(BASED ON NON-COMPLIANCE WITH FIRE SAFETY REGULATIONS)After the tragic incidents, which occurred in the Limping Horse Club and the Winter Cherry Mall, ensuring fire safety in places of mass gathering has been one of the priorities of prosecutorial supervision. Unlike the previous claims intended to prove the illegality of defendant’s acts (omission) and eliminate fire safety breaches, the prosecutor now prefers to ask for prohibition of defendant’s activity in accordance with Art. 1065(1) of the Civil Code. This article analyses the legal nature of damage prevention claims and clarifies the range of potential plaintiffs and defendants in disputes relating to the operation of non-compliant buildings. Special attention is paid to the conditions of satisfaction of the claim in question, facts in proof and possible evidence. Based on the analysis of judicial practice, it is concluded that many aspects of this action are interpreted by judges in different ways, including a criterion of real threat (danger) that leads to opposite decisions in similar circumstances. The author also discusses a possibility of competition between the sanction prohibiting activities (Art. 1065(1) of the Civil Code) and the punishment imposing administrative suspension for up to 90 days (Art. 3.12 of the Code of Administrative Offences). In cases of non-compliance with fire protection requirements, the author believes that the prohibition of building operation should be preceded by administrative response measures, including administrative suspension of activities for a period sufficient to eliminate safety breaches.