But after Pavlovskiy had examined the block of apartments he found several discrepancies to the norms of barrier-free environment. “Conditions that prevent me from free movement were created at this block of apartments, because I am a wheelchair-bound disabled. – He wrote in his statement of claim – That is why we can say that the developer violated construction norms. The developer refuses to bring the block of apartments in accordance with the construction norms. But we have to understand, that by deceiving its clients the developer, first of all deceives the state. Because what hadn’t been done in accordance with the norms is, in the majority of cases, redone by the state, money is allocated from local budgets of executive bodies”.
Before the hearing Richard Pavlovskiy characterized the situation the following way: “I have such an impression that I was sentenced to life imprisonment in my own apartment without the right for appeal. But this sentence was given not by my destiny that made me a disabled. It was done by the developer, which considers that such small problems as the heights of thresholds don’t influence the quality of construction. I don’t know what the court’s decision will be. But in any case it will be the indicator of the society’s attitude to the problem in a whole. And it will concern everyone. Because the creation of barrier-free environment is not just about following some legislative acts, first of all, it’s about the state’s image, it is the indicator of the state’s “maturity”, if it is possible to say so. A person with disability is the same as all other people and he wants to be self-sufficient and fulfilled in life”.
Richard Pavlovskiy had to enter and leave the court building with the use of other person’s help, because the main entrance’s ramp is not fit for moving of a person with disability and is violating all the norms.
There were the claimant and the defendant with their representatives at the court room and the representatives of the Central district administration, which is responsible for the block of apartments in Minsk, Masherova 43. The representative of “Glavgosstroiexpertise” didn’t come to the court. Although, it was “Glavgosstroiexpertise” which gave the conclusion that “the heights of door thresholds on the way to elevators is 6 centimeters, what doesn’t correspond with the rules p.519 SNB 3.02.04-03 “Apartment buildings”.