, a former Soviet-style poultry breeding household farm in which my father worked for all my life, Boris Timofeevich Palagnyuk. Now I am working here, his grandchildren work, my son and nephews and our team are working here.  


The most important thing is that here Paskar Igor told me, the same thing happened with us. But all our land is shared. Since 1998, we have received shares and throughout this time we have had our shareholders.  We paid for land tax and paid land share all the time.  In 2011, LLC „Palagros” was formed. 271 shareholders have written applications, and we have concluded contracts with them.  The heads of the village Councils registered these applications.  

Then a contract and a lease agreement for 99 years were signed with the Head of the Ribnita District Administration, and we started working.

We started to register the cadastral number of this land plot – 792 hectares, but we were told in 2013 that you no longer have the right, because we want to take the land from you. Kirsta first called (head of the Ribnita district administration of the agriculture household, – Ed.) and said: you must give the land, first half. I say: how can I give the land if it is a share land? Then we will take all the land.   And so they began to take away the land. They could not take away the land according to the law, which states that it can be withdrawn if there is inefficient use, because they made, the inspection of state supervision – state supervision wrote the act in which it was written: everything is in accordance with the law. That's right, you have the right to work in this land.  But most importantly, after we were given this act, this girl was immediately fired, on the second day she was fired, and she told me: Nina Borisovna, they want to take the land from you anyway.  

Then there was the prosecutor's control, and they took the land from us.  Why? Because they decided that this lease agreement was signed to us by our Head of State Administration, and they decided that Igor Nikolayevich Smirnov should have signed.  They did not even consider it necessary to look at the law on what it was, which means an addition to the decree to the Land Code, and the 909th Presidential decree said that the heads of administrations had the right to sign such documents and to give us the right to work.  

We were working, paying shares, paying land tax, and everything was in order. In the end, out of 792 hectares, we have 144 hectares. We have the technique; we have a good collective. It turns out that we need to be destroyed, because, you see, our lands are close to the city.




In the photo: the new equipment of „Palagros”, purchased for 792 hectares, was no longer needed for 144 hectares, the equipment is idle. Will the state indemnify for lost investments?


What happened during these 5 years is terrible to say. Seven criminal cases on me personally.

So, we have kept the poultry farm, and we still have projects to revive the poultry industry to this day. We are members of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry, and we participate in all competitions, and we say that today there is an opportunity to revive more poultry farming, but for this, of course, we also need land. If there is no land, or there is not even a monthly supply of feed, then we will not be able to do anything either.  Therefore, we observe the law, and we observed it all time.

They said it is necessary to submit applications to arbitration courts. 19 arbitration trials were already.  Well, the decision of the president (Shevchuk, – Ed.) was canceled. Now we are faced with this wall – the 588th decree (of the Government, – Ed.). But, thank God, I heard today that, perhaps, they would allow us to challenge the 588th decree at the Arbitration Court in this case.  

To date, we also have good indicators for grain and technical crops. We have yield 25 centners per hectare of sunflower, 85 centners of corn. Last year we had 60 centners of wheat. What else is needed for our region?

The most important thing is that the children graduated from higher educational institutions in Odessa, came here, they want to work, and the team wants to work, and 271 shareholders always ask me: Nina Borisovna, they returned the land? I say: no, they did not. They did not return, but they will return. And I hope that today this issue will be resolved and a full stop will be put.


(More than four months have passed, but there is no reaction from the authorities to the Decision of the Consultative Assembly on the return of land for restitution. – Ed.)


Well, in conclusion, I want to say that I have analyzed the whole Land Code, and I think that it is necessary to make corrections. And my proposal is this: so that the cadastral number is not written like this – this is a unique land number that does not repeat in time and on the territory of the PMR.  It is necessary to assign this cadastral number and this shareholder a certain point (on the ground, – Ed.), as in other countries, like in Ukraine, like in Moldova. And then there will not be these questions: the shareholder has transferred his land, we use, we fulfill all the requirements and there will be no problems. Because the shareholder has received a share, and it is not clear where the land is specifically, what it is for.  The land plot must be defined. The number of the land plot, and is determined (land plot in place and its owner, – Ed.).    


I. SMIRNOV. Cuzmenco Yuri Ivanovich want to say something. You are welcome.




What is happening today is a legal mess.  This is the second division of land. At first, some wanted to take away and share, and now the second ones want to take away and share.  How to live with it? We cannot live by injustice – the state. We will not be able to build it on deception. What are you doing? Stop!


image017Y. CUZMENCO. Dear Igor Nikolayevich! Dear fellow deputies, the founders of the Republic! Dear representatives of public authorities!

Once again I speak to you because, in my opinion, the fact that, the situation that is happening today in the field of land relations is not legal. And I'm forced to fight for their land rights. I appeal to you, as to the last (highest, – Ed.) body of the public meeting so that you, having said your weighty word, influence the course of events and situation. I want to thank you very much for the fact that you are and that such an opportunity is provided. Separately, I want to say a big thank you to Anatoly Konstantinovich Belitchenko, Vladimir Markovich Rylyakov – you don’t lobby anyone’s interests, except the interests of the Transnistrian people.  Because you grew up on the concepts of honor, kindness, justice, truth. Based on these concepts, you built our Transnistrian state.  We believed you, we followed you.


Igor Nikolayevich, today your order of the President of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic on the allocation of land to SLLC „Agro-Lyukka” is in force. Today, long-term land use agreements are valid for 99 years. And today we are in this situation as a result of the voluntarist and illegal actions of the President Shevchuk and the raider seizure of the land, according to which it was taken from us. And then they legalized the illegal ordinance number 588 of Prokudin. They legitimize that, which did not arise.

I ask a reasonable question: where are the land rights of SLLC „Agro-Lyukka”?  I also have a judicial degree, I graduated from Transnistrian University with a degree in „Jurisprudence”, and I was qualified as a „lawyer”. Everything that happens is interfered with my consciousness as a specialist, as a citizen of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic.

What is happening today is a legal mess.  This is the second redistribution of land.  At first, some wanted to take away and share, and now the second ones want to take away and share.  

Dear Colleagues! There is no basis for crediting to the land redistribution fund the land from raider seizure. There is an exhaustive list: failure to pay taxes, uncultivated land, its inefficient use. There is a mechanism for calling a commission, for warning.

We tear away the cause from the investigation. We found ourselves in this situation as a result of illegal actions of state authorities through no fault of our own. The group of enterprises „Agro-Lyukka” paid taxes of two million dollars a year to the budget – local, republican.  There were 800 people working. For five years (of raider seizure, – Ed.), we only did not pay to the budgets as a result of the infringed of our business rights, which the Supreme Court had established, of about 10 million dollars. Nobody cares.

We go to court: yes, Shevchyuk’s decisions are not legal, but your rights are not violated. Well, this is a mockery, what kind of wording is that? We are kept for fools? Or for whom, I cannot understand at all. I am an adult, I cannot understand, but what happened to my rights (if they are not violated, – Ed.)?  It turns out that, in general, the illegal 588th disposition (decree), in part (concerning „Agro-Lyukka”, – Ed.) – is legally. But in general, we cannot sue it (to appeal against the 588th decree, – Ed.) because it is the competence of the President of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic, the competence of the prosecutor, which has not been done to date (by these officials – Ed.).

You see, we cannot live by injustice – the state. We will not be able to build it on deception. What are you doing? Stop!

I want to say that today the main thing is to restore legality and restore justice.

I will not talk about the fact that today we have had tests for efficiency and rational use (of land, – Ed.). Multiple. That Deputy Minister Tsybulsky said that this is how to work – what they want from you? There was a need – we voluntarily gave a part of the land. We went to a constructive, to a dialogue with the authorities. And what today?

We built an eight-row barn, eight-row (!), we built the most modern milking parlor.  „Yes, there were no 1,250 (heads, – Ed.) of elite cattle” (sounded in the report of Koval E. M., – Ed.). Well, there were 1250. And the cows we brought from Holland were kept (at the Transnistrian customs, – Ed.) for two and a half months.  It was all, it is all there.

And today (2017. – Ed.)  the land was distributed even around the dairy farm! Not a single hectare left (for cows, – Ed.). I am told that it is legal. It's illegal. This is arbitrariness. Another round, or rather arbitrariness. It cannot be legal by definition.

No one goes to the dialogue. No one is talking. Why two (hectares are needed per cow, – Ed.), and not six, I explained to you, Efim Mikhailovich (Koval, – Ed.). Because the Ribnita Dairy Plant is designed after modernization for a capacity of 400 tons of milk per day, and only 50 tons are produced in Transnistria now. 400 and 50 – ten times the capacity of the plant is more powerful than the market, which is today for raw milk. Therefore, we need to build on existing farms and build a new one for the maintenance of 3,600 cattle with a productivity of thirty kilograms per day per cow. What will be equal to 100 tons of milk per day. And we submitted this plan to you to the Ministry of Agriculture. And we made it in 2012. There was equipment only for 5 million Dollars, and investments – 10 million Dollars. It turns out that no one needs all this. So, for one cow one hectare of irrigated lands is really needed, and on rainfed lands we need two hectares. Because such is the nature of keeping animals. The non-irrigated land, as a result of drought, frost, must have an insurance fund.

Here was a simple calculation. Simple and understandable. Land, feed, cows, processing at a dairy plant, production and export, including to the Russian Federation – we had all this. We were stopped at full gallop. 850 people worked here. They received official wages. By the way, I’ll say, we paid for milk long ago. And we have no debt on milk (just as V. Pasyutin has no wage arrears long ago. In addition, the delay in the payment of salaries and settlements for purchased milk is not a basis for the withdrawal of land under the Land Code, – Ed.).

I justified why it is necessary two thousand (hectares for the cows, – Ed.), and not six. I do not ask for eleven (thousand hectares for sustainable work of the „Agro-Lyukka” – Ed.). Give at least half. But nobody wants to hear, listen or do something for us.

We appealed to the prosecutor for protection. Note: we appealed to the prosecutor's office – please protect us from voluntarism, from arbitrariness, from lawlessness. Unfortunately, things are right where they started, and today we are re-fooling you with our problems, and we knock on your door and ask: please … Because, well, if you do not act according to the law, justly, then there will be no future development today.

Our land was drawn up (withdrawn and transferred to other persons, – Ed.) without publishing the decision of the Government. They were afraid then, as a result of the election campaign (in 2016 – Ed.), even to publish. They published only in February (2017, under Krasnoselsky, – Ed.) what was registered in December (2016 in the last days of Shevchuk – Ed.). Yes, you can check. We addressed about this. There are excerpts from CAL (Collection of Acts of Legislation of the PMR, – Ed.) that it was published in February, and the registration took place in December, because after my speech in the state administration against Shevchuk, this was revenge.

But even he did not take everything (the current authorities have raised their hand to everything, – Ed.).

They distributed all (land taken away, – Ed.) to the non-existent farms. Non-existent. That is, today they allocate land for a peasant household, which is registered tomorrow. Is that really legal? Is illegal. Is the registration (of such a deal – Ed.) legal? Not legal? Was the land taken from us on three grounds (as required by the Land Code of the PMR, – Ed.)? Not. They took the land from us „for state needs”.  Shevchuk offered a ransom, compensation. I refused: what are you doing? They withdraw the land in the interests of the Camenca cannery. When we continued to fight steadfastly, they took it away for the Bendery PoB (Plant of bakeries, – Ed.).

They wrote a statement to the court (the director of the PoB as instructed) for working on this land. The equipment was taken from the field (traffic police was on duty, traffic patrol), was driven to the penalty area. Can you imagine it? (All forces of the state were thrown against the land user, – Ed.).




In the picture: Police prevent tractor drivers from entering the field for autumn field work. This is not the tractor drivers of „Agro-Lyukka” – so it was everywhere.



We, according to the instructions, were first deprived of the land ahead of schedule, and then there was canceled the loan ahead of schedule.  Many heads of households are sitting here, you can teach me when, of the three components of surplus value, that is, fixed assets — land, loans — working capital, you do not have two (only — labor). How to work, how to earn?

No way, no one will teach me. Because there is no way.

The worst thing is that it all lasts, you know?

We, who fought against the regime (of Shevchuk, – Ed.), are now standing on the sidelines and are watching how those in whose favor this was all distributed (under Shevchuk, – Ed.) work. That's where the cry of the soul is.

And how to live? For what to live? And for what to eat, and for what to feed children? How to pay wages to people? Those who stayed – from eighty hundred eighty people also look at me. They ask: Yuri Ivanovich, when will be the land returned?

Therefore, I am here. Here there were talks about animal husbandry. So, we have milked 7 thousand kg. for one cow, we were the first in the republic (on the first place, – Ed.). This was recorded on the website of the Ministry of Agriculture. Seven thousand! So here were our results. Today, yes, we milk 3 liters instead of 27. This is not our fault. This is a consequence of arbitrariness, lawless actions. 100 percent.

And if there is no land, then how to feed? And the land was distributed along with alfalfa (already planted on it, – Ed.). Also for those who do not even have the technology (to harvest alfalfa, – Ed.). Together with the alfalfa around the farm there were distributed 300 hectares of land (in 2017, – Ed.)! And they say it – everything is legal.

They beat the tractor driver. They came home because he mowed (ours, – Ed.) alfalfa and gave it to animals to feed.  And they did not find the culprits.  It seems that it is only necessary to write in social networks to find and punish those who are guilty.  Well, what it this?




In the photo: beaten tractor driver Nicolai Baciu.


Well, how to live with it?

Igor Nikolayevich, you are our President, you called – we went. Since 2003, without any, excuse, paperwork, without cadastral passports, no plans for sites. Just on faith. Because it was necessary. We were given land when the land was a source of losses. It is today, ten years later, it became a source of wealth.

We lost 100 percent in 2007 from frost, the first group. We, in 2009 from drought lost, the first and second groups. In 2011 and 2012 losses only from natural disasters alone amounted to $ 5 million. Five! Frost, drought – one, second, third … This is the last five years, that agriculture has been the dynamics of a successfully developing industry. And before that it was not so.  Before that, we forcibly gave the land. Including, with weeds that grow there, weed, inconveniences, marshes. So that it was clear, out of 11053 (hectares, – Ed.) of arable land, we had 12357 (hectares of everything, – Ed.), that is, an additional 1,100 hectares – taxes only on inconvenience. That's what we did.

And we believed. We paid wages, plowed land, created jobs. We brought modern equipment, went with it, Igor Nikolayevich, at parades. We were proud of it.

And today we are nobody, and they call us – no one. Well, how is it?

I think so.  If a matter of honor is really a righteous thing, if „I have honor” are not empty words, Igor Nikolayevich, it is a matter of your honor and Vadim Nikolayevich’s honor to bring the situation into a state of legality and justice. Thank you for your attention.



I. SMIRNOV. Thank you, I think this is the case of all Pridnestrovian, so that we have justice.


FROM PLACE – CUZMENCO: Everyone knows you are a land merchant.


I. SMIRNOV. I'm sorry, what? And there is a prosecutor, write for insulting the dignity, let him work.


I. CUZMENCO. I will answer to make it clear. We were forced to sell on the vine the crop to Bender PoB. In March, 400 with something, I do not remember, a hectare of wheat and something else, at the root, we were forced to sell the crop to Bender PoB (Plant of bread products). Then Bendery Bender PoB sold it to „Avalon Plus”, in whose interests Shevchuk acted. And he made us to sell it to this plant. Before that, a wire „accidentally” dropped on the farm and killed … He forced us to sell fixed assets.


I. SMIRNOV. Yuri Ivanovich, who made? Full Name. We will immediately arrange the case to the prosecutor.


Y. CUZMENCO. Shevchuk Evgeny Vasilyevich.


I. SMIRNOV. Yes, he (the prosecutor – Ed.) has already drawn up. (There is no criminal case on the land, – Ed.).


Y. CUZMENCO. So here. We sold all the fixed assets, all. I quote the author (Shevchuk, – Ed.): „So that even your smell was absent from there!” And this is a dairy farm, this is a grain mill, this is a tractor brigade, this is a vegetable store, this is a garage. By the way, we bought from the Ofatinti village administration for our money and transferred the building to the state administration.  Just gave it as a gift. To help for the development of the village. And we did it without any investment liabilities. We also built a kindergarten in the Molochisul Mare village, also without any investment obligations. Just as the soul and call of the heart. Therefore, we did not trade any land. I declare responsibly.


I. SMIRNOV. Thank you. Do the rest insist to speak? Momotyuk?


FROM PLACE. It's hard to add to this speech.


I. SMIRNOV. It's hard. That's why I ask. Ciorba Gennady Pavlovich, entrepreneur.



The first alarm bells for our government have already sounded. And when I am told that the decisions and actions of the Government, of the Prosecutor's Office and of the Arbitration Court are independent of each other and are based only on the Law, I have a feeling that they are laughing at me and on all of us.


image020Dear Igor Nikolayevich! Dear invited!

I want to thank you for the invitation and the opportunity to speak in front of such a significant audience. I will try to be brief and to highlight the essence of today's meeting.

There are several axioms in the Theory of State and Law that I would like to remind in this hall.




First. Only power and no one else, by their actions or inaction, form the attitude towards themselves. Dissatisfaction, and later hate for power, is the result of this very process. Discontent grows into hate by accumulating. Namely hatred of power creates skepticism about statehood itself and may lead to the destruction of the state.

Second. As soon as one of the branches of power ceases to fulfill its functions in full, there is an imbalance in the balance of checks and balances, which inevitably leads to the destruction of the state.

And third. The substitution of the Law by expediency and the attempts to adjust the Law to the necessary decision, using the bodies of state power, creates distrust of the power, which later again can lead to the destruction of the state.

It was not for nothing that at the beginning of my speech I recalled these fundamental axioms of the existence of a state. In the following, you will understand why I did it. 

Just recently, the first bells of the attitude of the people, for the most part of it, to our present government have already been heard. Initially, practical disregard of by-elections to representative bodies. 27 with a small percentage came to the vote, it is at best. In some districts elections did not take place at all. This is an indicative attitude.

The reaction of people to the tragedy at the Parcani divarication. I think that only the confusion of our professional oppositionists and the skillful actions of some officials prevented the protest from spilling out onto the streets of our cities under political and social slogans.

Well, the last. Sensing the brewing discontent with power, some clever politicians decided on this to make themselves additional gesheft to the rating, when under the protest sauce they ran across the Dniester to merge Transnistria. And let's be honest. And this step has received some understanding and even approval, albeit from an insignificant, but still part of the population. Please note: at our citizens.  And there is no need to treat these seemingly unrelated events with disdain, thinking that the speaker has paranoia and mania. No, let's admit it to ourselves. These are all links of one chain. Chains under the name „Loss of authority of power”.

And now to the topic of today's meeting. As a continuation.

Let's remember a very recent history. Presidential Election 2016. Do you know why Shevchuk lost those elections? Someone will say that his loss is the notorious „minus 30%”. Someone will say that this personnel reshuffle has done its job. I will say this. And this too. But first and foremost.  People are tired of hearing one thing, seeing the other and understanding that the law says the third. His (Shevchuk, – Ed.) words and deeds resembled the illustration to Krylov's fable „The Swan, Crayfish and Pike”. People are tired of seeing how the law was driven by goals already defined by politicians or one politician.

Do you think something has changed in people's understanding today? Not, today, the same principle is fully visible on the issue of land. Instead of a strong-willed decision, relying, by the way, on the decision of the Supreme Court, to abolish the lawlessness that Shevchuk arranged in the matter on the ground, we see the continuation of the epic of actual bending and twisting of the Law under the set goal. Goal? The use of ambiguity in the documents of some land users for the maximum possible return of land to the redistribution fund, for the further transfer of land to other land users. People talk about it openly. And people do not perceive all the other explanations.

The decision of the Prosecutor’s Office under the Presidential Decree (apparently, it’s about the 588th Government’s decree, – Ed.), namely, its selectively protesting, reminded me of the practice of Shevchyuk’s times, when in one of the years, if I’m not mistaken, it was the 2015 budget, he vetoed him not at the level of the whole law, and not even at the level of articles, but of individual phrases in the sentence after the comma. We laughed very much then. But the most interesting, all were outraged, but this option did pass.

What kind of impartial consideration of cases in the Arbitration Court can be mentioned when one document signed by the President Smirnov is taken as a basis, and the second, which, by the way, also concerns the issue under consideration, is simply forgotten somehow.  Nina Borisovna (Ananyeva, – Ed.) spoke about this by the way. It can be taught as an innovation in jurisprudence.

And when I am told that the decisions and actions of the Government, of the Prosecutor's Office and of the Arbitration Court are independent of each other and are based only on the Law, I have a feeling that they are laughing at me and on all of us.

Citizens present, believe me, from the side of people who are even a little bit trying to grasp the essence of the issue, even if they are not lawyers, everything becomes clear. Only the fact that on the website of the Arbitration Court free access to the court file and, including its decisions, has already been closed, leads to bad thoughts. I admit that this is an accident, but in s such pattern! This was not, by the way, even under Shevchuk. Although he was a specialist in closing access to inconvenient information.

Well, another interesting point. Most of those who received the land under distribution from Shevchuk, who actually gave the command to prevent legal registration of land use rights, are people who suffered for their political convictions or those who did not want to bend under voluntarism of Yevgeny Vasilyevich and did not want to give their property at the request of this person.

One moment. I know the fate of Cuzmenco, thanks to God, very well. The first requirement for Cuzmenco, when he started having problems: give the dairy plant. Honestly, I was present at the conversation when this issue was discussed, and all the problems he had started when Shevchuk laid eyes on his (Cuzmenco Y., – Ed.) Dairy Plant. Then he (Shevchuk, – Ed.) said: if you will not give it to me, you will have problems with the land. I say and confirm this with full responsibility.

These are those who have risen, even more risking, next to the current authorities, who have contributed to the arrival of the current President. And here's the paradox. Just those who, thanks to their guttaperity, received buns from Shevchuk, today continue to receive dividends from this. And those who honestly expressed their position, still sit empty-handed.

I can talk for a long time about the actions of the branches of government and the Prosecutor's Office in the issue addressed today. In principle, those who spoke before me have already touched it quite capaciously. I want to appeal to you, our aksakals (how dearly and respectfully you are called among the people). To you, to those who stood at the origins of the creation and establishment of the Republic. You have the moral right to speak out loud and with voice about the miscalculations and mistakes of the authorities. Sometimes, precisely because of you, as, for example, in this case, the questions that were tried to be resolved quietly, get their resonance and publicity.  I ask you: „Do not let your authority to shake the rule of law and the foundations of our State, our Republic”.

The five previous years of Yevgeny Vasilyevich’s reign brought our State to the abyss. The point of no return on land issues has not yet been reached. Yes, so much has already been turned on and so that in order to unravel this tangle, it is not just one specialist in jurisprudence who will have to break his head. But, I hope that all those present have already understood that further attempts, within the framework of the expediency of the tasks set, and not the letter of the law, to resolve the issue lead only to further legal incidents and to further tension in society.

It's time to return to the legal field in this matter.


Part three



I. SMIRNOV. Thank you. I see more and more. And Cuzmenco raised us to patriotism. We do not need to be raised – we are dinosaurs. You must raise. We stood. No one can move us. What he said correctly is that no one wanted to take the land. 




In the photo: 2003. PMR President I. Smirnov suggests the entrepreneur V. Pasyutin to take the abandoned lands, which have not been cultivated for 10 years, for processing.


And I understand this emotional offense.  And yet we must now decide and recommend how to solve, without causing the following violations, as you said, of fair treatment.  

Will we discuss the issue? Yes, we will.  Who wants to speak?  But if someone stumbles on a meeting – where is the beater? Here, very specifically. Here are three points after the speech of entrepreneurs added to the Decision.  So, let's – specifics. Our task is to develop recommendations to the Supreme Council, the President, the Government, I am not shy, I say – they will still read everything, correctly?  

Here there is one, here he raises his hand. You are welcome.  


FROM PLACE. Today we must not forget about those people who received shares.  We all forgot about them. Nobody remembered for 3 hours of our meeting for shareholders. The most important thing that is happening today is lawlessness. But enough has been said about this. Today, 5 settlements are disappearing from the geographical map in Ribnita district. This is the Chirov, Frunze, Sevcenco, then Vladimirovca and Vasilievca villages. Five villages disappear, almost no people live there. And today we decide, decide and decide

I have a suggestion. To introduce to the Supreme Council, taking advantage of the presence of Efim Mikhailovich (Koval, – Ed.), Anatoly Anatolyevich (Guretsky, – Ed.), Igor Nikolayevich Smirnov – to make a point: return to shareholders. Most importantly, we forget that people have entrusted to those „Palagros” and „ Stroyentsy” their shares. Nobody asked them…


I. SMIRNOV. One minute. From the Ribnita district spoke (Ananyeva N. B. – Ed.), she proposed to submit to the Supreme Council to the Land Code a cadastral number or whatever it is called …  Now we will talk, I wrote down: the number of the shareholder’s land. You speak about it?


FROM PLACE. That's right.  


I. SMIRNOV. Thank you. Who else wants to speak? Please, Vitaly Ivanovich (Glebov, – Ed.)


V. GLEBOV. First of all, I want to thank Anatoly Konstantinovich (Belitchenko, – Ed.) and his group of people who raised this issue and insisted on its examination. Because today, some … something like… „lobbying”. This is not lobbying, this is pain, pain for the land on which I have personally worked for over 60 years.  

I would like to say that today, indeed, there can be lobbying, because if one person who was responsible for the distribution of land and headed (under Shevchuk, – Ed.) the state registration service, today heads the mayor's office (Frolov(a) V. A., head of administration of Ribnita district and Ribnita city, – Ed.), it is clear that he will give all the time materials that will confirm the correctness of his decisions (under Shevchuk, – Ed.), is it not clear?

Therefore, in order not to delay the time, I support all the speeches of people who spoke today from the podium, you Igor Nikolayevich (Smirnov, – Ed.), thank you for your support.  

I would like to speak on the Decision. Here I’m worried about the question that is written down about what is needed, „with the consent of (land users, – Ed.), it is possible to settle controversial issues by voluntary refusal”.  I think recording is not necessary. Because „voluntarily” I can be forced. Therefore, this world should not be written here, this is my proposal.

And the second. So that those entrepreneurs who, land users, spoke, that their names to be recorded as a separate item, that they could understand (what measures were taken, – Ed.) and they could inform us, communicate.  


I. SMIRNOV. I want to remind you of those recorded here, it is written like this: „To recommend the Prosecutor's Office of the PMR to check for compliance with the Constitution and official duties the executors of illegal acts and instructions of President Shevchuk on land issues and take measures.” Is this good? We will write together with you: the speakers, I have all entrepreneurs here, 6 people, at least one refused, said – why should I speak? We think, how they spoke? In the right way. And we raised questions. Of these speeches, I knowingly very persistently asked – let's go where. And yet, in addition to what has been developed (there, however, there are, as you said, general questions). And in the Preamble, we will enter, who spoke. We have a transcript, as I understand it? Where is there (stenographers, – Ed.)? It is conducted.  But you must understand what's the matter. Even those decree (Decision of the Consultative Assembly, – Ed.) why it was written in such detail and distributed so that everyone would understand this problem, the essence of this problem.  But the draft decision, if we publish it in this form, I don’t know, will the President read it up to the 3rd page?  Is it normal?  Please, Anatoly Konstantinovich (Belitchenko, – Ed.). What did you want? Let it remain so? Let it remain than.

Then let us, Vitaly Ivanovich (Glebov, – Ed.) propose to add to the project of the Decision those who spoke.  Specifically, entrepreneurs, and with the text or how? We wrote: to recommend to the prosecutor's office. You listen, there, if to look, one violation generates a whole chain. But I once again draw your attention, dear Transnistrian, for this there is the mutual control and mutual responsibility, even when the superior… and the lower in accordance with the Constitution will not (illegal indication of the superior, – Ed.) fulfill this, has the right – is it so or not?  

Now we need to deal with this. Wait a minute. I now want to say. So the government is sitting. Guys, do you have money to then pay all the damages for illegal actions of the state?  I say: do you have money?  We completely forgot about those normal land users who got not only, they say, based on cronyism and so on, this land.  Due to the fact that they were taken away (land – to compensate losses to injured land users for illegal actions of the state, – Ed.), and to the following.  And I remind you the article of the Constitution, please find (Article 53 of the Constitution of the PMR, – Ed.).  There, where the state is responsible for the actions and omissions of the state executive bodies while causing damage to a citizen of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic.  Is there such a thing? What shall we do?  





(For reference. This is a very important note of I. Smirnov. It concerns the catastrophic collapse that is waiting the current Government and the current power for in the future LEGAL development of events on the land crisis. Compensation for damage to land users. To the old victims, and the new bona fide recipients of the land (not all were bugs and lively persons of old and new authorities). The question of compensation for damage from the illegal actions of officials of the old and new authorities will sooner or later arise inevitably, and will lead to claims for the recovery of tens of millions of dollars from the state. Does our Government have that kind of money, asks I. Smirnov. Partly understanding of these terrible and inevitable compensations stops the current government from restoring the status quo, from refusing restitution, that is, from recognizing the lawlessness committed by the authorities.  But this pitiful move just wraps up the snowball of future problems, turning them from economic to political, as was mentioned, for example, by G. Ciorba, – Ed.)


Therefore, let us, our authority is to develop a proposal.  Who else has an offer for this project of the Decision that is in your hands?  Vasiliev (Anatoly Borisovich, member of the Joint Council of Labor Collectives, – Ed.). Let's start.  


A. VASILIEV. Igor Nikolayevich, there is such an assistant of the President (V. Krasnoselsky, – Ed.) – Paskudin … Prokudin …


I. SMIRNOV. Who! I don’t hear …


A. VASILIEV. Prokudin. This is his ruling which was five hundred — notorious? That is, is this he who was the prime minister?  So, to bring in there (to the Decision of the Consultative Assembly, – Ed.), so that he would apologize or give explanations: how and in what way this his 585 or what resolution is there, 588 …


I. SMIRNOV. I think we are very volumetric … it seems not to be specific.  Well, guys, do not take on the office of prosecutor, judge, and so on.  Let them deal with it, and in accordance with this … we actually appointed them for these purposes. Is it right? And so, now Prokudin, is someone else to be written there?  


FROM PLACE. Can I remark, Igor Nikolayevich. Read to us the draft resolution (Decisions of the Consultative Assembly, – Ed.), maybe all is said there, and now we …  


I. SMIRNOV. Yes, you have it on hand, distributed.  But while you read it, I'm talking to you about what? That's a lot … Preamble.  Well, here Anatoly Konstantinovich (Belitchenko, – Ed.) worked, says: let's leave everything. Everything, let him read. I do not mind.  


I also think that we have to write and give materials, this is another matter, and now they should be. There we have a point – it is necessary to inform about all in the media. Isn’t it right? It is.  


(For reference. In the official media, everything connected with the Consultative Assembly on October 26, 2017, all problems, with the exception of short video information lasting 126 seconds, have become silent – Ed.).


Further, if necessary, we can send the draft to the Chairperson of the Supreme Council, whose advisors we are, to the President, and to the Chairperson of the Government, in full. And there all – further go the executive points. 

But! Here we talk about what we see and on affairs, but the whole point is that The Arbitration Court makes a decision due to the fact that the 588th (government ordinance – Ed.) is valid.  Is it so, as I understand? So, at least, on performances. So it need to be canceled. The Supreme Court may cancel it.  To address an appeal to the president. Previously, the president could do it when he headed the government. Now I do not know. To appeal to the President so that he appeals the Supreme Court (what a life is this – to what we come!), so that he (the Supreme Court, – Ed.) would decide on this matter. How?


(For reference. In accordance with Article 35 of the Law of the PMR „On the Government of the PMR” the President V. Krasnoselsky can also directly cancel „the decisions and ordinances of the Government of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic if they contradict the Constitution of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic, constitutional laws, laws and decrees of the President”. Moreover, V. Krasnoselsky has in his hands the conclusion of the Acting Prosecutor of the PMR A. Radchenko on the illegality of the Government Ordinance Number 588-p, and, being the Guarantor of the Constitution and laws, not only can, but also is obliged to cancel the unlawful legal acts of the Government. During 2017, V. Krasnoselsky did not do this, in violation of the constitutional oath to the people – the oath of the President of the PMR, – Ed.).


FROM PLACE.  Igor Nikolayevich, can I ask on this issue?


I. SMIRNOV. Let's at least to consult with lawyers. I appeal to the Supreme Judge (V. Rymar, Chairperson of the Supreme Court of the PMR, – Ed.). How is that right? Well, if we do not agree, well, how (to act? – Ed.)? 

Dear lawyers! I said for a reason – they know everything about my attitude to lawyers, they are no longer offended. Well, excuse me, please. The point is that earlier the President, who headed the Government, had the right under the Constitution to cancel any decision of the Government. Right? Remember: he is also the Chairperson of the Government; he is … Is it so or not? Now how? Is there now this right?




I. SMIRNOV. Then we must not address anywhere?

So, we go further. This is interesting, this is our legal colloquium. Although there is Yura (Cuzmenco, – Ed.). He is higher – he has a legal education. Anatoly Anatolyevich (Guretsky, – Ed.), what shall we do? The president has the right to decide and cancel the 588th (government ordinance, – Ed.). Yes, just consider it as a business game.


A. GURETSKY. Today we talked about the fact that there is a decision of the commission that the President created. There was a commission, which considered this question, came to the conclusion that the president was not recommended to cancel these all decrees, ordinances, to consider the issue individually.  We again return to the same.


(For reference. The prosecutor led the conversation away. He was asked: does the President of the PMR have the right to cancel unlawful acts of the Government, and A. Guretsky spoke about the commission. This is probably to prevent the next question: if the president had the right to cancel, then why V. Krasnoselsky did not do this, thereby preventing the affected land users from defending their legitimate interests? – Ed.).


I. SMIRNOV.  Anatoly Anatolyevich, you see what game! The same commission took 30% of the pension, and no one knows what kind of commission it is. You forgive me, what state body is this commission?


A. GURETSKY.  Which commission? Igor Nikolayevich, and the president (V. Krasnoselsky, – Ed.) also outlined his point of view.  He said that he would not cancel this decree and ordinances. But you have the right to once again turn to him about this.


I. SMIRNOV. So, I understood everything. Let's discuss the draft decision point by point, and we will cut there.


FROM PLACE. May I ask on this issue, Igor Nikolayevich?  Here I am reading: the ordinance of the government under the number 588-p from such and such. That is, it was the order of one of the executive authorities – the Government, isn’t it?  


I. SMIRNOV. Backdating all the more.


FROM PLACE. Whatever the date will be. That is, not the president (document – Ed.), but the government. Our government has the same powers and can solve this question … (cancel its ordinance 588-p, – Ed.). As government.


I. SMIRNOV. And the Government refuses to resolve this issue. Tell me about it. Here we have found on you were. Hush! There is the person who is responsible for the work of the Government. Go further!


S. CASAP, head of the Government Office of the PMR.  Dear Igor Nikolayevich! The question inevitably comes to the Government and to what position the Government takes in this matter. Well, the Government takes exactly the same position as the courts, and the prosecutor's office and, in principle, the President. That is, such issues related to the relationship of land use rights should not be decided by us, the officials, but by the courts. That is, we should not cancel and redistribute land by our decisions.

(There is noise in the hall. Protesters cries).


(For reference. However, as it turned out during the report of the Chairperson of the Arbitration Court A. Kiyko, the fate of 99% of the disputed land in 2017 was decided by an EXTRAJUDICIAL way, – Ed.)


I. SMIRNOV. Listen to the voice of the people, listen!


S. CASAP. We do not run the courts. There are the interests and rights of land users, they defend them in court. We also have no mantle; we do not redistribute from one to another land user. If there is disagreement, or land users consider that their rights have been violated, they must defend these interests and their rights in the manner prescribed by law.  And we should not redistribute it. And the same position is occupied by all bodies (authorities, – Ed.)

(Noise and discontent in the hall)

I. SMIRNOV. Dear deputies! You, of course, are esteemed. But when a person speaks, and he is an employee of the Government, let's hear.

(Bickering and noise continue, cries in the hall)

I. SMIRNOV. And we have gathered for this, Vitaly Ivanovich (Glebov, – Ed.), dear, so that once again, as you said, remind, ask – and that's all. I asked the Government’s opinion on whether it could cancel the ruling of the old Government or how?  He said: we are the same as the concept of the President (V. Krasnoselsky, – Ed.), and of all the authorities, that we do not need to touch this issue, otherwise we will get a hit on the bottom … You gave everything to the courts. Have I said correctly?


S. CASAP. That's right, Igor Nikolayevich.


I. SMIRNOV. So what to do? And what, will the Consultative Assembly resolve this issue?


V. BABOY. Igor Nikolayevich, look here. All are turning to the time when we were at the beginnings. And in Chisinau – we were everywhere! Then there were no „laws”.  When we were taken here under the machine guns, and in the basement we held a meeting, nobody talks about it either (about the legal-illegal, – Ed.).  When normal conditions were created, then they started beating about nothing, at different gates.

After all, the districts are all big, that's right, the land was forcibly distributed to people. They worked. There was no „law”.  After all, remember, when there was such a thing – they defamed me in the district, that Baboy (Vasily Andreevich, member of the Consultative Assembly, – Ed.) created his own laws, and landlords appeared in the village?  Was this, Efim Mikhailovich (Koval, – Ed.), isn’t it? It was.

 What today? Go to the territory of Hlinaia, look – the Kolkhoz was distributed (the Kolkhoz lands were distributed to the land users, – Ed.).  Find unprocessed land. It is absent. Why? Because people came, they passed all through themselves.

And there is the Government, it made another decision, if I heard correctly, to cancel so there was still a sublease (to cancel the sublease of the land, – Ed.). Yes, it is canceled, it seems, by the Government.  And I think this cannot be done.  We have normal land users.  I will give an example – Victor Turcan, a gardener in Cioburciu. He could not cultivate the land. I, working in the administration, addressed to Martyn (Igor Ivanovich, director of the Agricultural Firm „Pantator” LLC, Slobozia district, – Ed.). They signed an agreement for 3 years (sublease, – Ed.).  The man (Turcan, – Ed.) earned money for 3 years and returned, sat down on the ground today. See who is today Turcan? There was a sublease. That is, the land commission must approach this decision (allow sublease, – Ed.).

As for this issue (on the illegal withdrawal of land and its return, – Ed.), I have one proposal.  It is necessary to take one decision, to convince the President that everyone who is in land users today and was taken the land – to return it back to them, and according to the law, if he has it, withdraw it as it should be. Therefore, to return it (the land – Ed.) all back. He violated, he does not pay taxes – there is a law for this.

Are we encouraging today Shevchuk, the team? For 5 years – 4 prime ministers! What could be the order? Where was the government, where was the team?  Well we are all afraid of this? And the people who walk today, trample this land. Indeed, from November 1 to March 1, time will pass again…



In the photo: the production line of metal cans for preservation, worth $ 1.5 million, launched by V. Pasyutin at the metal-lithography plant in Tiraspol. There was nothing of the kind in the PMR; no longer and never will be; Shevchuk government sold this line for a quarter of its cost in the Odessa region for the debts of the land user. It will not be possible to buy anew for these money. Our republic needs 15 million cans per year for the preservation of tomatoes, juices, compotes, jams. The lost line produced this amount in six months. All the appeals of V. Pasyutin to the Government to keep for the republic this unique line remained without consequences. Now we will buy cans expensively from abroad, in the same Odessa region from our equipment there.


I. SMIRNOV. Thank you. Dear deputies and invited, maybe we will proceed to discuss the disposition? Thanks for speaking.  

Do you have on your hands? Yes, you do. I go point by point and we vote point by point. Do you agree? But to this I suggest the first. As for the preamble, they said that „do not touch”. I can put to vote.  FROM PLACE. The third page, the penultimate line in the penultimate paragraph. Did you found?


I. SMIRNOV. I will try to read. „ The Consultative Assembly of the first Pridnestrovian deputies offers an acceptable way out of the current impasse – a model of return (or the action of return) of land to old land users”. Because the preamble is about what happened and what will happen next, what we ask. Is it right? 


FROM PLACE. And then, „and all the controversial issues …” (about the „voluntary” refusal from the land) to be removed.


I. SMIRNOV. We have already agreed about this. Let's go back more … more serious.

From the speeches of the deputies, the speeches of the plaintiffs (do not be offended, the way it is, we are all practically in the Arbitration Court) were received, and we recorded 3 points.  

Well, first. To enter in the land register, the number of the land shareholder, is it right? Yes, it is. There it is. This is to the Supreme Council or to whom?  To the Supreme Council, it's right. I will then type all the items to the Supreme Council.

Further, to recommend the Supreme Council of the PMR to adopt a law on the allocation of land by local state authorities with the approval of the President, as was previously the case. When they say here, here Smirnov, there, gave (the land, – Ed.). Smirnov gave one signature when he received the decision of local authorities on the allocation of land, the consideration of the land commission there, and the decision of the head of administration. And it is completely incomprehensible why the Ministry of Agriculture will distribute land in Ribnita. Please explain.  

What commission (distributes, – Ed.)? Which obeys you? I repeat once again. We talk a lot about local self-government.  The only thing which is, and how very well Labunsky wrote that the land is all the property of the state.  And most importantly, as the persons spoke and said here: the land should be managed and operated by those who live on it.  Isn't it? We proceeded from this. And when in Ribnita was done the experiment. Was this true, or not… And persons wanting to take this land in general – what? – there was no one, to make it clear to all young.  

But with shares they began to take it.  But there is the not shared one (land, – Ed.), when I travel go, check how the local law on local self-government works … Therefore, this proposal is very valuable – to enter in the land registry.  Are there any objections? No. Who is for recommending to the Supreme Council to enter in the land cadastre the number of a shareholder’s land, please vote. Accepted.

The third point, after all, should the Supreme Council think and establish strict criteria, as it should be, that this land should be filled, and so on.

For discharge. Sometimes you go by GPS near the river or near the sea, you look – you go by sea. How this can be? The map shows that you are going by sea or by river. Earth is incremented, yes. They pour, pour, pour, and go there, to the sea.

Further. Look, so we will write all the same principle of selection, so that no one could twist his nose there? Come on, speak up.


FROM PLACE. Igor Nikolayevich, if we write down, I suggest then to take into account the consent of the shareholder.  We say the head of the administration, for example, of the district must sign to whom to give the land. And the consent of shareholders?  


I. SMIRNOV. Listen, it’s important! And then what, no one could allocate it? Okay, I take off this question, yes, Baboy, I take off?  

But then the second: to recommend to the prosecutor’s office, I have already read out, to check for compliance with the Constitution and official duties of officials, executors of illegal acts and instructions of a higher leader. We can even write like this. Not necessarily this Shevchuk for me, „I dreamed for a hundred years”. I think this should definitely be done so that it does not repeat in the future.

And how will you, the prosecutor check yourself? Where have you been? Where we are, right? Dear veterans, think. Here you are: they wanted, took money, put together a team – and made it, isn’t it? So, what is next? And then clear it up, now, by this…

Now I turn to the operative part (what you have). To the president. First point, are there any comments? No. Who is for, please vote.  

The second, on the second point. To recommend to the President, on the basis of the 35th (Article, – Ed.) of the Constitutional Law on the Government, to abolish the 588th (Government Ordinance, – Ed.)


V. EMELYANOV. Can I say something on this issue?  Here, in general, the legal field is not going anywhere at all.  Because the President has no right to cancel it. It is the prerogative of the Government if that. Only the Government can cancel the ordinance of the Government. Igor Nikolayevich, well, today's rule says so, read the law on the government.


I. SMIRNOV. Is it?


(For reference. As already reported and quoted above, Art. 35 of the Law of the PMR „On the Government of the PMR” gives the President of the PMR the right to cancel unlawful acts of the Government.  V. Emelyanov is bluffing and forcing the situation. „Only the Government can cancel the ordinance of the Government”. This, of course, is too loud said. But the prosecutor A. Guretsky throughout the meeting is silent as a partisan, on a question that is entirely within his competence – whether the President of the PMR can cancel the illegal ordinance of the Government. He did not say anything. But for this he was invited to the Consultative Assembly – to assess the supervisory authority on matters within its competence. – Ed.)


V. EMELYANOV. I'm sorry, I have a different offer. On 588, here Anatoly Anatolyevich (Guretsky, – Ed.) is sitting, the deadline for the adoption of claims under this disposition is passing. Urgently submit to the Constitutional Court, oh, no, to the Arbitration Court, and then it will be considered in a different way, because land users, filing (lawsuits, – Ed.), have already been denied the right to use land, and therefore that which you do not have cannot be violated, on this relies today the Arbitration Court. And it is necessary that the prosecutor give a representation of the violation of the norm in part of the 588th (government ordinance, – Ed.), and then it may be declared illegal.  


I. SMIRNOV. And what does the Constitutional Court in this matter?


V. EMELYANOV.  Arbitration, I am sorry, Arbitration Court.  


I. SMIRNOV. But he is sitting at the back.  


V. EMELYANOV. But there should be a document from the prosecutor's office there, a lawsuit on declaring it not legitimate … But because there is no other way today.


I. SMIRNOV.  Vladimir Ivanovich (Emelyanov, – Ed.), You, of course, are all strong lawyers. I do not mind. Well, who will tell? How to make this?  


V. EMELYANOV. We overlook this week and everything will be finished, then there is nothing to talk about at all, everything, the question will shut.


I. SMIRNOV.  Anatoly Anatolyevich (Guretsky, – Ed.) is always with us, as in the Soviet Union, an uncle prosecutor. Come on. 


A. GURETSKY. Yes, we do it anyway. And today, and 10 months, today, and tomorrow. We do it.


(For reference. The prosecutor again avoided answering the question of his competence: whether the President of the PMR has the right to cancel unlawful acts of the Government or not? - Ed.)


I. SMIRNOV.  It means, so. I put the question to the vote. A draft has been prepared here and the Consultative Assembly addresses (to the President of the PMR, – Ed.) as it is written. Who are „for” please vote. Who is against?  Against one, two. Nikolai Mikhailovich (Shestakov, – Ed.), along with Emelyanov. So, we go further.


FROM PLACE. 10 months he works, this …


FROM PLACE.  To recommend to the Supreme Council …


I. SMIRNOV. Nikolai Mikhailovich (Shestakov, – Ed.), leave this idea, please.


FROM PLACE.  Sorry, I'm on the same subject.


I. SMIRNOV. And we have already voted.


FROM PLACE.  Well, that means we voted the wrong way.


I. SMIRNOV.  So, I wrote that you are against. What's next?  


FROM PLACE. The fact is that the government should cancel this ordinance, that is, start from zero (go back to the zero option – Ed.). Today, neither the prosecutor's office nor the Arbitration Court – they cannot work on the basis (if available, – Ed.) of this ordinance.


I. SMIRNOV.  I understood, Nikolai Mikhailovich. I correct, I read. Second point: „To Recommend to the President of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic Krasnoselsky Vadim Nikolayevich, and to the Government of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic Martynov Alexandr Nikolayevich”, is it so?


FROM PLACE. To the prosecutor: he hall submit a protest …


I. SMIRNOV.  No prosecutor. What does prosecutor to do here? And further in the text.  Once again, please re-vote. Who is „for”, please vote – to add the Government there. Thank you.

Further. To recommend the Supreme Council of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic to urgently consider and adopt, in the wording approved at the meeting of the committee (Supreme Council for Agriculture in 2016, – Ed.), the ordinance on the interpretation of paragraph 1 of Article 40 of the Land Code (file number 264). Are there any objections? Who is „for”, please vote.


FROM PLACE. „To return to the consideration …”


I. SMIRNOV. I said „urgently consider”, and you – „return.” You can return for a long time, a whole year.


FROM PLACE.  Igor Nikolayevich, there it is necessary to clarify which committee.  


I. SMIRNOV. We will examine, clarify. „Committee” – I recorded.

Further. Arbitration Court. Can we recommend something from a legal point of view? Or not? Kiyko?  Well, we can. You can „sneeze” at it, I know. But in any case, we will write: to recommend to the Chairperson of the Arbitration Court of the PMR to introduce in a supervising order protests … (but this is after the cancellation of the 588th or what? Only after the cancellation) …. What shall we do with this point, comrades? Exclude? There is a suggestion to vote. Who is „for”, please vote. Who is „against”? Not. Accepted.

We go further. The fifth. We recommend to the Government and the Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources when deciding on the return of land plots of the land users from whom they were illegally withdrawn from January 1, 2012 to December 5 (2016 – Ed.), be guided by the documents of these economic agents, issued before December 30, 2011, current legislation, isn’t it? Who are „for” please vote.  

The sixth point. To recommend the prosecutor's office and the Investigative Committee to verify the actions of the executive authorities regarding registration of rights to land plots submitted on the basis of legal acts issued in the period from 1.1. 2012 to December 5, 2016. Who is „for”, please vote. Everyone understands – we have already spoken a lot. Who is against?

The seventh. To recommend the Government of the PMR to instruct the state information service to provide media coverage of the process of returning land plots to the land user. Are there any questions? Who is for, please vote.  

Now – in general (we vote, – Ed.). With the addition of those points that I read out on the draft decision, and the preamble, we leave it with the correction that Vitaly Ivanovich (Glebov, – Ed.) suggested, who are „for” in general, I ask you to vote. Who „abstained”, are „against”?  

I think, nevertheless, that everything needs to be looked at very carefully, and here I agree with Labunsky and everyone who says that there is the need (we have a deputy here) to pass it to the Supreme Council: and you guys take a trip, see how work now the laws on the ground – very interesting! I’m not speaking about this (the issue under discussion today, – Ed.), I’m just on the basis of local self-government.

We visited, with the dinosaurs present here, we also went and looked. Exactly as it was, so it remained. Although a change in the laws was already made. So this chain is not working. Too much on the central government. I do not know why this is. What for? Well, in its scale … I'm sorry, 600.000 population is a good Russian area. This is so, a catchword, but think.

I thank all invited, state, and deputies for their work. All our questions have been examined.  






Of the Consultative Assembly of the first Pridnestrovian deputies under the Chairperson of the Supreme Council of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic


On November 15, 2016, the decision of the Supreme Court of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic entered into legal force, recognizing as contradicting letter g) of Article 14 and letter a) of Article 19 of the Constitutional Law „On the Government of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic” and invalid from December 30, letters d) and k) of Article 11 of the Land Code of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic, previously defining the powers of the President of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic in the field of land plot management and in determining the procedure for determining the order of disposal of land.

Thus, all the orders of the President of the PMR Shevchuk E. V., on the basis of which raider seizure of land plots from land users was carried out, are illegal by definition.

In connection with these circumstances, in order to try to legitimize the obviously illegal ordinances of E. V. Shevchuk the Government of the PMR Prokudin P. N. issues an ordinance dated August 4, 2016 Number 588р „On streamlining the rights of land users to the land plots granted”, which, with a retroactive effect, duplicates all the ordinances of the President of the PMR Shevchuk E. V. in the area of land management issued from January 1, 2012 to May 18, 2016.

To verify the legality of this ordinance the Deputy Chairperson of the Supreme Council Antyufeyeva G., on October 18, 2016, sent a request to the Prosecutor's Office of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic (exit Number 52-09/343).

In the answer, signed by the Acting Prosecutor of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic Radchenko A. A. (No. 5/184.2016 of December 5, 2016) states that the Government’s ordinance of August 4, 2016 No. 588р contradicts Article 35 of the Law „On Legislative Acts of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic”.

In addition, in November and December 2016, the Government and the Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic issue a number of ordinances for the distribution of virtually all land plots to the Subsidiary Limited Liability Company „Agro-Lyukka”.

On the basis of the indicated ordinances, in the period from the end of November 2016 to the beginning of December 2016, the head of the Ribnita registration district of the State Registration Service and Notary Office Frolov V. A. conducted a state registration of third-party rights to the specified land plots.

At the time of conducting the state registration of rights to land plots listed in the above ordinances of the Government of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic, all these orders did not enter into force, which Frolov V. A. knew for certain.

Despite the committed illegal actions, the state registrar Frolov V. A. not only did not bear responsibility, but was also appointed by the President of the PMR Krasnoselsky V. N. to the position of head of the state administration of the Ribnita district and the Ribnita city.

On the instructions of President Krasnoselsky V. N., an interdepartmental auditing commission on agricultural lands allocated from January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2016 is created.

Taking into account the decision of the Supreme Court that established the president’s lack of authority, the commission decided to recommend the President Krasnoselsky V. N. to cancel all illegal legal acts issued during Shevchuk E. V.’s power, but then another decision was made: to recommend to solve controversial land issues separately, through the Arbitration Court.

The Arbitration Court found a violation of the rights of the land users who applied by issuing ordinances by Shevchuk E. V. in the area of land management and declared them invalid.

However, the Arbitration Court refused to satisfy the applications for considering invalid the relevant paragraphs of the Government Ordinance No. 588р of August 4, 2016 „On streamlining the rights of land users to the land plots granted”, due to the alleged lack of violation of their rights and missing a three-month procedural term by almost all of them.

Thus, the Arbitration Court, instead of a thorough consideration of the cases on the merits, effectively deprived land users of their inalienable right to a fair trial, while the inconsistency of the Government’s ordinance of August 4, 2016 No. 588р with Article 35 of the Law „On Legislative Acts of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic” after the Prosecutor's Office was also established by the Arbitration Court.

The Arbitration Court also refused to Subsidiary Limited Liability Company „Agro-Lyukka” to consider invalid the Government’s ordinances of October 3, 2016 and the Ministry of Agriculture because of alleged absence of violation by these indicated acts of the rights of the Subsidiary Limited Liability Company „Agro-Lyukka”, while indicating in the decisions on the illegality of the publication of these ordinances.

The Arbitration Court did not take into account that the violation of the rights of the Subsidiary Limited Liability Company „Agro-Lyukka” was already established both by the decision of the Supreme Court and the decisions of the Arbitration Court itself on invalidating the orders of the PMR President Shevchuk E. V.

It is necessary to separately emphasize that the representatives of the Government and the Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources took in the Arbitration Court an unequivocal position on non-recognition of the requirements of land users who applied to the Arbitration Court and tried in every way to prove the legitimacy of the „land lawlessness” under President Shevchuk E. V. Of course, these representatives could hardly take such a position without the direct sanction of their leadership.

In the same context, it should be noted that during the period of consideration by the Arbitration Court of the above applications of economic agents, the draft interpretation of paragraph 1 of Article 40 of the Land Code of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic recommended by the responsible committee of the Supreme Council for adoption was adopted for revision by the Arbitration Court; the plots that arose before January 1, 2012, did not entail the need for the implementation of mandatory state registration of these rights.

It should be emphasized that if the said interpretation was adopted, the Arbitration Court would automatically recognize a violation of the land rights of all land users from whom the land plots were raiderly withdrawn by Shevchuk E. V. and all questions would have been removed for a long time.

In the current situation, the Government took the path of the initially vicious „zero” option, when the Arbitration Court, in accordance with the applications of the Prosecutor’s Office in the interests of the state, terminates the land rights of new land users, who were granted the land by the President Shevchuk E. V. and whose land rights were then „legitimized” by the Government Decree of August 4, 2016 No. 588р, and then the specified lands are credited to the Land Redistribution Fund.

In addition to the fact that this scheme raises huge questions regarding the legality of transferring the lands to the Land Redistribution Fund, in fact, the Government launched the process of new land redistribution, further aggravating and confusing the situation.

At the same time, the position of the Prosecutor’s Office, which instead of initiating the abolition in full volume of the unlawful ordinance of the Government of August 4, 2016 No. 588р „On streamlining the rights of land users to the land plots granted”, appeals to the Arbitration Court with an application of recognition as invalid its individual points „in the interests of the state”.

The only, from the point of view of the Consultative Assembly of the first Pridnestrovian deputies, an acceptable way out of the current impasse is the return of land to the former land users, since they were the first after the liquidation of Kolkhozes and the KSP.

In connection with the foregoing, on the basis of the constitutional provisions on the duty of state bodies and administration to comply with the Constitution and laws of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic, in order to return the situation in the field of land relations to the legal field and bring it into line with current legislation, the Consultative Assembly of the first Pridnestrovian deputies made the following decision:


1. To recommend to the President of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic Krasnoselsky V. N. on the basis of Article 35 of the Constitutional Law of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic „On the Government of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic” to cancel the ordinance of the Government of August 4, 2016 No. 588р „On streamlining the rights of land users to the land plots provided”.

2.  To Recommend to the President of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic Krasnoselsky V. N. and the Government of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic when returning the land plots to the land users withdrawn from them from January 1, 2012 to December 5, 2016, to be guided by the decision of the Supreme Court, which established the President’s lack of authority in land use area and, therefore, which established the notorious illegality of both the removal of land from previous land users by the President and their allocation to new land users.

3.  To recommend to the Supreme Council:

а) to return to the consideration of the interpretation ordinance and to adopt, in the wording approved at the meeting of the Committee, the ordinance on the interpretation of paragraph 1 of Article 40 of the Land Code (file No. 264 (VI) (this is about interpreting the conditions for the emergence of users ’rights to a land plot associated with actual long-term and rational use of the plot, and state registration of rights – PMRF's note);

b)  to introduce the cadastral number of shareholder’s land plot to the Land Code of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic.

4. To recommend to the Government of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic to instruct the State Information Service to carry out in the media coverage of the process of returning land plots to land users.

5.  To recommend to the Government of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic and the Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources when deciding on the return of land plots to land users from whom they were illegally withdrawn from January 1, 2012 to December 5, 2016, be guided by the valid legal acts and / or agreements on the right of long-term use of land plots existing at the economic agents issued before December 30, 2011, of which, in accordance with Article 40 of the Land Code, they are having land rights.

6. To draw the attention of the Chairperson of the Arbitration Court of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic to the need to introduce, in the order of supervision of the protests against the effective decisions of the Arbitration Court, which left unsatisfied the applications of affected land users to declare invalid the relevant paragraphs of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic of August 4, 2016 No. 588р, and on the decisions of the Arbitration Court, which left without satisfaction the applications of the Subsidiary Limited Liability Company „Agro-Lyukka” on recognizing invalid the Government ordinances of November 3, 2016 and the ordinances of the Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources of December 2, 2016.

7. To recommend to the Prosecutor's Office of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic and the Investigative Committee of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic to carry out an inspection of the:

а) actions of the executive authorities on the registration of rights to land plots provided on the basis of legal acts issued in the period from January 1, 2012 to December 5, 2016;

b)  for compliance with the Constitution of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic of the actions of executors of illegal acts and instructions of the President Shevchuk E. V. (officials) and to take appropriate measures.




Chairperson of the Consultative Assembly of the first Pridnestrovian deputies under the Chairperson of the Supreme Council of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic

October 26, 2017.


2. Regulations on the Consultative Assembly of the first Pridnestrovian deputies under the Chairperson of the Supreme Council of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic

(Annex No. 1 to the Decree of the Supreme Council of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic of March 2, 2016 No. 167)


1. The consultative assembly of the first Pridnestrovian deputies under the Chairperson of the Supreme Council of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic (hereinafter referred to as the Assembly) is a deliberative and advisory body formed with the aim of the participation of experienced and authoritative citizens of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic in solving the most important problems of social and political life of the republic.

2. The composition of the members of the Assembly is approved by the Resolution of the Supreme Council of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic.

3. The member of the Assembly cannot simultaneously be the President of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic, a deputy of the Supreme Council of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic, as well as of other representative and elected bodies of state power and local self-government, a member of the Government of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic, a judge, a prosecutor.

4. The Assembly in its activities is guided by the Constitution of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic, the constitutional laws of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic, laws of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic, this Resolution.

5. The assembly operates on a voluntary basis and free of charge.

6. The election and dismissal of the Chairperson of the Assembly is carried out by a majority vote of the total number of members of the Assembly and is approved by the Chairperson of the Supreme Council of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic.

Deputy Chairperson of the Assembly are appointed and dismissed by the Chairperson of the Assembly. The distribution of duties between the Deputy Chairpersons of the Assembly is performed by the Chairperson of the Assembly.

7. The main tasks of the Assembly are:

a) discussion of the most important problems of social and political life of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic;

b) making proposals to the Chairperson of the Supreme Council of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic, aimed at improving the current legislation of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic, as well as proposals on the interaction of public authorities, cooperation of public authorities with public organizations and civil society institutions;

c) informing the Chairperson of the Supreme Council of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic about the position of the Assembly on the problems of political, social and economic development of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic;

d) consideration of other issues related to the competence of the Assembly.

8. The assembly, for the implementation of the tasks assigned to it within its competence has the right to request and receive from the Supreme Council of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic the necessary information.

9. The activity of the Assembly is headed and organized by the Chairperson of the Assembly.

Chairperson of the Assembly:

a)       approves the work plan of the Assembly;

b)       determines the place and time of the meetings of the Assembly, as well as their agenda;

c)       presides over meetings of the Assembly or entrusts the management of meetings of the Assembly to deputy chairpersons;

d)      signs the minutes of the meetings of the Assembly, as well as other correspondence emanating from the name of the Assembly;

e)       represents the Assembly on behalf of the Chairperson of the Supreme Council of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic in relations with public organizations, and also speaks at events held at the state level;

f)        exercises other powers within its competence.

10. Deputy Chairpersons of the Assembly:

a) based on the proposals of the members of the Assembly, form the work plan of the Assembly and the agenda of its next meeting;

b) preside at the request of the Chairperson of the Assembly at the meetings of the Assembly;

c) perform other tasks of the Chairperson of the Assembly.

11. Members of the Assembly:

a) make their proposals on the work plan of the Assembly, the agenda of its meetings and the order of discussion;

b) participate in the preparation of the Assembly’s materials for the Assembly’s meetings;

c) participate in the development of draft decisions of the Assembly.

12. Preparation of materials for meetings of the Assembly shall be performed by the secretary who is an employee of the Office of organizational support of legislative staff of the Supreme Council of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic. Secretary:

a) ensures the preparation of the work plan of the Assembly, draws up the agenda of its meetings, prepares the materials for the meetings of the Assembly, as well as drafts of its decisions;

b) informs the members of the Assembly about the place and time of conducting the meeting and the agenda of the next meeting of the Assembly, provides them with the necessary materials;

c) draws up the minutes of meetings of the Assembly.

13. To prepare materials for the meetings of the Assembly, working groups may be created with the participation of qualified specialists under the guidance of the members of the Assembly.

14. The meetings of the Assembly are held regularly, but at least 1 (one) time in 3 (three) months. By the decision of the Chairperson of the Supreme Council of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic or the Chairperson of the Assembly, extraordinary meetings of the Assembly may be held.

A meeting of the Assembly is competent if there is a quorum that is one third of the total number of members of the Assembly.

15. The Assembly makes decisions on issues discussed.

The decisions of the Assembly are taken by a majority of votes of those participating in the meeting.

The decisions of the Assembly are documented by a protocol signed by the Chairperson of the Assembly, and in his absence – by the Deputy Chairperson of the Assembly, who presides at the meeting on behalf of the Chairperson of the Assembly.

Assembly decisions are advisory in nature.

16. Organizational and technical support of the activities of the Assembly is carried out by the Office of Organizational Support for Lawmaking of the Office of the Supreme Council of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic.

Each member of the Assembly is issued a special certificate entitling them to enter the buildings of state authorities, local governments, public associations and other organizations without hindrance.


Personal composition of the Consultative Assembly of the first Transnistrian deputies under the Chairperson of the Supreme Council of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic


Members of the Consultative Assembly of the first Transnistrian deputies under the Chairperson of the Supreme Council of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic:


1) Andreyeva Galina Stepanovna;

2) Arestov Victor Mikhailovich;

3) Baboy Vasiliy Andreevich;

4) Balyka Vladimir Dmitriyevich;

5) Belitchenko Anatoly Konstantinovich;

6) Berkovich Vladimir Moyseyevich;

7) Brizitsky Boris Vasilyevich;

8) Volkova Anna Zakharovna;

9) Glebov Vitaly Ivanovich;

10) Gonchar Vladimir Alexandrovich;

11) Dimitrishina Ekaterina Grigorievna;

12) Dyukarev Viktor Vasilyevich;

13) Emelyanov Vladimir Ivanovich;

14) Zagryadsky Vyacheslav Alekseyevich;

15) Zalozhkov Petr Aleksandrovich;

16) Zatyka Yuriy Nikolayevich;

17) Dzernovich Tom Markovich;

18) Kaminski Anatoliy Vladimirovich;

19) Kirichenko Mikhail Fedorovich;


20) Kogut Vyacheslav Vasilyevich;

21) Labunsky Vladimir Vladimirovich;

22) Levitsky Yuri Vladimirovich;

23) Leontyev Sergey Fedorovich;

24) Milman Ilya Aleksandrovich;

25) Mitish Nikolay Georgievich;

26) Nastasyuk Petr Fedorovich;

27) Ordin Vilor Nikolayevich;

28) Platsynda Stepan Ivanovich;

29) Potashev Veniamin Yakovlevich;

30) Rylyakov Vladimir Markovich;

31) Salamandyk Anatoly Vasilyevich;

32) Smirnov Igor Nikolayevich;

33) Sokolov Semen Ivanovich;

34) Kharchenko Vladimir Ivanovich;

35) Tsynnik Ivan Ivanovich;

36) Chegurko Nadezhda Georgiyevna;

37) Chernyy Vasily Nikiforovich;

38) Shestakov Nikolai Mikhailovich.



3. Full audio recording of the Consultative Assembly of October 26, 2017. 




4. Links to publications „ПМРФ – Приднестровье и Россия” („PMRF – Pridnestrov'ye i Rossiya„) on the land issue.


Bros „Great Victory”. 1. Organized criminal group. Those who disgraced the Transnistrian State. (

Bros „Great Victory”. 2. How „Agrostyle” was killed.


Bros „Great Victory”. 3. ?

Bros „Great Victory”. 4. Constrainedly debtor.


Bros „Great Victory”. 5. Does anyone at least adequately recognize what is happening in the „Shevchuk” PMR?”





L. Leonov: Will it be fair? And we have no choice.


It will be fair? And we have no choice. (2) Land of Discord”.


It will be fair? And we have no choice. (2) Land of Discord (continuation).


It will be fair? And we have no choice. (2) Land of Discord (final).


Land of Discord. Not in that steppe …


Land of Discord. Not in that steppe …(2)


Land of Discord. The land user alliance was created.


Is this fair or legal? Has the President violated the oath or not?


„Back at the bottom of the ladder”


Benderskiy Bazar” – this is a newspaper!




Year of statist forces and affairs. Fact and comment.


„People's Tribunal”



PEOPLE'S TRIBUNAL download from  doc

НАРОДНЫЙ ТРИБУНАЛ на русском языке


Поделиться ссылкой
  • Добавить ВКонтакте заметку об этой странице
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Одноклассники