The State Environmental Inspectorate of the Capital District has filed a lawsuit against «Kyivvodokanal» for failing to allow inspectors

What is special about our officials and businessmen? That they try to do everything secretly, or at least to inform the public as little as possible, if possible only the facts that speak in their favor. And “active citizens “consistently extract facts that for some reason are hidden by officials and businessmen. This is the case with the situation regarding the discharge of wastewater from Kyivvodokanal into the Dnieper (namely, into the Rusaniv Strait) on June 12. We have already reported a lot of details about this emission in two articles. «Residents of new buildings in Mykilska Slobidka are disturbed by the Desnianska water supply station» and «Kyivvodokanal»has acknowledged emissions near the Rusanivsky Gardens and the exemplary beach».

Kiev water filtration station

In particular, we found that:
– «Kyivdodokanal» has permits for these emissions from the Department of Public Works of the Kyiv City State Administration;

-Emissions consist of organic substances contained in the water of the Desna River and which are removed during the treatment process, which, but not only makes Desna water suitable for drinking;

-Such emissions occur throughout the life of the Desnyanskaya water supply station – ie more than 40 years;

– Attention to these emissions was drawn when the rest zone started working in the area of ​​new buildings built for some reason in the area of ​​Kyivvodokanal collectors ;

-The rest zone was created at the request of residents of new buildings in Mykilska Slobidka. Building was permitted by the Kyiv City Council and the Kyiv City State Administration, although construction is not possible there, and there are still lawsuits in this regard;

– “Kyivvodokanal” is ready to build sewage treatment facilities that will completely close the problem with the downpours in the Rusanivska Strait, but it requires three years of time and 400 million hryvnias, which the company does not have.

But what we have not been able to find out yet is why “Kyivvodokanal” did not allow state environmental inspectors to inspect its territory on June 12. The State Ecological Inspectorate (SEI) announced the non-admission of its employees on its Facebook page: “The State Ecological Inspectorate of the Capital District has taken wastewater samples from these reservoirs and will take measures to influence the perpetrators. In case of damage, the state will be presented with the relevant procedural documents to compensate for such losses by the balance holder of these collectors. The State Ecological Inspectorate of the Capital District draws the attention of the Kyiv community that possible violations of environmental legislation of PJSC (private joint-stock company) “Kyivvodokanal” are the result of irresponsible actions of the company’s management, as well as the permission of state inspectors to protect scheduled inspections.

SEI (state environmental inspectorate) states that PJSC “Kyivvodokanal” during 2017, 2018, 2019 does not allow state inspectors for environmental protection to conduct scheduled inspections, which were drawn up the relevant acts and protocols on bringing officials to administrative responsibility. However, the small amount of the administrative fine for not allowing inspectors to the scheduled inspection of the enterprise (765 hryvnias – $27) allows such enterprises violating environmental legislation to avoid inspections during which the accrual of fines and damages incurred by the state as a result of these enterprises can reach millions and even tens of millions of hryvnias. Law enforcement agencies and heads of Kyiv city and Kyiv regional state administrations have been informed about the facts of non-admission of PJSC “Kyivvodokanal” to conduct scheduled inspections.

“Active Citizens” asked the head of the press service of  “Kyivvodokanal” Mrs. Victoria Yakovleva the reason for such dislike for SEI. Ms. Victoria just spread her arms: “You need to ask a lawyer.” We, “Active Citizens”, but we still expect to receive an answer.

In the meantime, we asked the SEI to obtain public information to find out the reasons for this incident from them. The letter, which came from the State Ecological Inspectorate of the Capital District, officially states that, indeed, “Vodokanal” residents did not allow state eco-inspectors to carry out scheduled inspections in 2018 and 2019. The inspectors drew up the relevant acts and appealed to the court. By the decision of the District Administrative Court of Kyiv on March 18 2019, proceeding is commenced, and it is still under consideration.

What can it turn out for “Kyivvodokanal”? Non-admission can be seen as an obstacle to the work of environmental officials. This is Article 188 (5) of the Code of Administrative Offenses. It provides for a fine for those officials who obstruct environmentalists, namely – from 15 to 45 non-taxable minimum incomes. Now we have such a minimum – it’s 17 hryvnia ($0,6). That is, the employee of Kyivvodokanal who ordered the security guards not to let the inspector in may be fined only in the amount of 255 to 765 hryvnias ($9-$27).

SEI is also trying to communicate with “Kyivvodokanal “through extrajudicial channels. The Ecoinspection writes letters to “Vodokanal” He also writes letters to “local governments” – probably to the Kyiv City Council and / or the Kyiv City State Administration (the letter we received from the SEI does not specify). The Kyiv authorities have not yet given answers to the question “how will Vodokanal be punished for ignoring the eco-inspection and what will be done next with emissions”.

However, the Department of Housing and Communal Infrastructure of the Kyiv City State Administration reported that the property of “Kyivvodokanal” is the property of the Kyiv community, but for now – hop! – transferred to the management of PJSC “Kyivvodokanal”. PJSC, as we have already written, is a private joint-stock company. Why, for what and how two years ago PJSC (public joint-stock company) Kyivvodokanal became PJSC (private joint-stock company)? Kyiv City Council deputy Oles Malyarevych, for example, does not know such information . Although he is – for a moment – Deputy Chairman of the Budget Commission of Kyiv City Council.

It is very unfortunate that SEI does not practice extensive communication with the media, as stated in the letter: “The inspection did not hold a press conference on violations of PJSC “Kyivvodocalal” . Well,that’s too bad.

“If the court decides to fine an employee of “Vodokanal” who did not let the inspectors, it will not be a big trouble for him. The award from the management of “Vodokanal” for the amount of the fine will easily cover the costs of the person who “took a beat”, – the head of the Public Ecological and Legal Organization “EcoPravo-Kyiv” Borys Vasylkivsky told us. – This is a fairly common practice now at all enterprises. Because in case eco-inspectors enter the territory, the fines are usually much higher. Regarding Article 188 itself, approx. 5, it is very weak, even it does not provide for an increase in the penalty for repeated violations, although in other subparagraphs of this article such additions are, for example, in Article 188 note 9, which deals with ignoring the requirements of standardization and metrology. Not to mention that even for the first ignoring of other inspectors, for example, from the commission of radio frequencies the penalties are much bigger – from one hundred to three hundred non-taxable minimums (1700-5100 UAH ). Therefore, the Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources – the Ministry of Environment (and the State Coinspection is in the vertical of this ministry) Should work on improving the legislation”.

Vasylkivskyi believes that a rather interesting situation will arise if the court upholds the claim of the SEI regarding the admission of its inspectors to “Kyivvodokanal” .Then it will be much harder to avoid checking. After all, the Criminal Code contains Article 382.

“Failure to comply with a court decision”: 1. Intentional non-execution by an official of a verdict , conviction , sentence , court judgment that has entered into force, or obstruction of their execution – is punishable by a fine of five hundred to one thousand tax-free minimums income of citizens or imprisonment for up to three years, with deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities for up to three years.

2. The same acts committed by an official holding a responsible or especially responsible position, or a person previously convicted of a crime under this article, or if they have caused significant harm to the rights and freedoms of citizens protected by law, state or public interests or legal interests persons – shall be punishable by restriction of liberty for a term up to five years or imprisonment for the same term, with deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities for a term up to three years.

Oleg Listopad