Subject of the dispute is challenging a resolution on imposing a fine for violation of urban planning legislation, which was issued by the deputy head of the architectural and construction control department. The court was guided by the fact that, according to the law, only heads of executive bodies for state architectural and construction control have the right to impose fines for violations in the sphere of urban planning activities, and this authority cannot be delegated to other officials through orders on distribution of duties or job descriptions. The Supreme Court specifically deviated from its previous position in a similar case and formulated a new legal conclusion about the exclusivity of such powers of the head.
The court found the resolution on imposing the fine illegal and cancelled it, as it was issued by an unauthorized official.
