Privatization of a hostel through the court: rules, documents, how much it costs and judicial practice. The Supreme Court clarified the rules for the privatization of former dormitories Privatization of a bed in a dormitory judicial practice
The dormitory of 2 and 3-room isolated housing was received from a state-owned enterprise transformed into an open joint-stock company. Appealed to the head of the district for the assignment of the status of a residential building, for subsequent privatization. Received a refusal with reference to Art. 92 Housing Code of the Russian Federation - specialized housing. Is it legal to refuse on this basis? What needs to be done to acquire a hostel in the property? Where to apply?
In the event that a residential building is registered as an object of municipal property and was previously administered by a state or municipal enterprise, then your residence is governed by the rules on a social tenancy agreement by virtue of Art. 7 federal law“On the Enactment of the Housing Code Russian Federation» dated December 29, 2004, the residential building does not belong to the specialized housing stock and you have the right to privatize the occupied housing on the basis of Art. 2 of the Law of the Russian Federation "On privatization housing stock In Russian federation".
If the house is registered in the ownership of the OJSC, then the hostel privatization transaction is void, because. all non-student dormitory buildings are classified as municipal property (Appendix No. 3 to the Decree of the Supreme Council of the Russian Federation of December 27, 1991 No. 3020-1) and cannot be privatized by legal entities.
In any case, it is necessary to apply to the local administration (in Moscow - to the Government of Moscow by virtue of part 2 of article 14 of the LC RF) with an application to conclude a privatization agreement, and in case of refusal, appeal it to the court.
000003. The Arbitration Court declared the hostel privatization deal null and void. But the deadline for filing a claim for the application of the consequences of the invalidity of a void transaction has been missed (both earlier and now even more so). What does "an invalid transaction does not entail legal consequences" mean? What are the legal implications? Are there any resolutions of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation or the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation on this topic?
The nullity of the transaction means that legally it does not give rise to the legal result that the will of the persons who entered into it was aimed at achieving. Accordingly, the dormitory building did not become the property of the privatized enterprise and remained in municipal ownership.
From the materials of judicial practice, it is advisable to familiarize yourself with paragraph 32 of the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation “On some issues related to the application of the first part of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation” dated 01.07.96 No. 6/8 and with paragraph 6 resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation “On some issues of application by the courts of the Law of the Russian Federation “On the privatization of the housing stock in the Russian Federation” dated August 24, 1993 No. 8.
000002. The Arbitration Court, refusing KUGI to satisfy the claim for recognition of the state. ownership of the dormitory building, pointed out that the privatization transaction of the dormitory is void. Term limitation period on filing a claim for the application of the consequences of the invalidity of a void transaction passed. Citizens are being evicted to the street by the hostel owners. What can be done to protect the right to housing?
You should apply to the court with a claim for recognition of the right to use the provided residential premises on the basis of a social tenancy agreement or for the obligation to conclude an agreement with you for its privatization (or you can immediately recognize the ownership of the residential premises in the privatization procedure), having previously addressed the owner with a corresponding request housing and was refused.
000001. Is Part 4 of Art. 208 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation on the requirements of the owner or other owner. I am being evicted from the dormitory where I lived for 28 years, and in 1991 it was illegally privatized and resold several times. He retired in 1984 of his own free will.
No, this rule does not apply to an eviction claim, because all "owners" are not bona fide owners and could not have been unaware of the ban on the privatization of hostels with citizens living in them. Even if the seller hid from the next buyer information about the privatization of the dormitory in the past, the buyer, when examining the building, could not help but find the tenants living in it, whose rights to use housing, of course, were not indicated in any of the contracts, at that time as this circumstance is an essential condition for the sale of a residential building by virtue of Part 1 of Art. 558 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation.
000022. Owners illegally (in 1994) of a privatized dormitory evict tenants without providing housing. KUGI missed the deadline for a lawsuit. The privatization took place on false documents that the building was not residential. The prosecutor's office did not initiate a criminal case due to the statute of limitations. What we can do?
A detailed answer to this question is available in the publication.
000001. M. has been registered with the district administration for 3 years. He lives in a dormitory, from which he is evicted by the new owners of the dormitory due to the fact that during the period of settlement in 1984, the administration of the enterprise did not issue him a warrant and did not conclude a contract of employment. The court evicted him, not recognizing his right to use. Is the court right?
999000. I lived in the hostel for 26 years. A place in the hostel was provided in connection with work at the enterprise, the administration did not issue a warrant. In 1994 the enterprise was privatized. Today, according to the court, the owners are evicting me without providing other housing. The reason - there was no warrant. Is it legal?
The answer to both questions.
The court is, of course, wrong. The connivance of the dormitory owner for not issuing a warrant cannot be blamed on the tenants who were moved in on the basis of a decision by the administration of the enterprise and who have paid for their accommodation all these years.
Refer to Art. 8 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and Art. 10 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, according to which civil and housing rights and obligations arise from contracts and transactions provided for by law (the decision of the administration of the enterprise to move in), as well as from actions and inaction (failure to issue an order) of participants in housing relations or the occurrence of events (moving into provided housing), with which the federal law or other regulatory legal act connects the emergence of housing rights and obligations (legal relations for renting a dwelling).
Neither the Civil Code of the Russian Federation nor the LCD of the Russian Federation provide for such a document as an order, because legal relations of hiring arise at the moment of actual moving in on the basis of the decision of the owner or other owner of the housing.
123450. According to the court, I was evicted from the dormitory without providing other housing by the privatizers of the enterprise and the dormitory. The city administration did nothing. I lost the court. Question under Art. 40 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. I have the right to housing, but I was evicted by the court, i.e. not arbitrarily. I don't have any other place to live. The original housing has not been preserved. What is my right to housing now?
The question is rhetorical.
194005. In 1994, the dormitory was privatized on the basis of false documents on the non-residential status of the premises. The arbitration court refused in 2004 KUGI in connection with the passage of the limitation period. The court of cassation confirmed judgment declared the privatization deal null and void. The term under paragraph 2 of Art. 181 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation was omitted. And the swindlers - privatizers - evict the tenants to the street, reselling them floor by floor. What can be done to protect the rights of tenants if the consequences of the invalidity of a void transaction are not applied?
In your case, the court, obviously, established the nullity of the transaction not in the resolutive, but in the motivational part of the decision, by virtue of Part 2 of Art. 13 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation is also mandatory for all law enforcement officers.
At the same time, since you did not participate in the completed arbitration case, this decision does not apply to you (part 3 of article 61 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation) and the invalidity of the void transaction should be proven again. Please refer to this in the motivation section. statement of claim, and not in a resolution, otherwise, at the request of the defendant, the consequences of missing the limitation period will be reapplied.
We recommend that you apply to the court with a claim for recognition of ownership of the residential premises in the order of privatization.
543210. The lawsuit for the eviction of a friend from the hostel was filed 10 years after the dismissal of his own free will. He stood on the city line, but was not provided with housing even after 32 years. Permanent registration 24 years. The only housing. Does the rule apply? general term 3 year statute of limitations?
The rule on the general limitation period is applicable only if the evicted person succeeds in proving that the owner of the property is inappropriate, or if the grounds for eviction have arisen within the last 3 years.
654321. I have been living in a hostel for 25 years with a permanent registration for 22 years, before that there was a limited residence permit. The contract (labor) was indefinite. Registered in need in 1984. The Housing Code qualifies the hostel as temporary housing. The department transferred the hostel to a special city institution GU "DSO". Can I demand from the city administration to provide me with other housing outside the hostel? How can I do that? There is no law on this matter.
Citizens who are registered as needing housing and do not live in Moscow can be provided with housing only on a general basis as a waiting list (i.e. in the order of general priority or out of turn - part 2 of article 57 of the RF LC). Regional regulations may provide for individual cases of providing housing before the priority. For example, in Moscow, mortgage programs for young people, social mortgages, etc. are being implemented.
Citizens who are registered as needing housing and living in Moscow should be provided with housing immediately at the rate of provision (i.e., regardless of the time of registration with housing) only in the event of their relocation at the initiative of the owner of the housing or the resettlement of all houses (clause 3, article 17 of the Law of the City of Moscow “On Ensuring the Right of Residents of the City of Moscow to Residential Premises” dated June 14, 2006 No. 29).
111111. The dormitory where I live was transferred from the department to the balance of the city administration. I am being evicted with the application of the norms of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation on the recovery of property from illegal possession, the rights of the owner are allegedly violated. Is it lawful to apply the norms of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, and not the norms of the Housing Legislation (Article 273 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation).
Wrongful.
According to part 2 of Art. 209 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the owner has the right, at his own discretion, to take any actions in relation to the property belonging to him that do not contradict the law and other legal acts and do not violate the rights and interests of other persons protected by law.
By virtue of h. 4 Article. 3 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, no one can be evicted from a dwelling or restricted in the right to use a dwelling, except on the grounds and in the manner provided for by the Housing Code of the Russian Federation and other federal laws.
An exhaustive list of grounds for eviction from dormitories and service housing is established by Art. 101 - 105 LCD RF. They are not only related to the desire of the owner to evict the tenant, therefore, the claim must indicate the specific statutory grounds for eviction. The Civil Code of the Russian Federation does not provide for grounds for eviction from residential premises in hostels.
Since the violation of the owner's rights in itself is not a basis for eviction from the hostel and the norms of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, the regulating substance constitutional law on housing, are special in relation to general norms of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the demand for eviction with references to the Civil Code of the Russian Federation is unlawful.
In addition, citizens are not property and do not belong to objects of civil rights (Article 128 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation), in connection with which the “reclamation” of a dwelling from the possession of a citizen living in it (i.e., eviction of a tenant) is possible only by filing a to such a citizen of a claim for eviction on the basis of the norms of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation.
Judicial board for civil affairs The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation recently issued a decision that may be useful to many residents of former and current dormitories.
Now most of these buildings have been handed over to municipalities, and the former owners of hostels - factories, collective farms, scientific institutions - simply ceased to exist. But people in these dorms remained. Moreover, their ranks have grown significantly. Hostels became the only shelter for hundreds of thousands of families who moved to Russia after the collapse of the USSR. And they continue to move to this day. The problems faced by citizens registered in dormitories, without exaggeration, concern millions. Moreover, new ones have been added to the old problems. In Soviet times, our country could safely be called a country of hostels - most families in those years life together started right there. And today a huge number of citizens are born, grow up in dormitories and go into adulthood along the common corridors of such houses.
The controversial situation, which was considered by the Supreme Court, occurred in Volgograd. There, a citizen came to the district court with a lawsuit and asked that a family of three - a father, mother and their daughter - be recognized as having lost the right to use the living quarters.
In court, the citizen explained that he lives in a dormitory room, which he was given as a factory worker in 1999. Since then, a man lives in it, pays for a communal apartment. Now the dormitory has become urban housing, and recently he turned to the local authorities with a request to privatize the room, and there they explained to him that there are problems. It turned out that the order for his move-in says that the citizen received only a bed in this room. And plus, in the same room, besides him, a family of three is also registered. So the plaintiff asks to recognize these roommates as having lost the right to the room, since they do not live in it and have not lived before.
This family, in response to a similar lawsuit against them, responded to those they met and asked them to move them into a disputed room. According to these people, they are forced not to live there, as they have conflict relations with their neighbor.
The right to use the head of this family appeared in 2004, when he was also provided with a bed in the hostel. And he registered his wife and daughter later, but they really did not live in the hostel, but were only registered.
The district court of Volgograd made a "half-hearted" decision: it recognized the neighbor's wife and daughter as not having acquired the right to a room. Their father and husband, who had also been moved to a bed, were moved into a room by the district court and the plaintiff was ordered to give a neighbor a duplicate of the keys.
The regional court of the Volgograd region canceled this decision of the district colleagues and adopted a new decision - to completely refuse the claim of the citizen living in the hostel.
The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation reviewed this case and expressed its point of view, which differs from the decision of the regional court.
Here's what the Supreme Court said. Judging by the materials of the case, back in 1999, the plaintiff was given a "bed" in the dormitory of the plant where he started working. In 2004, the district administration gave the second bed in this room to another man. Separate personal accounts were opened for each of them, where utility bills are charged.
In 2011, the administration of Volgograd adopted a resolution “On changing the type of housing stock” and the factory hostel, having lost its former status, became municipal property. This means that housing in a former hostel has become possible to privatize.
The district court, denying the counterclaim to the family of three, said that the wife and daughter of the second occupant of the room had never moved into it, although they were registered in it. But their head of the family can live there, because he moved into the room legally, and does not live in it, as he is in conflict with a neighbor.
The Regional Court stated that the applicant was not a proper plaintiff at all. He and his neighbor moved into beds and have the right to use only these places, and not the whole room. So he does not have a social loan agreement in his hands, which means that he cannot demand anything.
The Supreme Court clarified: The Housing Code (Article 62) says that the subject of a contract for social rental of residential premises should be a house, apartment, part of a house or apartment. An independent subject of a social lease agreement cannot be an uninsulated residential premises, an auxiliary premises and the common property of an apartment building.
The Federal Law "On the Enactment of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation" has the 7th article. It says that the dormitories that were transferred to municipal ownership are subject to the legal regime of residential premises provided under social lease agreements. And those citizens who lived at the time of the entry into force of this seventh article on the terms of a bed should be transferred to the use of an isolated living space as a whole and a social lease agreement should be concluded with them.
In our case, both men received beds. So, when the hostel was handed over to the city, the legal regime of the social lease agreement became applicable to them. So both of them are co-tenants.
The Supreme Court said that the regional court, when making a new decision and dismissing the citizen's claim, did not take into account that the absence of a written social lease agreement for a dormitory room in his hands does not prevent the plaintiff from being a co-tenant of the room under a social lease agreement. The Supreme Court emphasized that the realization of the rights of the tenant of the room cannot be made dependent on the execution of such a document by local governments.
The conclusion of the regional court that the plaintiff does not have the rights of a tenant under a social lease agreement, including the right to demand that the defendants be recognized as having lost their right to housing, does not comply with the norms of substantive law.
The Supreme Court ordered the regional court to reconsider its wrong decision.
Dormitories and service housing
HOSTELS AND OFFICE HOUSING
Conclusion of a social lease agreement or privatization of housing in a former departmental hostel
The introductory law to the Housing Code of the Russian Federation (Article 7) transferred all former departmental dormitories to social rent, if they were transferred to municipal ownership. The local administration must conclude an unconditional social contract with the legally settled residents. If the dormitory was previously illegally privatized by the enterprise-balance holder, then citizens who moved in before the privatization of the hostel can privatize the occupied housing. In practice, local authorities will come up with the following illegal conditions:
Have the status of a low-income person and be registered with housing,
Have no other home
Have a warrant to move in
A dilapidated house cannot be taken into municipal ownership,
Many citizens who do not live in it are registered in the hostel,
And others.
Here it is required to apply to the local administration (in the case of privatization of the hostel - also to the owner of the building) with an application for the privatization of the occupied (previously provided) residential premises, and the refusal to appeal to the court.
It is necessary to submit available documents on the status of a residential building, documents on moving in (in the absence of an order, a decision of the administration, receipts for payment of housing and communal services for the longest possible period), a financial personal account and an extract from the house book, floor plan and explication of the BTI, information about non-participation in privatization at the previous addresses of residence since August 1991 (as well as about living there), state duty and some others.
Available arbitrage practice allows to resolve in favor of the principals disputed cases of the location of the premises in the non-residential fund, the presence of illegal redevelopment, moving into a bed, the presence of registration (propiska) at a different address, etc.
Specialists of the Voskhod human rights organization have held many court disputes in such cases, the vast majority of which ended in favor of the principals, and even achieved the recognition by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of a number of provisions of the Moscow Government decrees restricting the rights of tenants in former departmental dormitories.
Transformation of the former departmental dormitories of a corridor layout into mega-communal apartments and the refusal to conclude a social lease agreement for occupied (previously provided) rooms without taking into account the areas of general house auxiliary premises
Article 7 of the Introductory Law to the Housing Code of the Russian Federation extended social hiring to all former departmental dormitories, if they were transferred or were subject to transfer to municipal ownership.
However, officials have transformed corridor-planning dormitories into mega-communal apartments and agree to draw up a social lease agreement only in the case of “adding” the footage of the corridor, vestibule, bathroom, kitchens, etc. that falls on the living room. Otherwise, the social lease agreement is not concluded. As a result of exceeding the footage, your rent will increase and you may be removed from the housing register.
Several courts in Moscow have repeatedly declared illegal the imposition of social tenancy agreements with inflated footage, but unfortunately, the DGI of Moscow continues its vicious practice, forcing people to go to court.
In case of ineffectiveness of complaints to a higher authority and the prosecutor's office, it is necessary to apply to the court without missing the limitation period. To apply to the court, you will need documents on the status of a residential building, on moving in and living, a floor plan with an explication of the BTI, a state fee and a refusal to conclude a social lease (privatization) agreement for an existing living space.
The main problem in these cases is the too contradictory practice of lower courts, and it is required to convince the judge of the correct interpretation of the law and the inadmissibility of converting the former hostel into mega-communal apartments the size of the entire floor.
After the successful completion of litigation, we appeal to the Moscow prosecutor's office with a demand to take prosecutorial response measures for yet another violation of the housing rights of Muscovites.
Privatization of corporate housing
The Law of the Russian Federation "On the privatization of housing stock in the Russian Federation" (Article 4) prohibits the privatization of service housing, but with the consent of the landlord, it allows. In some cases, the landlord does not have the right to refuse to privatize office housing. These include, in particular, working with the landlord for more than 10 years (in Moscow), privatization of the hostel building by the landlord, and others.
The existing practice of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on these problems allowed the specialists of the human rights organization Voskhod to achieve the removal of their official status and the privatization of such housing in favor of the hard workers who turned to us for legal assistance.
KEY JUDICIAL PRACTICE
HOSTELS
A dormitory transferred to municipal ownership automatically loses the status of a dormitory and becomes a social lease; a special decision of the local authorities on this is not required - the decision of the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated December 17, 2013 No. 46-KG13-5
On the grounds of Art. 13 of the Introductory Law to the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, a dismissed employee cannot be evicted from office housing or a hostel only if he has the right to not be evicted without providing other housing until March 1, 2005 - determination of the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of November 26, 2013 No. 39-KG13-4; dated December 16, 2014 No. 81-KG14-18) paragraph 43 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated July 2, 2009 No. 14
If the state of the family by March 2005 is on the housing register or there are grounds to be on it, as well as acquired during the period of Art. 108 of the Housing Code of the RSFSR, benefits for non-eviction from housing in a hostel (for example, dissolution of marriage in the presence of children), this family cannot be evicted from official housing even after the entry into force of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation (determination of the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of 07/08/2014 . No. 41-KG14-14; dated December 16, 2014 No. 81-KG14-18)
A tenant settled under the housing legislation of the RSFSR is recognized as legally settled even in the absence of a warrant and a lease agreement, with actual moving in, residence and performance of the duties of the tenant, if the right of use has not been challenged - determination of the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated April 23, 2013 No. 5-KG13-41. The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation confirmed its previous legal position
Refusal of the court to invalidate the privatization of the hostel building legal entity does not affect the ability of citizens to privatize the residential premises occupied in it (). The court also confirmed the inadmissibility of differentiation of legal regulation for representatives of one social group.
When moving into a bed, the tenant’s long-term use of the entire room and the accrual of housing and communal services for the entire area of the room confirms the emergence of the right to use the entire room and the possibility of privatizing it (determination of the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 07.10.2014 No. 78-KG14-18 )
Moving into non-residential premises by order as an employee, with registration at the place of residence and compliance of the premises with the requirements for residential, does not allow it to be considered non-residential and evicted without the application of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation (reclaim from someone else's illegal possession) - determination of the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court RF dated April 1, 2014 No. 18-KG14-7
Providing a citizen with occupied living quarters in a former workers' dormitory after the privatization of the dormitory building by the enterprise does not yet mean the emergence of commercial hiring relations. In the case of a citizen moving into a previously occupied dwelling in the same hostel before the privatization of the hostel, his residence is regulated by the norms of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation on social hiring, since the commercial lease that existed during the period of the RF LC did not provide for commercial hiring. The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation confirmed that the change by a citizen of residential premises in a hostel, as a result of which the residential premises previously occupied by him from the owner (former landlord) does not leave the possession, but is only replaced by another residential premises, cannot serve as a basis for depriving him of the right to acquire ownership of the residential premises obtained as a result of such a replacement, since the actual actions of the parties do not indicate the provision of residential premises for the first time and do not entail the termination of the previous lease agreement - decision of the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated March 17, 2015 No. 31-KG14 -9
SERVICE HOUSING
Departmental service housing, when transferred to municipal ownership, loses the status of service housing and automatically becomes social rent; a special decision of the local authorities is not required -
The exclusion of housing from a departmental (military camp from the jurisdiction of the Russian Ministry of Defense) changes its status and ownership (determination of the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 08.07.14 No. 41-KG14-14)
Decree of the Government of Moscow dated 08/05/2008 No. 711-PP on Moscow service housing does not apply to relations when moving into departmental housing that was not originally the property of Moscow - determination of the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 05/14/2013 No. 5-KG13-18
The housing rights of citizens living in service housing are determined by the legislation of the owner of the housing stock: federal, regional or municipal - determination of the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated July 2, 2013 No. 16-KG13-8
Article 13 of the Introductory Law to the Housing Code of the Russian Federation supplements the established part 2 of Art. 103 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, guarantees of non-eviction without providing other housing for citizens moved into dormitories and service housing before the entry into force of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation (determination of the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 02.12.2014 No. 32-KG14-9). This definition explains in detail the grounds for the application of Art. 13 of the Introductory Law to the Housing Code of the Russian Federation
The grounds for non-eviction from service housing in connection with an injury or illness under Part 2 of Art. 103 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation is the presence of their causal relationship with the performance of duties military service- determination of the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated May 14, 2013 No. 72-KGPR13-6
Registration of the right of operational management to a departmental house (including living quarters in it) without making a decision to classify it as a service house does not confirm the status of a service house. In this regard, the rules of law on eviction from service housing are inapplicable -
Supreme Court of the Russian Federation
JUDICIAL BOARD FOR CIVIL CASES
The Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, consisting of: presiding V.P. Knyshev, judges V.V. Gorshkova, E.S. November 2008.
Having heard the report of the Judge of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation Getman E.S., the explanations of the representative M. by proxy - Sh., who supported the arguments of the supervisory appeal, the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation established:
M. filed a lawsuit against the administration of the city of Lipetsk to recognize the ownership of the room ..., indicating that she moved into it on the basis of an order dated August 8, 1985, issued by the united department of life and housing and communal services (OUB and housing and communal services ) "Glavlipetskstroy". In connection with the liquidation of this organization, the house ... on the basis of the decision of the Lipetsk Regional Council of People's Deputies N 54 of March 4, 1993, was transferred to municipal ownership. He believes that, in accordance with the Law of the Russian Federation "On the Privatization of the Housing Stock in the Russian Federation" and Article 7 of the Federal Law "On the Enactment of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation", he has the right to acquire an occupied room in a hostel as a property in the manner of privatization.
On November 12, 2008, by the decision of the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Lipetsk Regional Court, the decision of the district court was canceled and a new decision was made in the case to dismiss the claim.
M.'s supervisory appeal raises the question of repealing the decision of the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Lipetsk Regional Court of 12 November 2008 as illegal.
The definition of the judge of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation Getman E.S. dated June 25, 2009, M.'s supervisory appeal with the case was submitted for consideration at the judicial session of the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.
Having checked the case materials and discussed the arguments set forth in the supervisory appeal, the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation finds the appeal subject to satisfaction.
In accordance with Article 387 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, the grounds for canceling or changing judicial decisions by way of supervision are significant violations of the norms of substantive or procedural law that influenced the outcome of the case, without the elimination of which it is impossible to restore and protect the violated rights, freedoms and legitimate interests, and also protection of legally protected public interests.
In resolving the case and satisfying the stated claims, the court of first instance proceeded from the fact that the transfer of the house ... to municipal ownership in itself entailed the loss of its status as a hostel, and the plaintiff could not be limited in the right to receive the occupied residential premises in property under privatization. In addition, the court found that M. actually did not use the bed, but the entire living room ... in the said house.
Reversing the decision of the court of first instance and issuing a new decision in the case to refuse to satisfy the stated claim, the court of cassation referred to the fact that the actual use of the entire room in the presence of a warrant that granted only the right to use a bed in a hostel cannot indicate the occurrence of the plaintiff has the right to privatize the living room.
Meanwhile, one cannot agree with such conclusions of the court of cassation, since they are based on an incorrect interpretation and application of substantive law.
As follows from the materials of the case, the hostel ... was taken into municipal ownership on the basis of Resolution of the Supreme Council of the Russian Federation of December 27, 1991 N 3020-1 "On the delimitation of state property in the Russian Federation into federal property, state property of the republics within the Russian Federation, territories, regions, autonomous regions, autonomous regions, cities of Moscow and St. Petersburg and municipal property" by decision of the Lipetsk Regional Council of People's Deputies of March 4, 1993, i.e. at the time Article 7 of the Federal Law "On Enactment of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation" dated December 29, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as the Introductory Law) came into force, the said dormitory was transferred to municipal ownership.
Article 2 of the Law of the Russian Federation "On the privatization of the housing stock in the Russian Federation" provides for the right of citizens occupying residential premises in the state and municipal housing stock, including housing stock that is under the economic management of enterprises or the operational management of institutions (departmental fund), on the terms of social hiring , acquire ownership of these premises on the terms provided for by the said Law, other regulatory acts of the Russian Federation and the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, with the consent of all adult family members living together, as well as minors aged 14 to 18 years.
According to Article 4 of the Law of the Russian Federation "On the privatization of the housing stock in the Russian Federation", residential premises in dormitories are not subject to privatization.
In accordance with Article 7 of the Introductory Law, relations on the use of residential premises that were in residential buildings, owned by state or municipal enterprises or state or municipal institutions used as hostels, and transferred to the jurisdiction of local governments, the norms of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation on a social tenancy agreement are applied.
It follows from this article that hostels that belonged to state or municipal enterprises or state or municipal institutions and were transferred to the jurisdiction of local governments lose the status of hostels by virtue of the law and the legal regime established for residential premises provided under social security agreements is applied to them. hiring.
At the same time, the absence of a social tenancy agreement, as well as the decision of the local government to exclude the corresponding house from the specialized housing stock, does not prevent citizens from exercising the rights of the tenant of residential premises under the social tenancy agreement, since their implementation cannot be made dependent on the execution of these documents by local governments .
In addition, due to the loss of the status of a hostel by the said houses by virtue of the law, as well as taking into account the requirements of the current legislation on the application to residential premises located in such houses, the provisions on a social tenancy agreement, citizens who occupied part of the residential premises on the terms of "bed" , also acquire the right to use it under the terms of a social tenancy agreement, since Article 7 of the Introductory Law provides for the application of the norms of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation on a social tenancy agreement to relations for the use of residential premises located in residential buildings previously owned by state or municipal enterprises or state or municipal institutions and used as dormitories, without any exemptions and restrictions.
In this regard, citizens living at the time of the entry into force of Article 7 of the Introductory in such a residential building on the terms of a "bed" should be transferred to the use of an isolated residential premises as a whole and one contract of social hiring should be concluded with them as co-tenants.
Residential premises transferred for use to such citizens under a social tenancy agreement are subject to subsequent privatization on the basis of the Law of the Russian Federation "On Privatization of the Housing Stock in the Russian Federation" in equal shares, subject to the consent of each of them to receive housing in ownership.
A citizen who actually used the entire living space (room) in a house that was a dormitory and lived in it at the time of the entry into force of Article 7 of the above Introductory Law cannot also be denied the conclusion of a social tenancy agreement for the entire isolated living space, if this residential premises at the time of entry into force of the specified article of the Introductory Law was not provided in in due course for the use of several persons, or the right to use the living quarters of other persons has ceased on the grounds provided for by law (departure to another place of residence, death, etc.).
As follows from the case file, M. actually used the isolated room ... from 1985; from the moment of moving in and until the moment the dispute was considered in court in 2008, she lived in it without sharing other persons, paid for the entire occupied living space of the said room (case sheet 32-48). From the copy of the warrant (case sheet 7) issued to M., it follows that she was granted the right to settle in a hostel, indicating the room number - ...
Under such circumstances, which are essential for the correct resolution of the dispute that has arisen, the conclusion of the court of cassation that there are no grounds for satisfying M.'s claims is unconvincing.
Based on the above grounds, the Judicial Board finds that the violations committed by the court of cassation and the above violations are significant, influenced the outcome of the case, and without their elimination it is impossible to restore and protect the violated rights and legitimate interests of M., in connection with which the decision of the Lipetsk Regional Court of November 12 2008 is subject to cancellation, and the decision of the court of first instance - to remain in force.
Based on the foregoing, guided by articles 387, 388, 390 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation determined:
Repeal the decision of the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Lipetsk Regional Court dated November 12, 2008, and uphold the decision of the Oktyabrsky District Court of the city of Lipetsk dated September 30, 2008.
presiding
The privatization of rooms in hostels is a specific procedure that has its own characteristics and is associated with numerous difficulties, and in certain cases can only be carried out through the courts.
The procedure for privatizing a room in a hostel has its own characteristics, which are associated with the specific legal status of such a property as a hostel.
Quite recently, it was impossible to privatize the hostel, however, the new one that came into force provided such an opportunity.
Dear readers! The article talks about typical ways to solve legal issues, but each case is individual. If you want to know how solve exactly your problem- contact a consultant:
APPLICATIONS AND CALLS ARE ACCEPTED 24/7 and 7 days a week.
It's fast and FOR FREE!
Despite the fact that Russian legislation provides a clear regulation of the procedure in which this procedure is carried out, in practice it causes quite a lot of difficulties.
Therefore, in terms of terms, this process takes much longer than the privatization of an ordinary residential property.
Acquisition of property
Owning a dorm room provides owners with a number of benefits, such as:
Main characteristics
The hostel, in accordance with the norms, is a set of premises with the status of residential.
The premises are intended for temporary residence of citizens who are in certain relations with various organizations and educational institutions (work, study).
Once the legal connection between an organization or an academic institution and an employee or student is terminated, the right to use a room in a hostel is also terminated, and such a person is subject to eviction.
Only specially equipped and furnished premises can be dormitories.
The procedure for the operation of such real estate as housing is allowed only after it is assigned to a specialized housing stock.
However, in practice, dormitories often do not meet the listed characteristics and lose their status of specialized housing.
Which law applies
The privatization of the housing stock in Russia became possible with the adoption in 1991, which regulated the procedure for the privatization of housing.
The action of this law was aimed at the denationalization of the housing stock and the emergence in the housing sector of persons with the right to own housing.
Based on the norms of this law, housing was subject to privatization, which citizens occupied by state and municipal property, as well as under the jurisdiction or operational management of organizations.
The law also established certain restrictions on the exercise of privatization rights. Such bans included a ban on the privatization of dormitories.
Who is entitled to it
Persons who live in this residential area are allowed to privatize a room in a hostel.
Which, based on general rules, there are relevant documents for the right to use this housing. Such persons must be Russian citizens.
Residential requirements
The Housing Code defines the mandatory conditions under which the privatization of a separate room located in a hostel is possible:
In addition, the room must have the official status of a dwelling. That is, if the room has been refurbished, as a result of which its intended use has changed.
For example, it was converted into a rest room or technical room, it will be impossible to privatize such a room.
Upon graduation or upon graduation from educational institution the student loses the right to live in a hostel.
This type of housing belongs to a specialized fund and is not subject to privatization.
Required documents
The concluded social lease agreement makes it possible to privatize a room, and its procedure is no different from the usual one.
The procedure for privatizing a room is carried out by sending the necessary package of documents to the registration authorities.
Consider the package of documents required for submission to the registration authority:
| Passports of privatization participants | registered in the room (copies) |
| birth certificates | minor participants in privatization (copy) |
| Financial personal accounts | copies |
| certified | |
| persons registered in the room from privatization | is provided if any of the persons registered in the room does not wish to be a participant in privatization. This document must be notarized |
| Document confirming the payment of state duty | |
| document proving | that the participants in this privatization have not previously used the right to privatize () |
Registration authorities, depending on the situation, may require the provision of additional documents, if necessary.
After the formation of the above list of documents, it, together with the application, is submitted to the registration authority.
Approximately, within two months, the documents will be studied for the subsequent decision.
At the end of this period, the applicant is issued, which means the completion of the privatization process.
When living together
A large number of disputes in this category of cases arise during the privatization of rooms in the residential premises of former dormitories, in which several residents live.
Such rooms, as a rule, were allocated according to the “bed” principle. That is, in fact, a room in a hostel could be occupied by several persons at the same time.
The resolution of this issue depends on whether these persons currently live in the same premises.
If by the time the dispute is considered, these persons still live together in a dormitory room, pay the established fees, then in this case the court does not have the right to deprive one person and provide premises only to another.
The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation explained that in this case it is necessary to conclude a social lease agreement.
Therefore, he admitted the possibility of the recognition of ownership of the room for two persons on the basis of common shared ownership.
The court admits the possibility of sole registration of ownership of this premises for the person who applied to the court for judicial protection, in the following cases:
The cost of this service
The privatization procedure is free of charge, however, services for the execution of technical documents are subject to payment.
As well as the services of third-party organizations, if a citizen decides to use their help.
When calculating what the privatization of a room will cost, the following costs should be taken into account:
Resolution of the issue through the court
The issues of privatization of dormitories are quite specific and have a very weak regulatory framework.
The current housing legislation provides that all disputes that have not been resolved administratively are subject to judicial review.
Therefore, a citizen who has problems with privatization in general order, has the right to apply to the court from this residential premises, in particular a room in a hostel.
In what cases is it possible
Privatization of dormitory rooms not transferred to the municipality is not legally possible until their situation changes.
And if the municipality does not want to do this for some reason or delays the process, this issue can be resolved in only one way - in court.
When considering this dispute, the court essentially resolves two issues:
List of additional documents
When applying to the court, you will need the same list of documents as for the privatization authorities.
However, in this case, depending on the situation, additional documents may be required.
When applying to the court with a demand to allow privatization, you should be prepared to document the following questions in court:
| The legality of living in a room on a rental basis, as well as the legality of moving in | this is confirmed by documents such as a warrant for a dwelling or |
| The plaintiff does not have other housing owned by him by right of ownership | For this you need extracts from Rosreestr |
| The fact of the transfer of the hostel from the departmental fund to the ownership of the city | you can confirm it by providing a copy of the local government. The resolution must indicate the address that matches the address of the hostel, the room that is planned to be privatized, as well as the date when this hostel was accepted into the balance of the city |
| Isolation of the premises and habitability | all parameters of the room contains it technical documentation, which includes |
| If the dorm room is redesigned, it is necessary to confirm the safety of the redevelopment () | this will require the conclusion of the relevant technical supervision authorities (the organization that drew up the redevelopment project, and) |
| Birth documents for minors | if they take part in privatization |
| Copy of work book | which can confirm the employment relationship of the plaintiff with the enterprise on the balance sheet, which was the hostel |
