Event
Yashnobod District,
Tashkent City
Sadyk Azimov Street
2.1
Tashkent City
Sadyk Azimov Street
Latitude: 41.3052221
Longitude: 69.2898134
Decision No. 488 of the Tashkent City Khokim (27 March 2018):
By Decision № 488, dated 27 March 2018, the then-Khokim of Tashkent, R. Usmanov, allocated 2.1 hectares of land in the centre of the city to a company called Training Project LLC (1). The plot of land is located between passages 2, 3 and 5 of Sadyk Azimov Street (1). The decision states that residential and non-residential buildings should be demolished for the construction of a multi-storey residential and commercial building, providing that Training Project LLC reimburses the owners of the existing property (1).
The decision does not require the residents to agree to the demolition of their homes, nor the compensation offered by the developer (1). It can also be argued that the decision does not describe any public purpose for the construction of the new development (1), which under the applicable law during this period was a prerequisite for compulsory acquisition.
Details of the demolished properties:
A letter published by the Cadastre Agency, Tashkent City Administration (27 January 2022) No. 13/2-3/1-388-2 states there were 84 residential buildings and 7 non-residential buildings on the land plot that was allocated to Training Project LLC (2).
Details of the proposed development:
According to a Nuz article dated 6 July 2020, Training Project LLC proposed to build a 13-storey residential block on the land plot (3). This article also states that the project designer is Asia Project Group, and the contractor is Ulkan Qurilish Maxsus Servis (3).
Residents’ response to the development:
Residents have published open letters in Uzmetronom (19 September 2019 and 12 December 2019) alleging that the land was acquired improperly (4, 5). In an article published in Anhor on 10 September 2020, residents allege that the developer failed to offer residents market price compensation or adequate alternative accommodation (6). They also allege that the developer has been pressurising residents through the use of litigation (6).
In 2019, residents of Sadyk Azimov Street filed an application to the administrative court demanding to cancel the decision of the Tashkent City Khokim #488 dated 27.03.2018.
Applicants: Georgy Tsirinsky, Regina Ananova , Olga Abdullayeva, Maria Fadeicheva, Natalya Kudryavtseva
Respondent: Hokimiyat of Tashkent city Third party, not asserting independent claims: TRAINING PROJECT LLC
The main and only argument of the applicants was that the decision contradicts the requirements of paragraph 12 of the "Regulations on the procedure for allocation of land plots in settlements for urban development activities", approved by the SCM No. 54 of 25.02.2013 (30).
In accordance with this provision, the khokim was obliged to refuse to allocate the land plot and to send TRAINING PROJECT LLC a notice of impossibility to allocate the land plot, with an offer to buy the real estate from the owners independently. (30)
Paragraph 12 of the mentioned Regulation is defined: "In cases of receipt of applications from legal entities and individuals for the provision of land plots occupied by buildings and structures, the rights to which are registered for other individuals and legal entities in an order established by legislation, the applicant is sent a notice of impossibility to provide the requested land plot, with the proposal to independently buy out the immovable property from the owners or other options for selection of free land plots".
“Thus, in violation of the current legislation, the khokim of Tashkent city allocated for commercial development a plot of land together with the houses belonging to us on the rights of private ownership, which in fact violated our legally protected rights and freedoms, namely the right to use and dispose of the plot of land on which our houses and the houses of more than 50 other owners are located” , wrote the applicants in their supervision complaint to the Supreme Court .
By the decision of the administrative court of Chilanzar district of Tashkent (1st instance) dated 23.08.2019 on the case №3-1006-1901/4581 the Applicant's claim to invalidate the decision of the Hokim of Tashkent city №488 dated 27.03.2018 was denied (SadykAzimov_Admin process 2019 - 1st instance.pdf).
The decision of the cassation instance of the Administrative Court of Tashkent #°3-1006-1902/4581 of 25.11.2019 left the decision unchanged, and the cassation appeal without satisfaction (Decision of the Administrative Court of Tashkent n ).
According to Article 158 of the Code of Administrative Proceedings "The reasoning part of the judgment shall specify: ...the grounds on which the court rejected certain evidence, accepted or rejected the arguments of persons participating in the case..." The acts of legislation which guided the court in adopting the judgment and the grounds on which the court failed to apply the acts of legislation relied upon by the persons participating in the case".(25.01.2018. Кодекс Республики Узбекистан об административном судопроизводстве (lex.uz)) However, the applicants' argument set out above was not discussed at all in the judgment of the court and in the cassation instance judgment and was not refuted by the findings that it was unreasonable or unfounded. During the court of cassation instance, the Applicants provided another argument of illegality of the decision of the Tashkent City Khokim No. 488 dated 27.03.2018: this decision was not approved by the Tashkent City Council of People's Deputies. Although in accordance with Article 10 of the Law of the Republic of Uzbekistan "On Local State Power" stipulates: "Khokim of the region, district, city has the right to provide land for possession, use and lease to enterprises, institutions, organizations, dehkan farms, citizens, terminate the rights of possession and use of land by these entities, as well as to withdraw land with subsequent approval of the adopted decisions by the relevant Kengash of People's Deputies". ( 913-XII-сон 02.09.1993. О государственной власти на местах (lex.uz) ) In accordance with Article 68 of the Code of Administrative Proceedings of the Republic of Uzbekistan: "A person participating in the case, who is unable to independently obtain the necessary evidence from a person participating or not participating in the case, who has it, has the right to apply to the court with a petition to demand this evidence. The motion shall state what circumstances relevant to the case may be established by this evidence, designate the evidence and indicate its location” In the course of consideration of the cassation appeal, the Applicants filed a request to demand from the Kengash of People's Deputies of Tashkent the original or duly certified copy of the minutes of the session of the Kengash of People's Deputies of Tashkent, which approved the decision of the Khokim of Tashkent No. 488 dated 27.03.2018. But the cassation board of the administrative court of Tashkent rejected this request. "The judge's refusal to reclaim the written evidence is unlawful," the plaintiffs argue. «Later we managed to get a letter No.129 dated 29.11.2019 from the Tashkent City Kengash of People's Deputies, which informs that the contested decision of the Tashkent City Khokim was not submitted to the Kengash of People's Deputies for approval. This is another proof that the decision of the Tashkent City Khokim No. 488 of 27.03.2018 has no legal force», - wrote the plaintiffs. (Letter of Municipal Council.pdf.) It follows from the text of the decision of the Tashkent City Khokim #488 dated 27.03.2018 that it was issued on the basis of the Protocol Decision of the Commission of the Cabinet of Ministers of RUz #01-05/121-1 dated 02.02.2018. In the course of court proceedings, judges established existence of two different Protocol Decisions of the Commission of the Cabinet of Ministers of RUz with the same number and date. In this regard, the Applicants have a third argument about the illegality of the contested decision of the Khokim of Tashkent city - the decision was issued on the basis of a false Protocol Decision of the CM RUz. At the request of the lawyer on 26.08.2019, the aplaintiffs managed to obtain a certified copy of the Protocol Decision No. 01-05/121-1 dated 02.02.2018 consisting of 15 sheets from the Chancellery of the CM RUz. “If there were two Protocols with the same number and date, the Chancellery of the CM RUz would have issued both Protocols”, the plaintiffs argue . But the first-instance court, without examining this argument of the applicants, did not even discuss it in its judgment and did not make any conclusions about its groundlessness and unreasonableness. And the court of cassation instance in its ruling indicated that the case file contains certified copies of both Protocol Decisions No. 01-05/121-1 dated 02.02.2018, which excludes the Applicants' allegation of forgery of the Protocol. During the courts of both instances, neither the representative of the Tashkent City Khokimiyat, nor the representative of the Developer presented a certified copy of the Protocol Decision of the CM No. 01-05/121-1 dated 02.02.2018, which is in the file of the Tashkent City Khokimiyat. After the ruling of the cassation instance, we again familiarized ourselves with the materials of the administrative case and found that on 26.11.2019, i.e. AFTER the announcement of the ruling of the cassation instance, allegedly, from the Cabinet of Ministers of RUz a written response to the request of Judge Mirzaeva I. out. №05/121-1 dated 25.11.2019 with the attachment of 3 certified copies of the CM Protocol Decision №01-05/121-1 on 24 sheets) was received from the Cabinet of Ministers of RUz. This document caused us even more surprise, as the cover letter is written on the letterhead of the Information and Analytical Department on issues of public utilities, ecology, environmental protection, transport, capital construction and construction industry of the Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of Uzbekistan, which was abolished by the Decree of the President of the Republic of Uzbekistan № PP-4136 dated 28.01.2019, and Abidov Sh., who signed this document, is the Head of the Secretariat for Integrated Development of Territories, Communications and Defense Industry of the Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of Uzbekistan. The letterhead of this Secretariat has a completely different design. By an amazing coincidence, the outgoing number of this letter is designated as #05/121-1, and for some reason this outgoing number of the letter corresponds to the number of the protocols presented in the annex, whereas the numbering of the letters of the Secretariat for Integrated Development of Territories, Communications and Defense Industry of the Cabinet of Ministers of RUz actually looks like this: "I8-Yu-14-7/____", where "I8-Yu-14-7" is the number determining the belonging of the letter to this particular Secretariat. The materials of the case do not contain the envelope in which the letter was delivered and we, quite reasonably, have a question, how did this letter get to the administrative court of Tashkent? And how could the cassation board of judges indicate this document as written evidence, if it was received a day after the announcement of the ruling! Our lawyer sent a lawyer's request to the Administrative Court of Tashkent on 23.12.2019 with a request to inform how this document was delivered. But by letter No. 1-4558/17 dated 16.01.2020, the chairman of the court Akbarov N. did not consider it necessary to provide the requested information and advised the lawyer to familiarize himself with the case materials again. It is necessary to emphasize numerous gross violations of procedural law in the course of consideration of the cassation appeal in the administrative court of Tashkent city. On 25.11.2019, during the court session, Judge Mirzaeva I. handed over to the plaintiffs' counsel a stack of documents of about 70 sheets, received through the court office from the Defendant and the Third Party. The lawyer stated a motion to postpone the court session and provide time to familiarize himself with the documents and prepare a written opinion on them. But Judge Mirzaeva I., violating all procedural norms, without discussing the motion of the lawyer with the participants of the process, announced the debate of the parties, whereas according to Article 39 of the Code of Administrative Proceeding of Uzbekistan: "Persons participating in the case shall have the right to familiarize themselves with the case materials, make extracts from them, make copies, make challenges, present evidence, participate in the examination of evidence, ask questions, make motions, make statements, give oral and written explanations to the court, present their arguments, conclusions on all issues arising in the course of consideration of the case, object to motions, arguments of other persons participating in the case, appeal (protest) against judicial acts and enjoy other procedural rights provided by the Court of Appeal of other persons participating in the case, appeal (protest) against judicial acts and use other procedural rights” Also Article 147 of the Code of Administrative Procedure of the Republic of Uzbekistan stipulates: "Applications and petitions of persons participating in the case, on demanding new evidence and on all other issues related to the proceedings of the case, are resolved by the court after hearing the opinions of other persons participating in the case. Based on the results of consideration of applications and petitions of the persons participating in the case, the court shall make a ruling. The conclusions of the court on satisfaction or rejection of applications and petitions of the persons participating in the case may be stated in the judicial act rendered as a result of consideration of the case".
Response from Training Project LLC:
The general director of Training Project LLC, Aziza Popov, issued a reply on Facebook (3 September 2020) arguing that adequate compensation has been offered to the residents (7).
In the spring of 2022, the developer cleared the site where 13 buildings had previously been located (compensation was paid by the owner, according to the developer) and began digging a huge pit to build a multistorey apartment block (15, 16).
However, it appears, this large building will be located between an existing 7 and 5-storey building. Residents believe that this construction violates urban planning norms regarding building density. The maintenance of their homes will also suffer, as the existing electricity, gas and water supply and sewerage infrastructure is not designed for the new large building (23).
Two private housing owners' associations from this area - “Zebuzar” (one building with 28 apartments) and “Nur Ijod” (five buildings with 150 flats in total) – lodged a claim to the Tashkent Interdistrict Administrative Court against Tashkent General Directorate of Construction. The plaintiffs asked the court to invalidate thee authorization to construct a 14-storey building which was issued to Training Project Ltd.
The Tashkent Interdistrict Administrative Court opened the case N°5-1001-2207/1357. It was considered by the Juge Khaydarov B.I The judge took account of the developer's arguments regarding town planning regulations.The Judge did not find reason to cancel the authorization to construct the building. In his decision of August 22, 2022, he upheld the authorization issued to the developer (21).
In the frame of the Case N°5-1001-2207/1357 , the Jugge Khaydarov B.I. issued a ruling ordering the developer to suspend its construction until all proceedings in the courts have been completed, but the developer is in systematic breach of this injunction (22).
Residents appealed to the Tashkent City Administrative Court. The first meeting of the appeals commission, chaired by Judge Hodzhiev, took place on Friday, October 14 2022, in the absence of the defendant, the Tashkent General Directorate of Construction. The judge heard the complaint of plaintiffs - Zebuzar Kommunal and Nur Ijod housing cooperatives - and objections of Training Project LLC, which participated as a third party. (24)
The residents requested that the decision of the interdistrict court be set aside because the court had violated the rules of substantive and procedural law, and the court's findings did not correspond to the factual circumstances of the case.
In particular, the residents believed that the court did not sufficiently review documentation of compliance with insolation, fire safety and seismic regulations. On the part of the defendant and the third party, the court was not provided with a conclusion of the Fire Department on the compliance of the construction with fire and earthquake safety standards in case of evacuation in case of fire, emergency, etc.
"The court did not establish the reliability of the documents provided by Training Project LLC, and no specialists were invited to court," claimed Gilmanova's lawyer.
For example, the court stated in the decision that on the layout of the site plan the distance between the long sides is 43 metres, between the ends of the buildings with windows from the living rooms is 20.4 metres. This corresponds to the norms of insolation in accordance with Urbanization Rules Standard #2.07.01-03* (25)
(Although from Act 122 of 17.03.2022 it appears that the distance is 47.60 metres and 18.30 metres).
However, item 21.1 of the same Urbanization Rules Standard #2.07.01-03* prescribes: "On sites with a seismicity of 8 points or higher, the distance between the long sides of residential buildings must be no less than two heights of the tallest building". Obviously, the above distances for a 14-storey building do not provide anti-seismic safety, given that Tashkent is located on a site with a seismicity of 8. However, the court did not appear to register these legal requirements.
The court also did not register in its decision the Note to Paragraph 21.1 of the Urbanization Rules Standard, which states: "It is not allowed to locate in existing neighbourhoods objects of any purpose between apartment buildings, except for special buildings and structures (sports grounds, playgrounds for children, areas for drying clothes, temporary car parks for cars)".
Aziza Popova, director of the aforementioned LLC, responded that she could build something low, but only if the residents reimbursed her for the $2.5 million she had spent on demolishing the houses on the site and paying compensation.
The court stated in its decision that the installation of the fence had been approved by the Tashkent Main Directorate of Internal Affairs and a permit had been obtained, so it did not accept the arguments that it had been installed incorrectly. Although, as we wrote above, Judge Haidarov personally visited the site on 8 July and saw that the fence included the pavement. Pedestrians are now forced to walk along the road, wading through passing cars.
It is unclear why the court rejected the residents demand to commission an urban planning technical examination to determine whether the design and estimate documentation complied with "Sanitary Rules and Norms of Planning and Development of Settlements in Uzbekistan" No. 0339-16, Urbanization Rules Standard #2.07.01-03* "Urban Planning. Planning the Development and Construction of Urban and Rural Residential Areas", Urbanization Rules Standard #2.01.02-04 "Fire Safety of Buildings and Structures".
Regarding the allegedly missed deadline for appealing to the court, the decision states that the master plan of the development with the number of houses and their location was approved in 2018, and as of 2019 it is posted on a billboard near the sales office of Training Project LLC. The residents object to this claim because no evidence has been presented to support the court's findings: where, at what address is the sales office located? Is this master plan actually posted there?
The developers claim they allegedly put up a poster on the fence in February 2022 showing exactly what kind of building would be built. However, residents claim the approval of the poster was only made on March 2, 2022, and the alignment of the axes of the house under construction was approved by Act O`ZGASHKLITI on March 17, 2022, No. 122. Thus it is claimed there is no way the poster could have been put up in February 2022, much less in 2019.
"In fact, the poster was put up in late April 2022, after giving notice of commencement of construction and installation works through the single portal of public services my.gov.uz on 13.04.2022," residents claim.
The residents seek protection in the Urbanisation Code, Article 8 of which states: "The public interest in urban planning is the right of citizens to a favourable living environment, prevention of harmful effects of economic and other activities on the environment, improvement of the environmental situation, development of engineering, transport and social infrastructure in and around populated areas, preservation of cultural heritage, and openness and transparency of urban planning".
The process in the Appellate Court lasted several months, and it was not until February 21, 2023 that the judge ruled to deny the residents of the apartment buildings on Sadik Azimov Street their claim. The residents referred to a speech by the President of the Republic of Uzbekistan, Shavkat Mirziyoyev, who, after the terrible earthquakes in Turkey and Syria and after the energy crisis in Uzbekistan, sharply criticized such construction in the absence of a master plan for the city. A moratorium on new construction was announced loudly but verbally. But the judge of the city administrative court did not heed the words of the head of state, considering them irrelevant. Residents requested a construction expertise, but the Suleymanova Institute refused to conduct it for lack of competence. (25) Residents continue to protest against this construction: (27, 28)
{media}()
Designed and developed by
Training Project LLC was incorporated on 22 March 2017 with approximately US $11,000 statutory capital (1). The company's registered address is shared with O'zog'irsanoatloyiha JSC (1 + 3). The director of Training Project LLC is Aziza Popova, who also holds 25% of the company’s shares (1). Further details about Popova's career can be found in a biographical article published in Spot Uz on 5 February 2022 (2). Popova claims to be a self-made businessperson, who entered construction and development in 2003 (2).
Popova also has shareholdings in Ulkan Qurilish Maxsus Servis, Grand Construction, Asia Project Goup, Ecoflat, and Platinum Building (4, 5, 6, 7, 8). The website list.org claims that Popova has held shares in the Russian construction company Stroyrezerv LLC. However, this cannot be independently verified. A person by the name of Aleksandr Popov is also a shareholder in Ulkan Qurilish Maxsus Servis, Grand Construction, Asia Project Goup, and Platinum Building (4, 6, 7, 8).
According to the unified register of legal entities the majority shareholder Mirazamat Turapov, does not hold shares in any other company in Uzbekistan. A open source search reveals no further information about Mirazamat Turapov.
Decision No. 488 of the Tashkent City Khokim (27 March 2018):
By Decision № 488, dated 27 March 2018, the then-Khokim of Tashkent, R. Usmanov, allocated 2.1 hectares of land in the centre of the city to a company called Training Project LLC (1). The plot of land is located between passages 2, 3 and 5 of Sadyk Azimov Street (1). The decision states that residential and non-residential buildings should be demolished for the construction of a multi-storey residential and commercial building, providing that Training Project LLC reimburses the owners of the existing property (1).
The decision does not require the residents to agree to the demolition of their homes, nor the compensation offered by the developer (1). It can also be argued that the decision does not describe any public purpose for the construction of the new development (1), which under the applicable law during this period was a prerequisite for compulsory acquisition.
Details of the demolished properties:
A letter published by the Cadastre Agency, Tashkent City Administration (27 January 2022) No. 13/2-3/1-388-2 states there were 84 residential buildings and 7 non-residential buildings on the land plot that was allocated to Training Project LLC (2).
Details of the proposed development:
According to a Nuz article dated 6 July 2020, Training Project LLC proposed to build a 13-storey residential block on the land plot (3). This article also states that the project designer is Asia Project Group, and the contractor is Ulkan Qurilish Maxsus Servis (3).
Residents’ response to the development:
Residents have published open letters in Uzmetronom (19 September 2019 and 12 December 2019) alleging that the land was acquired improperly (4, 5). In an article published in Anhor on 10 September 2020, residents allege that the developer failed to offer residents market price compensation or adequate alternative accommodation (6). They also allege that the developer has been pressurising residents through the use of litigation (6).
In 2019, residents of Sadyk Azimov Street filed an application to the administrative court demanding to cancel the decision of the Tashkent City Khokim #488 dated 27.03.2018.
Applicants: Georgy Tsirinsky, Regina Ananova , Olga Abdullayeva, Maria Fadeicheva, Natalya Kudryavtseva
Respondent: Hokimiyat of Tashkent city Third party, not asserting independent claims: TRAINING PROJECT LLC
The main and only argument of the applicants was that the decision contradicts the requirements of paragraph 12 of the "Regulations on the procedure for allocation of land plots in settlements for urban development activities", approved by the SCM No. 54 of 25.02.2013 (30).
In accordance with this provision, the khokim was obliged to refuse to allocate the land plot and to send TRAINING PROJECT LLC a notice of impossibility to allocate the land plot, with an offer to buy the real estate from the owners independently. (30)
Paragraph 12 of the mentioned Regulation is defined: "In cases of receipt of applications from legal entities and individuals for the provision of land plots occupied by buildings and structures, the rights to which are registered for other individuals and legal entities in an order established by legislation, the applicant is sent a notice of impossibility to provide the requested land plot, with the proposal to independently buy out the immovable property from the owners or other options for selection of free land plots".
“Thus, in violation of the current legislation, the khokim of Tashkent city allocated for commercial development a plot of land together with the houses belonging to us on the rights of private ownership, which in fact violated our legally protected rights and freedoms, namely the right to use and dispose of the plot of land on which our houses and the houses of more than 50 other owners are located” , wrote the applicants in their supervision complaint to the Supreme Court .
By the decision of the administrative court of Chilanzar district of Tashkent (1st instance) dated 23.08.2019 on the case №3-1006-1901/4581 the Applicant's claim to invalidate the decision of the Hokim of Tashkent city №488 dated 27.03.2018 was denied (SadykAzimov_Admin process 2019 - 1st instance.pdf).
The decision of the cassation instance of the Administrative Court of Tashkent #°3-1006-1902/4581 of 25.11.2019 left the decision unchanged, and the cassation appeal without satisfaction (Decision of the Administrative Court of Tashkent n ).
According to Article 158 of the Code of Administrative Proceedings "The reasoning part of the judgment shall specify: ...the grounds on which the court rejected certain evidence, accepted or rejected the arguments of persons participating in the case..." The acts of legislation which guided the court in adopting the judgment and the grounds on which the court failed to apply the acts of legislation relied upon by the persons participating in the case".(25.01.2018. Кодекс Республики Узбекистан об административном судопроизводстве (lex.uz)) However, the applicants' argument set out above was not discussed at all in the judgment of the court and in the cassation instance judgment and was not refuted by the findings that it was unreasonable or unfounded. During the court of cassation instance, the Applicants provided another argument of illegality of the decision of the Tashkent City Khokim No. 488 dated 27.03.2018: this decision was not approved by the Tashkent City Council of People's Deputies. Although in accordance with Article 10 of the Law of the Republic of Uzbekistan "On Local State Power" stipulates: "Khokim of the region, district, city has the right to provide land for possession, use and lease to enterprises, institutions, organizations, dehkan farms, citizens, terminate the rights of possession and use of land by these entities, as well as to withdraw land with subsequent approval of the adopted decisions by the relevant Kengash of People's Deputies". ( 913-XII-сон 02.09.1993. О государственной власти на местах (lex.uz) ) In accordance with Article 68 of the Code of Administrative Proceedings of the Republic of Uzbekistan: "A person participating in the case, who is unable to independently obtain the necessary evidence from a person participating or not participating in the case, who has it, has the right to apply to the court with a petition to demand this evidence. The motion shall state what circumstances relevant to the case may be established by this evidence, designate the evidence and indicate its location” In the course of consideration of the cassation appeal, the Applicants filed a request to demand from the Kengash of People's Deputies of Tashkent the original or duly certified copy of the minutes of the session of the Kengash of People's Deputies of Tashkent, which approved the decision of the Khokim of Tashkent No. 488 dated 27.03.2018. But the cassation board of the administrative court of Tashkent rejected this request. "The judge's refusal to reclaim the written evidence is unlawful," the plaintiffs argue. «Later we managed to get a letter No.129 dated 29.11.2019 from the Tashkent City Kengash of People's Deputies, which informs that the contested decision of the Tashkent City Khokim was not submitted to the Kengash of People's Deputies for approval. This is another proof that the decision of the Tashkent City Khokim No. 488 of 27.03.2018 has no legal force», - wrote the plaintiffs. (Letter of Municipal Council.pdf.) It follows from the text of the decision of the Tashkent City Khokim #488 dated 27.03.2018 that it was issued on the basis of the Protocol Decision of the Commission of the Cabinet of Ministers of RUz #01-05/121-1 dated 02.02.2018. In the course of court proceedings, judges established existence of two different Protocol Decisions of the Commission of the Cabinet of Ministers of RUz with the same number and date. In this regard, the Applicants have a third argument about the illegality of the contested decision of the Khokim of Tashkent city - the decision was issued on the basis of a false Protocol Decision of the CM RUz. At the request of the lawyer on 26.08.2019, the aplaintiffs managed to obtain a certified copy of the Protocol Decision No. 01-05/121-1 dated 02.02.2018 consisting of 15 sheets from the Chancellery of the CM RUz. “If there were two Protocols with the same number and date, the Chancellery of the CM RUz would have issued both Protocols”, the plaintiffs argue . But the first-instance court, without examining this argument of the applicants, did not even discuss it in its judgment and did not make any conclusions about its groundlessness and unreasonableness. And the court of cassation instance in its ruling indicated that the case file contains certified copies of both Protocol Decisions No. 01-05/121-1 dated 02.02.2018, which excludes the Applicants' allegation of forgery of the Protocol. During the courts of both instances, neither the representative of the Tashkent City Khokimiyat, nor the representative of the Developer presented a certified copy of the Protocol Decision of the CM No. 01-05/121-1 dated 02.02.2018, which is in the file of the Tashkent City Khokimiyat. After the ruling of the cassation instance, we again familiarized ourselves with the materials of the administrative case and found that on 26.11.2019, i.e. AFTER the announcement of the ruling of the cassation instance, allegedly, from the Cabinet of Ministers of RUz a written response to the request of Judge Mirzaeva I. out. №05/121-1 dated 25.11.2019 with the attachment of 3 certified copies of the CM Protocol Decision №01-05/121-1 on 24 sheets) was received from the Cabinet of Ministers of RUz. This document caused us even more surprise, as the cover letter is written on the letterhead of the Information and Analytical Department on issues of public utilities, ecology, environmental protection, transport, capital construction and construction industry of the Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of Uzbekistan, which was abolished by the Decree of the President of the Republic of Uzbekistan № PP-4136 dated 28.01.2019, and Abidov Sh., who signed this document, is the Head of the Secretariat for Integrated Development of Territories, Communications and Defense Industry of the Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of Uzbekistan. The letterhead of this Secretariat has a completely different design. By an amazing coincidence, the outgoing number of this letter is designated as #05/121-1, and for some reason this outgoing number of the letter corresponds to the number of the protocols presented in the annex, whereas the numbering of the letters of the Secretariat for Integrated Development of Territories, Communications and Defense Industry of the Cabinet of Ministers of RUz actually looks like this: "I8-Yu-14-7/____", where "I8-Yu-14-7" is the number determining the belonging of the letter to this particular Secretariat. The materials of the case do not contain the envelope in which the letter was delivered and we, quite reasonably, have a question, how did this letter get to the administrative court of Tashkent? And how could the cassation board of judges indicate this document as written evidence, if it was received a day after the announcement of the ruling! Our lawyer sent a lawyer's request to the Administrative Court of Tashkent on 23.12.2019 with a request to inform how this document was delivered. But by letter No. 1-4558/17 dated 16.01.2020, the chairman of the court Akbarov N. did not consider it necessary to provide the requested information and advised the lawyer to familiarize himself with the case materials again. It is necessary to emphasize numerous gross violations of procedural law in the course of consideration of the cassation appeal in the administrative court of Tashkent city. On 25.11.2019, during the court session, Judge Mirzaeva I. handed over to the plaintiffs' counsel a stack of documents of about 70 sheets, received through the court office from the Defendant and the Third Party. The lawyer stated a motion to postpone the court session and provide time to familiarize himself with the documents and prepare a written opinion on them. But Judge Mirzaeva I., violating all procedural norms, without discussing the motion of the lawyer with the participants of the process, announced the debate of the parties, whereas according to Article 39 of the Code of Administrative Proceeding of Uzbekistan: "Persons participating in the case shall have the right to familiarize themselves with the case materials, make extracts from them, make copies, make challenges, present evidence, participate in the examination of evidence, ask questions, make motions, make statements, give oral and written explanations to the court, present their arguments, conclusions on all issues arising in the course of consideration of the case, object to motions, arguments of other persons participating in the case, appeal (protest) against judicial acts and enjoy other procedural rights provided by the Court of Appeal of other persons participating in the case, appeal (protest) against judicial acts and use other procedural rights” Also Article 147 of the Code of Administrative Procedure of the Republic of Uzbekistan stipulates: "Applications and petitions of persons participating in the case, on demanding new evidence and on all other issues related to the proceedings of the case, are resolved by the court after hearing the opinions of other persons participating in the case. Based on the results of consideration of applications and petitions of the persons participating in the case, the court shall make a ruling. The conclusions of the court on satisfaction or rejection of applications and petitions of the persons participating in the case may be stated in the judicial act rendered as a result of consideration of the case".
Response from Training Project LLC:
The general director of Training Project LLC, Aziza Popov, issued a reply on Facebook (3 September 2020) arguing that adequate compensation has been offered to the residents (7).
In the spring of 2022, the developer cleared the site where 13 buildings had previously been located (compensation was paid by the owner, according to the developer) and began digging a huge pit to build a multistorey apartment block (15, 16).
However, it appears, this large building will be located between an existing 7 and 5-storey building. Residents believe that this construction violates urban planning norms regarding building density. The maintenance of their homes will also suffer, as the existing electricity, gas and water supply and sewerage infrastructure is not designed for the new large building (23).
Two private housing owners' associations from this area - “Zebuzar” (one building with 28 apartments) and “Nur Ijod” (five buildings with 150 flats in total) – lodged a claim to the Tashkent Interdistrict Administrative Court against Tashkent General Directorate of Construction. The plaintiffs asked the court to invalidate thee authorization to construct a 14-storey building which was issued to Training Project Ltd.
The Tashkent Interdistrict Administrative Court opened the case N°5-1001-2207/1357. It was considered by the Juge Khaydarov B.I The judge took account of the developer's arguments regarding town planning regulations.The Judge did not find reason to cancel the authorization to construct the building. In his decision of August 22, 2022, he upheld the authorization issued to the developer (21).
In the frame of the Case N°5-1001-2207/1357 , the Jugge Khaydarov B.I. issued a ruling ordering the developer to suspend its construction until all proceedings in the courts have been completed, but the developer is in systematic breach of this injunction (22).
Residents appealed to the Tashkent City Administrative Court. The first meeting of the appeals commission, chaired by Judge Hodzhiev, took place on Friday, October 14 2022, in the absence of the defendant, the Tashkent General Directorate of Construction. The judge heard the complaint of plaintiffs - Zebuzar Kommunal and Nur Ijod housing cooperatives - and objections of Training Project LLC, which participated as a third party. (24)
The residents requested that the decision of the interdistrict court be set aside because the court had violated the rules of substantive and procedural law, and the court's findings did not correspond to the factual circumstances of the case.
In particular, the residents believed that the court did not sufficiently review documentation of compliance with insolation, fire safety and seismic regulations. On the part of the defendant and the third party, the court was not provided with a conclusion of the Fire Department on the compliance of the construction with fire and earthquake safety standards in case of evacuation in case of fire, emergency, etc.
"The court did not establish the reliability of the documents provided by Training Project LLC, and no specialists were invited to court," claimed Gilmanova's lawyer.
For example, the court stated in the decision that on the layout of the site plan the distance between the long sides is 43 metres, between the ends of the buildings with windows from the living rooms is 20.4 metres. This corresponds to the norms of insolation in accordance with Urbanization Rules Standard #2.07.01-03* (25)
(Although from Act 122 of 17.03.2022 it appears that the distance is 47.60 metres and 18.30 metres).
However, item 21.1 of the same Urbanization Rules Standard #2.07.01-03* prescribes: "On sites with a seismicity of 8 points or higher, the distance between the long sides of residential buildings must be no less than two heights of the tallest building". Obviously, the above distances for a 14-storey building do not provide anti-seismic safety, given that Tashkent is located on a site with a seismicity of 8. However, the court did not appear to register these legal requirements.
The court also did not register in its decision the Note to Paragraph 21.1 of the Urbanization Rules Standard, which states: "It is not allowed to locate in existing neighbourhoods objects of any purpose between apartment buildings, except for special buildings and structures (sports grounds, playgrounds for children, areas for drying clothes, temporary car parks for cars)".
Aziza Popova, director of the aforementioned LLC, responded that she could build something low, but only if the residents reimbursed her for the $2.5 million she had spent on demolishing the houses on the site and paying compensation.
The court stated in its decision that the installation of the fence had been approved by the Tashkent Main Directorate of Internal Affairs and a permit had been obtained, so it did not accept the arguments that it had been installed incorrectly. Although, as we wrote above, Judge Haidarov personally visited the site on 8 July and saw that the fence included the pavement. Pedestrians are now forced to walk along the road, wading through passing cars.
It is unclear why the court rejected the residents demand to commission an urban planning technical examination to determine whether the design and estimate documentation complied with "Sanitary Rules and Norms of Planning and Development of Settlements in Uzbekistan" No. 0339-16, Urbanization Rules Standard #2.07.01-03* "Urban Planning. Planning the Development and Construction of Urban and Rural Residential Areas", Urbanization Rules Standard #2.01.02-04 "Fire Safety of Buildings and Structures".
Regarding the allegedly missed deadline for appealing to the court, the decision states that the master plan of the development with the number of houses and their location was approved in 2018, and as of 2019 it is posted on a billboard near the sales office of Training Project LLC. The residents object to this claim because no evidence has been presented to support the court's findings: where, at what address is the sales office located? Is this master plan actually posted there?
The developers claim they allegedly put up a poster on the fence in February 2022 showing exactly what kind of building would be built. However, residents claim the approval of the poster was only made on March 2, 2022, and the alignment of the axes of the house under construction was approved by Act O`ZGASHKLITI on March 17, 2022, No. 122. Thus it is claimed there is no way the poster could have been put up in February 2022, much less in 2019.
"In fact, the poster was put up in late April 2022, after giving notice of commencement of construction and installation works through the single portal of public services my.gov.uz on 13.04.2022," residents claim.
The residents seek protection in the Urbanisation Code, Article 8 of which states: "The public interest in urban planning is the right of citizens to a favourable living environment, prevention of harmful effects of economic and other activities on the environment, improvement of the environmental situation, development of engineering, transport and social infrastructure in and around populated areas, preservation of cultural heritage, and openness and transparency of urban planning".
The process in the Appellate Court lasted several months, and it was not until February 21, 2023 that the judge ruled to deny the residents of the apartment buildings on Sadik Azimov Street their claim. The residents referred to a speech by the President of the Republic of Uzbekistan, Shavkat Mirziyoyev, who, after the terrible earthquakes in Turkey and Syria and after the energy crisis in Uzbekistan, sharply criticized such construction in the absence of a master plan for the city. A moratorium on new construction was announced loudly but verbally. But the judge of the city administrative court did not heed the words of the head of state, considering them irrelevant. Residents requested a construction expertise, but the Suleymanova Institute refused to conduct it for lack of competence. (25) Residents continue to protest against this construction: (27, 28)
Latitude: 41.3052221
Longitude: 69.2898134
