Notice: curl_setopt(): CURLOPT_SSL_VERIFYHOST no longer accepts the value 1, value 2 will be used instead in /home/admin/web/eastrussia.ru/public_html/gtranslate/gtranslate.php on line 101
Prosecutor General's Office found violations in the work of Rosselkhoznadzor for Primorye and Sakhalin - EastRussia | Far East

Irkutsk
Ulan-Ude

Blagoveshchensk
Chita
Yakutsk

Birobidzhan
Vladivostok
Khabarovsk

Magadan
Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk

Anadyr
Petropavlovsk-
Kamchatsky
Moscow

This text is translated into Russian by google automatic human level neural machine.
EastRussia is not responsible for any mistakes in the translated text. Sorry for the inconvinience.
Please refer to the text in Russian as a source.

Prosecutor General's Office found violations in the work of Rosselkhoznadzor for Primorye and Sakhalin

The Office of the Prosecutor General's Office of the Russian Federation in the Far Eastern Federal District checked the management of the Federal Service for Veterinary and Phytosanitary Surveillance in Primorsky Krai and the Sakhalin Oblast and found violations of the law in the implementation of the powers vested in the agency. Four guilty officials were brought to disciplinary responsibility.

The prosecutors found out that the department did not observe the procedure for organizing and implementing state land supervision: they did not organize a systematic analysis of legal acts on the use and protection of lands whose turnover is regulated by a special law. During the 2017 year, no administrative surveys were conducted. In addition, in the implementation of state land supervision, the management did not take into account the risk-oriented approach.

As the press service of the Prosecutor General's Office for the Far Eastern Federal District informs, the lists of land plots that the Ussuriysk Land Supervision Department has formed did not contain the full requisites for making a land plot at risk. Did not comply with the requirements of the law on the organization and conduct of activities aimed at preventing violations of mandatory requirements. Also, employees did not collect damages caused by infringements and did not publish information about the results of conducted inspections.