Stewards of the Vladimir land. OJSC "monostroy"
That the asphalt in the city is “rejected by the land itself,” and the municipality does not have money for the construction of new kindergartens and schools. In fact, funds can be found for construction and repairs if municipal property is managed effectively. However, as our investigation has shown, the authorities of the city of Vladimir are acting contrary to the interests of the city and its citizens. We have identified many similar cases where officials deprived the budget of revenue by allegedly condoning the activities of various commercial enterprises.
In 2002, the current city manager of Vladimir, and then an entrepreneur, Andrei Shokhin, became a deputy of the city council. Together with him, the owner of the construction company Igrotek LLC, Alexey Aleksandrovich Andreev, entered the local parliament.
In 2005, Shokhin became deputy head of the city and head of the Municipal Property Management (MPD). We can assume that the heads of Vladimir construction companies (not only Andreev, but also other city council deputies - the owner of LLC and OJSC "Monostroy" Oleg Chizhov and entrepreneur Yuri Khiger) found it beneficial to be friends with Shokhin.
Yuri Vladimirovich Khiger
Former deputy of the Council of People's Deputies of Vladimir, member of United Russia, general director of the largest Vladimir shopping center "Trading Rows", general director of the Antares insurance company and a number of other companies.
Alexey Alexandrovich Andreev
Entrepreneur, head of the construction company Igrotek. Former deputy from the United Russia faction of the Vladimir City Council of two convocations. He headed the City Council Committee on Construction.
Oleg Alexandrovich Chizhov
Deputy of the Legislative Assembly of the Vladimir Region from the United Russia party, deputy chairman of the Legislative Assembly Committee on housing and communal services, construction, transport, communications and road facilities.
From 2002 to 2010, when Shokhin managed municipal property, and subsequently, when he became the city manager of the city, the Vladimir city administration leased land - usually for construction. At the same time, many transactions were concluded, which subsequently became the subject of litigation. Unfortunately, it was not possible to find information about cases before 2008, since there is practically no data on earlier cases in the public domain. However, the available information is sufficient to detect certain patterns.
All trials are similar. As the decisions made showed, tenants often did not build anything on the leased land for years and delayed payment for the plots. However, the administration extended contracts with businessmen and only after some time tried to recover arrears through an arbitration court. As a rule, it was not possible to do this: in most cases, judges completely or partially refused to satisfy the claims of the mayor's office. We will describe in detail how this happened below.
The city's projected revenues for 2016 are 5.47 billion rubles, which means the arrears amounted to approximately 4.3% of Vladimir's annual budget. What could be done with the 240 million rubles lost by the city? With these funds, for example, it was possible to build three new kindergartens or overhaul four or five bridges. For example, the construction of a kindergarten for 75 children in the city of Melenki, Vladimir Region, costs almost 77 million rubles, and the repair of the bridge over the Vorsha River costs about 15 million rubles.
A few months ago, senator from the Vladimir region Anton Belyakov drew attention to numerous arrears.
“The damage to the budget of the Vladimir region exceeded 200 million rubles: land plots were sold at a 95% discount!”
Anton Belyakov is a senator from the Vladimir region.
Referring to reports from the regional Accounting Chamber, Belyakov argued that the Vladimir administration “unreasonably provided preferences” to specific firms when concluding lease agreements for municipal land plots and calculating rent.
Among the companies that received preferences, Belyakov named Igrotek LLC, to which the mayor’s office provided land plots, extended lease agreements “without public procedures” and forgot to collect rent. And since such broad privileges were granted only to this construction company, the senator spoke about the possible presence of a “corruption factor” in the land issue
In 2009, Igrotek built a 15-story building No. 80 on Vostochnaya Street. The company has rented the area under it since 2002 (No. 33:22:032155:2). However, after the construction of the facility, the company apparently stopped paying its bills as normal and from 2008 to 2010 accumulated a debt in the amount of RUB 2,557,520.18. including penalties. The mayor's office entered into a settlement agreement with Igrotek - the company transferred 685,817.79 rubles to the budget. (RUB 1,871,702.21 less than the debt amount)
We tried to understand this story and found out that the local budget was missing hundreds of millions of rubles due to the behavior in court of the plaintiff, who was the city administration or its structural divisions.
The defendants in the cases were mainly the same companies, owned by the same people. Most of the cases concern municipal property, which was managed by Shokhin, and cover the period from 2005 to 2010. At the same time, the court motivated the termination of cases for the return of arrears for several recurring reasons.
Six reasons to forgive a debt
Reason one: the plaintiff did not appear at the hearing
The administration of Vladimir files a lawsuit demanding to collect debts from the tenants, but the plaintiff does not appear at the hearings and does not provide any documents, and the statement of claim remains without consideration.
Budget losses: RUB 76,316,543.66
Reason two: settlement agreement
The administration of the city of Vladimir enters into settlement agreements with the defendant debtors, partially or completely waiving the collection of debt, penalties, and penalties.Since 1998, Igrotek has been renting plot No. 33:22:011067:14 from the city, where today there is a shopping center (address - Verkhnyaya Dubrova Street, 26). From 2008 to 2010, the amount of the company’s debts to the municipality amounted to 1,016,789.99 rubles. The city administration made concessions and entered into a settlement agreement: Igrotek paid only 350,414.34 rubles. - by 666,375.65 rubles. less than it could.
Affairs
Defendant: Igrotek LLC
- A11-6309/2012, the amount was reduced by RUB 1,871,702.39;
- A11-5878/2012, the amount was reduced by 666,375.65 rubles.
- A11-5806/2012, the amount was reduced by 307,977.18 rubles
- A11-5805/2012, the amount was reduced by RUB 3,219,944.05
- A11-7384/2012, the amount was reduced by RUB 5,499,199.75
Defendant: OJSC "Vladalko"
- A11-3093/2010, the amount was reduced by 415,553.95 rubles.
Defendant: IP Poponkin Alexey Vyacheslavovich
- A11-2981/2010, the amount was reduced by 200,000 rubles
Defendant: Autocenter LLC
- A11-296/2011, the amount was reduced by RUB 1,551,726.49
Defendant: ZAO "Stroyspetsmontazh"
- A11-9410/2010, A11-9409/2010, A11-9408/2010, the amount was reduced by RUB 1,540,298.46
Defendant: LLC "Trade Center "Avtogorodok"
- A11-12287/2011 and A11-12565/2011, the amount was reduced by 986,056.84 rubles
Defendant: LLC "Impulse"
- A11-14818/2009, the amount was reduced by 178,174.92 rubles
Defendant: Georgievsky Dvor LLC
- A11-675/2009, the amount was reduced by 136,861.91 rubles.
Defendant: Stroy-Invest LLC
- A11-2502/2013, the amount was reduced by 421,000 rubles
Defendant: OJSC "Vladimir Bread Factory"
- A11-3190/2012, the amount was reduced by RUB 1,365,454.32
Defendant: Municipal Unitary Enterprise Housing and Communal Services "Yurievets"
- A11-294/2013, the amount was reduced by RUB 374,661.04
Defendant: LLC "Vladpromstroy"
- A11-8663/2011, the amount was reduced by 547,746 rubles
Budget losses: RUB 29,831,464.
Reason three: missing the statute of limitations
Federal law establishes a three-year general statute of limitations. In 19 lawsuits, this served as a reason for debt forgiveness.*It should be said that in the course of some proceedings there was a recalculation of the rent and a completely legal reduction in penalties. It is impossible to separate in which specific cases this happened, so we will take into account that the final amount of arrears may be lower than indicated.
Affairs
Defendant: Igrotek LLC
- A11-4277/2012, the amount was reduced by 309,873.29 rubles.
- A11-4076/2012, the amount was reduced by RUB 2,769,325.67.
- A11-793/2014, the amount was reduced by RUB 2,204,964.09.
- A11-5877/2012, the amount was reduced by 910,624.9 rubles.
- A11-5510/2012, the amount was reduced by RUB 2,347,104.07.
- A11-5511/2012, the amount was reduced by 807,565.56 rubles.
- A11-3245/2012, the amount was reduced by 355,401.43 rubles.
- A11-4092/2012, the amount was reduced by 6,384,845.09 rubles.
Defendant: "Fund for the creation and development of the central city park of Vladimir"
- A11-10244/2013, the amount was reduced by 706,256.84 rubles. The company is associated with Yuri Khiger
Defendant: Projection LLC
- A11-9549/2014, the amount was reduced by 7,825,349.42 rubles. The company is associated with Yuri Khiger
Defendant: JSC "Spetstransstroy"
- A11-4094/2012, the amount was reduced by RUB 3,993,360.66.
Defendant: LLC "CEC"
- A11-2288/2012, the amount was reduced by 284,915.61 rubles.
Defendant: OJSC "Sberbank of Russia"
- A11-13020/2011, the amount was reduced by 4,092,098.6 rubles.
- A11-6187/2012, the amount was reduced by 354,244.84 rubles.
Defendant: EnerSI LLC
- A11-5146/2012, the amount was reduced by 734,890.47 rubles.
- A11-2289/2012, the amount was reduced by 502,167.06 rubles.
Defendant: IP Solovyova Anna Gennadievna
- A11-10305/2011, the amount was reduced by 86,772.83 rubles.
Defendant: IP Semenova Yulia Aleksandrovna
- A11-515/2010, the amount was reduced by 675,545.41 rubles.
Budget losses: RUB 35,345,255.84.
Reason four: reduction of claims
We counted 73 cases in which the Vladimir administration, for some unknown reason, reduced claims, waiving part of the debt and penalties. Only some court decisions indicate that the plaintiff reduced the amount of the claim on his own initiative due to voluntary payment of the debt. However, in most cases no explanation is given. One can only assume that either the defendant paid off his debts, or the plaintiff decided not to collect part of the amount from him.
|
Affairs
Defendant: LLC ISK Stroy-Capital
- A11-13517/2015, requirements were reduced by 191,174.05 rubles.
- A11-13514/2015, requirements were reduced by 136,732.6 rubles.
- A11-13515/2015, requirements were reduced by 37,300.9 rubles.
- A11-13524/2015, requirements were reduced by 26,612.19 rubles.
- A11-13507/2015, requirements were reduced by 83,199.15 rubles.
- A11-9983/2015, requirements were reduced by 69,091.84 rubles.
- A11-9984/2015, requirements were reduced by 147,105.06 rubles.
- A11-9985/2015, requirements were reduced by 201,768.5 rubles.
- А11-9986/2015, requirements were reduced by 67,971.61 rubles.
- A11-9151/2011, requirements were reduced by RUB 2,448,991.06.
Defendant: Monostroy LLC
- A11-2487/2015, requirements were reduced by 468,106.16 rubles.
- A11-5353/2013, requirements were reduced by 546,908.31 rubles.
JSC "Monostroy"
- A11-7278/2015, requirements were reduced by 446,808.83 rubles.
- A11-9947/2015, requirements were reduced by RUB 1,953,525.05.
Defendant: LLC "Chisty Vladimir"
- A11-872/2012, requirements were reduced by 25,250,000 rubles!.
Defendant: Municipal Unitary Enterprise "Health Center"
- A11-6187/2012, requirements were reduced by 131,773.68 rubles.
Defendant: Of-li LLC
- A11-6281/2013, requirements were reduced by 62,132.76 rubles;
Defendant: "GSK Prospekt Stroiteley-20"
- A11-2289/2012, requirements were reduced by 502,167.06 rubles.
Defendant: Chizhevsky and Co. LLC
- A11-8735/2011, requirements were reduced by 182,180.41 rubles.
Defendant: LLC "Znak-2"
- А11-2211/2008-К1-9/133, requirements were reduced by 248,824.32 rubles.
Defendant: "Triangle Management Company"
- A11-3636/2013
Defendant: Gazprom-Vladimir LLC
- A11-1052/2010, requirements were reduced by 476,857.43 rubles.
Defendant: OJSC "Vladalko"
- A11-3092/2010, requirements were reduced by RUB 1,090,543.21.
Defendant: JSC "Perspectiva"
- A11-6565/2015 and A11-11491/2015, requirements were reduced by RUB 1,194,130.07.
Defendant: JSC "Grandstroy"
- A11-10720/2014, requirements were reduced by RUB 6,452,944.01.
Defendant: OJSC "Vladimirpassazhirtrans"
- A11-4126/2015 and A11-4684/2014, requirements were reduced by RUB 1,875,654.99.
Defendant: LLC "Veresk"
- A11-7706/2015, requirements were reduced by RUB 759,968.04.
Defendant: LLC "Tsentralnaya Poultry Farm"
- A11-8683/2014, requirements were reduced by RUB 1,867,153.96.
Defendant: JSC "Stroyspetsmontazh"
- A11-9001/2013, requirements were reduced by 835,443.02 rubles.
Defendant: Region Auto LLC
- A11-7387/2012, requirements were reduced by 863,188.43 rubles.
Defendant: "Vladkoopsoyuz"
- A11-11824/2015 and A11-11823/2015, requirements were reduced by 807,283.62 rubles.
Defendant: NOOT LLC
- A11-11861/2015, requirements were reduced by 265,006.37 rubles.
Defendant: LLC "Sir"
- A11-573/2014, requirements were reduced by 932,341.8 rubles.
Defendant: CJSC "Seeds of Vladimir Plus"
- A11-368/2014, requirements were reduced by 283,862.12 rubles.
Defendant: LLC "ESTransAvto"
- A11-1447/2014, requirements were reduced by 793,446.29 rubles.
Defendant: LLC "Aura"
- A11-4895/2014, requirements were reduced by 111,732.67 rubles.
Defendant: GAU VO "State Property Fund of the Vladimir Region"
- A11-9616/2014, requirements were reduced by 101,444.97 rubles.
Defendant: Artel LLC
- A11-4359/2011, requirements were reduced by 88,600.78 rubles.
Defendant: OJSC "VKS"
- A11-6781/2010, and A11-6782/2010, and A11-6783/2010, requirements were reduced by 539,367.62 rubles.
Defendant: Artemis LLC
- A11-3183/2011, requirements were reduced by 197,471.4 rubles.
Defendant: LLC "Etazh"
- A11-872/2011 and A11-871/2011, requirements were reduced by RUB 514,649.02.
Defendant: JSC Avtopribor Plant
- A11-8254/2010, requirements were reduced by RUB 395,128.31.
Defendant: LLC "Mekhkolonna"
- A11-866-2011, and A11-867/2011, and A11-868/2011, and A11-869/2011, and A11-870/2011, the requirements were reduced by 931,902.84 rubles.
Defendant: LLC "TD-Opt"
- A11-560/2011, requirements were reduced by 212,379.54 rubles.
Defendant: Real-Stroy LLC
- A11-4395/2010, requirements were reduced by 671,400 rubles.
Defendant: LLC "Irmis"
- A11-4317/2010, requirements were reduced by 104,360.81 rubles.
Defendant: OJSC "Vladstroytrans-1"
- A11-9333/2010, requirements were reduced by 500,000 rubles.
Defendant: Ecoservice LLC
- A11-8782/2014, requirements were reduced by RUB 121,170.83.
Defendant: LLC "Kovcheg K"
- A11-1560/2009, requirements were reduced by 137,097.24 rubles.
Defendant: Vladprombank LLC
- A11-2538/2009, requirements were reduced by 1,103,924.71 rubles.
Defendant: LLC "Vladimiragropromdorproekt"
- A11-8109/2009, requirements were reduced by 347,563.06 rubles.
Defendant: Studio Service LLC
- A11-1590/2009, requirements were reduced by 468,490.48 rubles.
Defendant: PC Mishutka LLC
- A11-692/2016, requirements were reduced by 134,921.23 rubles.
Defendant: IP Tsyganov Alexander Valerievich
- A11-8428/2010, requirements were reduced by 184,909.34 rubles.
Defendant: IP Martynov Andrey Nikolaevich
- A11-5424/2013, requirements were reduced by RUB 1,135,402.61.
Defendant: IP Akhmedov Elmar Tofik ogly
- A11-9451/2015, requirements were reduced by 310,958.39 rubles.
Defendant: IP Akhmedov Vugar Tofik ogly
- A11-8245/2015, requirements were reduced by 325,958.39 rubles.
Defendant: IP Monakhov Roman Konstantinovich
- A11-1466/2014, requirements were reduced by RUB 128,212.31.
Defendant: IP Hasanov Hasan Farkhadovich ogly
- A11-9690/2013, requirements were reduced by RUB 260,930.51.
Defendant: IP Kalyagin Andrey Vladimirovich
- A11-5283/2013, requirements were reduced by RUB 1,014,281.44.
Defendant: IP Shilova Evgenia Vladimirovna
- A11-2137/2013, requirements were reduced by 251,290.65 rubles.
Defendant: IP Residents Anatoly Viktorovich
- A11-8339/2010, requirements were reduced by 413,900.12 rubles.
Defendant: IP Podtelezhnikov Alexander Valerievich
- A11-11966/2007, requirements were reduced by 167,258.07 rubles.
In total, the city administration reduced its requirements by 63,016,932.63 rubles. Based on public data, it is impossible to say that the defendants did not pay this amount, however, the opposite remains unproven.
Reason five: there were no contracts
During ten trials, it turned out that contracts with tenants were simply not concluded. That is, the companies used municipal land, but did not owe the city anything.Affairs
Defendant: LLC "Construction Company "MEK"
- A11-2135/2011, 11,683,980 rubles were not collected from the budget. The court found that the agreement “is not concluded because it is not registered in the prescribed manner”
Defendant: State Budgetary Institution VO "Oblstroyzakazchik"
- A11-2263/2011, 8,822,838 rubles were not collected from the budget. The defendant argued that the agreement “is a void transaction”, the plaintiff could not prove the opposite
Defendant: LLC "Avtomir"
- A11-6931/2012, 3,707,853.47 rubles were not collected from the budget. The court decided: “From the case materials it follows that the land lease agreement... has not been signed.” The mayor’s office could not prove the fact that the company was using the disputed plot.
In a number of cases, contracts were still recognized as valid. At the same time, the Vladimir administration was unable to prove the validity of its demands. Sometimes the plaintiff even forgot to provide the necessary documents:
Defendant: StroyGarant LLC
- A11-2139/2011, 7,605,265 rubles were not collected from the budget. The situation is similar to the previous one: the plaintiff did not confirm his expenses with documents.
Budget losses: 67,865,722.16 rubles.
Reason six: regulatory deadlines for construction
If the above five ways of arrears of budget funds are quite transparent, then the last method requires careful study.At several courts, defendants stated that the mayor's office charged them rent at illegally inflated rates. The court took their side, since the plaintiff could not prove otherwise. Moreover, often the impossibility of raising rates was associated with the actions of city administration employees themselves.
Are we talking about the standard deadlines for the construction of facilities in Vladimir? Judging by the case materials, the mayor's office rented out many plots in the city for the construction of structures, but at the same time:
- or forgot to indicate the regulatory deadlines for construction,
- or extended them,
- or did not control whether the tenant received a construction permit.
Affairs
Defendant: LLC “Vladimiragropromdorproekt”
- A11-2920/2013, it was not possible to recover an additional 5,479,519.96 rubles from the budget. As the court found, “permission for the construction of a bridge road connecting Lenin Avenue in the city of Vladimir and the M-7 Volga FAD at km 179+300 on the right was not issued to the defendant. In the land lease agreement dated November 5, 2008 No. 12208, the regulatory period no construction is planned." This means that higher rates cannot be applied.
Defendant: Igrotek LLC
- A11-4125/2015, it was not possible to recover an additional 883,735.3 rubles from the budget. It was discovered that “none of the clauses in the concluded lease agreement establishes a period for the construction of the church.”
- A11-3419/2014, it was not possible to recover an additional 4,891,127.27 rubles from the budget. This process was not related to the standard construction period. When the plot of land was handed over to Igrotek, it was part of the public and business zone, but in 2011 the city council approved a new general plan and new rules for land use and development, and the plot became a recreational zone. Rental rates were supposed to decrease, but the mayor's office continued to charge rent according to the previous standards. It is unclear why city hall employees did not notice the flaw, which caused damage of several million rubles.
And again, Igrotek LLC appears in the cases. In several cases, the administration of Vladimir sued the developer for exceeding the standard construction time and at the same time delaying rent payments. However, it was not possible to collect an increased fee from the company, and as a result, the municipal treasury was not replenished by more than 11 million rubles. The court explained the refusal to satisfy the demands by the fact that permits for the construction of the objects were not issued, and the contracts “did not provide for” or “did not establish” their construction period.
Defendant: Monostroy LLC
- A11-3991/2012 and A11-8032/2012, the budget was missing 10,782,684.66 rubles. The court found that the firm's construction permit was extended under the same administration, thereby “the authorized body actually increased the regulatory period for construction.”
Defendant: JSC “Grandstroy”
- A11-10720/2014 and A11-10504/2014, the budget was missing 11,912,659.88 rubles. In the first case, the mayor's office did not determine the standard period for the construction of the enterprise, and the defendant, during the six years of the lease, failed to obtain permission for its construction. In the second case, after the lease agreement expired in 2012, the administration forgot to conclude an additional agreement with the company. As a result, the amount of payment for plots decreased, since it began to be calculated based on federal standards.
In general, Vladimir’s budget received less in this section by 33,949,727.07 rubles.
![]() |
|
On a special account
More than 105 million rubles out of these two hundred and forty are arrears from transactions between the Vladimir mayor’s office and Igrotek LLC. Together with the money that the budget could have received from another company of Alexey Andreev, ISK Stroy-Capital, the shortfall in the municipal budget is already approximately 108 million rubles, or 35.5% of the total amount. For comparison, the total amount of funds involved in the lawsuits regarding OJSC and LLC Monostroy, owned by Oleg Chizhov, is just over 14 million rubles, or 4.6%. And it was not possible to recover an additional 8.5 million rubles, or 2.8%, from the companies of entrepreneur Yuri Khiger.Corruption motives
In fact, employees of the Vladimir city administration were negligent in their duties: they did not enter into contracts and did not demand fulfillment of the terms of transactions, did not attend meetings, did not provide the necessary documents, forgive debts or forget to collect them.Is it possible to assume that behind such behavior of administration representatives there is a personal interest of individual officials?
We carefully studied the relationship between city manager Andrei Shokhin and the heads of companies involved in the lawsuits.
Political interests
With Alexey Andreev, Yuri Khiger and Oleg Chizhov, the head of the Vladimir administration was united not only by the City Soviet past, but also by party affiliation. Andrei Shokhin has long headed the city branch of United Russia, which was represented in the Council by the above-mentioned businessmen, and today their interests in the local parliament are protected by deputies Stanislav Bulakhov (general director of ISK Stroy-Capital, owned by Andreev), Dmitry Chizhov (brother of Oleg Chizhov and his business partner) and Larisa Pyshonina (deputy director of Monostroy, head of the United Russia faction) - all represent the “party in power”. And it was they who, in September last year, reappointed Andrei Shokhin to the position of city manager, which already makes the city manager dependent on large entrepreneurs.The connections between the head of the city administration and the construction deputies could have led to the conclusion of contracts, settlement agreements and other transactions with businessmen close to the authorities, as a result of which the city treasury received less funds.
![]() |
|
Family ties
As we mentioned above, the city administration abandoned its claims of 25.25 million rubles against Chisty Vladimir LLC. Two-thirds of this company belonged (legally and still belongs) to the deceased Sergei Elesin, who was a business partner of Alexey Andreev and the brother of the city manager, Alexander Shokhin. Together they owned Domstroy LLC (TIN 3327112438). In this case, an obvious conflict of interest arises, because the refusal of the claim, the amount reduced by 25.25 million rubles, brought actual benefits to Alexander Shokhin’s business partners and, as a result, to the head of Vladimir’s administration, Andrei Shokhin, too.In this regard, it no longer seems strange to conclude settlement agreements that are obviously unfavorable for the city and its citizens and forgive significant amounts of debts and penalties. [...]
General Director of the construction company Monostroy LLC.
Deputy of the Legislative Assembly of the Vladimir Region.
More than 36 years of experience in construction.
Certificate of awarding the general. Director of Monostroy LLC
2003 – Winner of the competition “Entrepreneur of the Year in the Construction category”
2003 – Order “For Merit in Construction” - Ministry of Regional Construction
2004 – Awarded a commemorative medal “For high achievements in the development of the housing market in Russia” by the Organizing Committee of the All-Russian Economic Forum
2005 – Honorary title “Honorary Builder of Russia”
2006 – Awarded the medal “For Fidelity to Duty” by the Federal Penitentiary Service of Russia
2006 – Awarded the medal “For Honor in Service” Vladimir Law Institute
2007 – Awarded the medal “For Assistance to the Federal Drug Control Service of Russia”
2007 Awarded the Honorary Badge “Construction Glory” of the Russian Union of Builders
2008 – Badge “Honorary Builder of the Vladimir Land” - Self-regulatory association of employers “Union of Builders of the Vladimir Region”
2008 – Certificate of honor from the Vladimir city administration
2008 – Awarded the medal “For personal contribution to the development of an educational institution” by the VYUI FSIN of Russia
2008 – Awarded the “Blessed Heaven” medal of the All-Russian public movement “Orthodox Russia”
2009 – included in the regional “Gallery of Fame”
2009 – Gratitude from the head of Vladimir
2010 Gratitude from the administration of Vladimir
2010 - Certificate of honor from the Vladimir city administration
2010 Gratitude from the administration of the Frunzensky district of the city of Vladimir
2010 – Certificate of honor from the Council of People's Deputies of Vladimir
2013 – Gratitude from the administration of the Vladimir region
2011 – Awarded the Medal of the Order “For Professionalism and Business Reputation”, III degree
2016 Certificate of honor from the administration of the Vladimir region
2018 Certificate of Honor from the Administration of the Vladimir Region
2018 Honorary badge of the National Association of Builders “For professionalism and business reputation”
CEO
OPEN JOINT STOCK COMPANY "MONOSTROY", Vladimir, Vladimir region
Main activity according to OKVED code:
Additional activities of the company:
- . Wholesale trade of other construction materials;
- . Production of sanitary and technical works;
- . Production of civil works;
- . Activities in the field of architecture; engineering design; geological exploration and geophysical work; geodetic and cartographic activities; activities in the field of standardization and metrology; activities in the field of hydrometeorology and related areas; types of activities related to solving technical problems, not included in other groups;
- . Production of insulation works;
- . Activities of agents in the wholesale trade of timber and building materials;
- . Activities of road freight non-specialized transport;
- . Production of plastering works;
- . Providing intermediary services in the purchase, sale and rental of residential real estate;
- . Production of joinery and carpentry work;
- . Installation of other engineering equipment;
- . Carrying out other construction work;
- . Production of other finishing and finishing works;
- . Wholesale trade of household electrical goods;
- . Installation of floor coverings and wall cladding;
- . Retail trade in construction materials not included in other groups;
- . Production of electrical installation work;
- . Production of painting and glass works;
- Taiga tea: composition, indications and storage conditions for the collection Taiga tea
- What meat is the healthiest for humans?
- Signs for the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, as well as rituals and prohibitions Annunciation customs and signs what you can do
- Mushroom picking: general rules and advice for a novice mushroom picker Dream of picking mushrooms in the forest