What can be cooked from squid: quick and tasty

Case No. 2-2217 / 09

SOLUTION
In the name of the Russian Federation

October 08, 2009
Leninsky District Court of Omsk
As part of the presiding judge R.V. Utenko
The secretary of the court session M.The. Kohanchik
having examined in open court session case at the suit of N.A.
acting also in the interests of the minor A.AND. To
Territorial Administration of the Federal Agency for the Management of Federal
property in the Omsk region, the Federal State Unitary Enterprise
"Omsk Production Association" Irtysh "on the recognition of ownership of residential
premises,

INSTALLED:

ON. applied to the Leninsky District Court of Omsk with a claim against the TU Rosimushchestvo for the Omsk Region, FGUP "OMPO Irtysh" for the recognition of ownership of the dwelling, in which she indicated that in 1992. moved into provided at the place of work apartment number ... house number .. hostel number. on the street. 11 Cheredovaya in Omsk, where she is registered and still lives with her son. In 1995. due to her disability, the family was provided with a second room no. the process of corporatization of the Federal State Unitary Enterprise OMPO "Irtysh" has not been completed. Believes that, being the universe in the dormitory properly, in compliance with the procedure established by the plant for moving in, is currently deprived of the opportunity to exercise the right to privatize the occupied living quarters in the controversial hostel, and therefore asks the court to recognize her and a minor A.I. in equal shares the right of ownership by way of privatization to rooms No. .. and No. .. in the house No. .. on the street. 11 Cheredovaya in the city of Omsk.

At the hearing the plaintiff N.A. supported the stated claims on similar grounds.

The representative of the plaintiff Otrokhova O.B. at the hearing supported the stated requirements on similar grounds.

The representative of the defendant FSUE OMPO "Irtysh" by proxy O.The. objected to the satisfaction of the stated requirements, since OMPO "Irtysh" has now completed all the necessary actions to transfer to the TU Rosimushchestvo in the Omsk region documents for corporatization of the enterprise. The list of property subject to corporatization includes dormitories. Upon completion of the corporatization procedure, a decision will be made regarding the ownership of the hostels, after which the plaintiffs may have the right to privatize the occupied dwelling. TU for the Federal Property Management Agency of the Omsk Region is not endowed with the right to dispose of federal property. The decision to exclude hostels from the specialized housing stock is taken by the body exercising control over federal property and is not the prerogative of the court. By the decision of the Leninsky District Court of Omsk dated 02.26.2007 on the claim, including Ch .. against FSUE OMPO " Irtysh "it was established that the hostel No. .. was never under the jurisdiction of the Administration of the city of Omsk, or other executive authorities and was not subsequently transferred to them by the OMPO" Irtysh "enterprise. Initially, land was allocated to the enterprise, a building was built and put into operation as a hostel, which is federal property and is on the balance sheet of OMPO "Irtysh". The enterprise had no obligation to transfer this property into municipal ownership, since according to clause 1 of Appendix 3 of Resolution No. 3020-1, not all housing stock should be transferred to the jurisdiction of the municipal government, but only the one that was previously managed by the executive authorities and was subsequently transferred to a state enterprise. According to the current legislation, hostels are not subject to privatization; the enterprise during privatization is not obliged to transfer these residential premises into municipal ownership, they can be included in the property to be privatized, in connection with which the claims are not subject to satisfaction.

The representative of the defendant TU Rosimushchestvo in the Omsk region by power of attorney O.A. did not appear at the hearing; about the time and place of the court hearing duly notified, asked the case to be considered in her absence. In the response presented in the case materials, she indicated that she considers the stated requirements justified and does not object to their satisfaction. In support of her position, she explained that the hostel № .. on the street. 11 Cheredovaya, .. in the city of Omsk belongs to the federal form of ownership and is fixed on the right of economic management for the Federal State Unitary Enterprise "Irtysh". Currently, the enterprise is being privatized, but the owner has expressed a position according to which hostels on the balance sheet of enterprises, burdened with the residence of persons, should not be included in the structure of the privatized property and, thus, the claims of the plaintiffs can be satisfied.

The representative of F.A.'s co-defendant for state property management did not appear at the hearing, he was duly notified of the time and place of the hearing, and did not inform the court about the reasons for his failure to appear.

Brought to participate in the case as a third person A.D. currently serving a sentence in FBU IK-9, he was duly notified of the time and place of the court session, he did not present any objections to the claim.

Having heard the arguments of the plaintiff, having examined the evidence presented, the court considers the stated requirements to be satisfied.

In accordance with Art. 10 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, housing rights and obligations arise from the grounds provided for by this Code, other federal laws and other legal acts, as well as from the actions of participants in housing relations, which, although not provided for by such acts, but by virtue of general principles and the meaning of housing legislation, give rise to housing rights and obligations. In accordance with this, housing rights and obligations arise from contracts and other transactions provided for by federal law, as well as from contracts and other transactions, although not provided for by federal law, but not contradicting it.

In accordance with Part 1 of Art. 8 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, civil rights and obligations arise from the grounds provided for by law and other legal acts, as well as from the actions of citizens and legal entities, which, although not provided for by law or such acts, but by virtue of general principles and the meaning of civil legislation, give rise to civil rights and obligations.

In accordance with Art. 18 of the Law of the Russian Federation of 04.07.1991. No. 1541-1 "On privatization housing stock in the Russian Federation ", when state or municipal enterprises, institutions are transferred to a different form of ownership or when they are liquidated, the housing stock that is under the economic management of enterprises or the operational management of institutions must be transferred to the economic management or operational management of the legal successors of these enterprises, institutions (if they determined) or under the jurisdiction of local self-government bodies of settlements in the prescribed manner with the preservation of all housing rights of citizens, including the right to privatize residential premises.

In accordance with Art. 2 of the Law of the Russian Federation "On the privatization of the housing stock of the Russian Federation", citizens occupying residential premises in the state and municipal housing stock, including the housing stock under the economic management of enterprises or the operational management of institutions (departmental stock) on the basis of social employment, have the right, with the consent of all, jointly living adult family members, as well as minors between the ages of 14 and 18, acquire these premises in their ownership on the conditions provided for by this law, other regulations of the Russian Federation and the constituent entities of the Russian Federation. Residential premises are transferred to common ownership or to the ownership of one of the cohabitants, including minors.

In accordance with Art. 11 of the Law "On the Privatization of the Housing Fund of the Russian Federation", every citizen has the right to acquire ownership free of charge, by way of privatization, of housing in the state and municipal housing stock once.

At the hearing it was established that at the place of work at the "Omsk Television Plant" the plaintiff N.A. a room was allocated ... in the hostel No. .. on the street. 11 The front line in the city of Omsk, in which she moved in, was registered as a permanent resident on 29.12.1992. together with a minor A.AND. and A.D. (ld 18) and lives to the present time (ld 20). Further to the plaintiff N.A. as a disabled person was allocated a nearby room 235 for living, the plaintiff pays utilities based on the area of ​​two rooms (l.d. 20, 31)

In accordance with clause 2 of the Resolution of the Supreme Soviet of the Russian Federation of December 27, 1991. No. 3020-1 "On the delimitation of state property into federal, property of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and municipal", housing stock located in the territories under the jurisdiction of the relevant city (except for cities of district subordination), district (except for districts in cities) Councils of People's Deputies and managed by the executive bodies of local Soviets of People's Deputies (local administration), regardless of whose balance sheet it is, is transferred to municipal ownership.

By the order of the Government of the Russian Federation dated 17.10.2002. No. 1453-r established the deadline and procedure for the transfer by the Federal executive authorities, federal state unitary enterprises, federal state enterprises and federal state institutions of social, cultural and communal-household objects of federal property to municipal property. Thus, these entities were obliged to complete the transfer by 31.12.2004.

In accordance with the certificate of state registration of rights dated December 27, 2005, an apartment building (hostel) located at the address: Omsk, st. 11 Cheredovaya, d ... according to the order of the Property Management Committee of the Administration of the Omsk Region dated 05.02.1999. No. 87-rk, belongs to the Federal State Unitary Enterprise OMPO "Irtysh" on the right of economic management (case file 69).

In accordance with the extract from the register of federal property dated 04.06.2007. the balance holder of the hostel No. .. on the street. 11 Cheredovaya .. in the city of Omsk is the Federal State Unitary Enterprise "OMPO Irtysh" by the right of economic management (case file 14).

According to the information letter of the TU FA of the Federal Property Management Agency for the Omsk Region No. 19-1215 dated 05.02.2009, the housing stock objects cannot be privatized as part of the property complex of the enterprise. The issue of transferring the disputed hostel to municipal ownership is possible only after corporatization of the Federal State Unitary Enterprise “OMPO Irtysh”, which will take place after the approval of the privatization plan of the enterprise and the registration of the issue of shares. The entire housing stock of the enterprise after corporatization and before transfer to municipal ownership will be part of the State Treasury of the Russian Federation (case sheets 11-12).

According to the minutes of the meeting of the working group on the coordination of the formation process of the state corporation "Russian Technologies" in the FA for state property management No. 93 dated June 16, 2009, when preparing and agreeing on draft decisions on the conditions for the privatization of the corresponding federal state unitary enterprises, it is necessary to be guided by the following principles: hotels, apartments, as well as land plots occupied by the relevant facilities, and related infrastructure facilities may be included in the property complexes of unitary enterprises subject to privatization, with the exception of premises in which citizens are registered at their primary place of residence. The document confirming the presence (absence) of citizens living (registered at the place of residence) in the relevant premises are the corresponding letters (certificates) of the territorial branches of the FMS (ld 70-73).

Thus, in the court session it was established that the plaintiff and her minor son are citizens of the Russian Federation, they did not participate in the privatization of the dwelling earlier, and the actual refusal to transfer the dwelling to them in their ownership is due to the unresolved issue of the status of the dwelling. At the same time, it was established in the court session that the hostel in which the plaintiffs live is not subject to inclusion in the property subject to corporatization, but is subject to transfer to the municipal housing stock, in accordance with the current legislation, it should have been produced earlier. Registered in the rooms of A.D. in a notarial order refused to participate in the privatization of rooms ... and ... in a hostel on the street. 11 Cheredovaya, ... Omsk (l.d. P)

Within the meaning of Article 35 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation and Article 2 of the Law of the Russian Federation "On the Privatization of the Housing Stock of the Russian Federation", the right of citizens to acquire, by way of privatization, into ownership of a residential premises that is in state or municipal ownership cannot be limited due to the unresolved issue of transfer on balance sheet publicly funded housing; the citizen's right to privatize a dwelling, in the presence of circumstances beyond his control that impede the observance of the privatization procedure, can be exercised by him by applying to the court in accordance with Art. 8 of the RF Law "On the privatization of the housing stock in the RF".

In accordance with paragraph 5 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation of 08.24. No. 8 "On some issues of the application by the courts of the law of the Russian Federation" On the privatization of the housing stock in the Russian Federation ", the requirements of citizens for the free transfer of housing to the common ownership of all persons living in it, or to the ownership of one or some of them (in accordance with the achieved between these persons by agreement) are subject to satisfaction regardless of the will of persons who are obliged by law to transfer housing to the ownership of citizens, since Art. 2 of the Law of the Russian Federation "On the privatization of the housing stock in the Russian Federation" endowed citizens occupying residential premises in the houses of the state and municipal housing stock under a lease or lease agreement with the right, with the consent of all living adult family members, to acquire these premises in ownership, including joint ownership, or share.

Considering that until now the transfer of the house No. .. on the street. 11 Cheredovaya in the city of Omsk on the balance sheet of the municipal formation of the city of Omsk and its inclusion in the register of municipal property has not been completed, which deprives the plaintiff of the opportunity to exercise the right to privatize housing that was not previously used, taking into account also temporary uncertainty this process and the deadline for the implementation of the right to privatize residential premises established by the legislator - until March 01, 2010, the court considers the method chosen by the plaintiffs to protect their rights by applying to the court, not inconsistent with Art. 12 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and considers it possible to satisfy the stated requirements in full.

In accordance with Art. 98 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, from the Federal State Unitary Enterprise OMPO "Irtysh" in favor of the plaintiff, the costs of a state fee in the amount of 100 rubles are subject to recovery.

Based on the foregoing, guided by Art. 194-198 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, court:

To satisfy N.A.'s claim.

Recognize for NA and AI for ½ share for each in the right of ownership in the order of privatization for room No. ... house No. .. on the street. 11 Cheredovaya in the city of Omsk.
To collect from the Federal State Enterprise "Omsk Production Association" Irtysh "in favor of N. A. the costs of paying the state duty in the amount of 100 rubles.
The decision can be appealed to the Omsk Regional Court through the Leninsky District Court of Omsk.

Federal regulatory legal acts:

Article 7 of the Federal Law of December 29, 2004 N 189-FZ "On the Enactment of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation"

Part 1 of Art. 2, part 1 of Art. 11, Art. 6 of the Law of the Russian Federation of 04.07.1991 N 1541-1 "On the privatization of the housing stock in the Russian Federation"

Federal arbitrage practice:

Question 20 of the Review of the judicial practice of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of 06/07/2006, 06/14/2006 "Review of legislation and judicial practice of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation for the first quarter of 2006" (section "Issues of application of housing legislation")

Resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of 11.04.2011 N 4-P "In the case of checking the constitutionality of Article 7 of the Federal Law" On the Enactment of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation "in connection with the complaint of citizens A.S. Epanechnikov and E.Yu. Epanechnikova"

Disputes related to the refusal to citizens in the free privatization of residential premises occupied by them under social rental contracts are resolved in court, regardless of the departmental affiliation of the housing stock in which the housing is located.

(Clause 2 of the section "Resolution of disputes arising from housing relations" of the Review of judicial practice of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation N 3 (2016), approved by the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on October 19, 2016)

Not Art. 7 of the Federal Law of December 29, 2004 N 189-FZ "On the Enactment of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation", nor any of its other provisions contain an indication of limiting the operation of this article in time, in space or in a circle of persons. Citizens living in residential premises of residential buildings previously used as hostels, to which they were provided on legal grounds as employees of a state (municipal) enterprise (institution), constitute one category of subjects of housing legal relations, regardless of whether the documents confirming the legality of the move have been preserved or not.

(Determination of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 02.09.2015 N 5-APG15-45)

If, prior to the conclusion between the OJSC and the plaintiff's parent of the agreement on the provision of living space (room) in the hostel, it was transferred into the ownership of the OJSC (privatized), then the concluded contract is a commercial lease agreement, which excludes the possibility of applying the norms of law on the privatization of residential premises to these legal relations. Since, according to the said agreement, the plaintiff was moved into a room of a private housing stock, he does not have the right to privatize the disputed room.

(Determination of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of 18.08.2015 N 16-KG15-16)

According to the current legislation, one of the conditions for the realization of the right of a citizen to transfer his ownership of a dwelling is his residence in a dwelling of the state or municipal housing stock on the terms of social rent. The refusal of the local self-government body to accept the housing stock into municipal ownership, as well as the absence of a decision to exclude the corresponding building from the specialized housing stock, cannot impede the exercise by citizens of the rights of tenants of residential premises under social tenancy agreements, including the right to privatize housing. The exercise of these rights cannot be made dependent on the execution of these documents by local authorities.

(Determination of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of 01.26.2016 N 18-KG15-239)

The lack of registration of the right of municipal property cannot deprive the plaintiff of the right to privatize the dorm room, since in accordance with the law, the dormitory building must be transferred to municipal ownership. If the obligation to transfer the hostel to the jurisdiction of local self-government bodies is established by law, but not fulfilled by the authorities and officials, then the emergence of the rights of citizens for social rent cannot be made dependent on the time of the direct transfer of residential premises to the jurisdiction of local governments.

Practice of the Moscow City Court:

The absence of a decision of the body that manages the state or municipal housing stock to exclude a dwelling from a specialized housing stock cannot prevent a citizen from exercising the rights of a tenant of a dwelling under a social tenancy agreement, since their implementation cannot be made dependent on the execution of this document by the authorized bodies.

(Cassation ruling of the Moscow City Court dated December 29, 2015 N 4g-11721/2015)

The court recognized the plaintiffs' right of ownership in the privatization procedure for the apartments that had been provided to them as a hostel at their place of work since 1981, since the plaintiffs were moved into the disputed residential premises in the manner prescribed by law, in fact they live in them, did not take part in the privatization ...

When making the decision, the court took into account that, according to extracts from the house book, copies of financial and personal accounts and a certificate of checking living conditions, each of the plaintiffs was registered in the apartment on a permanent basis; each plaintiff with his family is registered as needing better housing conditions. Citizens occupying residential premises in a former hostel, from the date of entry into force of the Federal Law of December 29, 2004 N 189-FZ, acquire in relation to these residential premises all the rights and obligations provided for the tenant of the residential premises under the social tenancy agreement. At the same time, the absence of a social tenancy agreement, as well as a decision of a local government body to exclude the corresponding house from a specialized housing stock, does not prevent citizens from exercising the rights of a tenant of a residential premises under a social tenancy agreement, since their implementation cannot be made dependent on the execution of these documents.

The court noted that the absence of a decision to transfer the house where the disputed apartments are located to municipal ownership does not prevent the plaintiffs from exercising their rights under Art. 2 of the Law of the Russian Federation of 04.07.1991 N 1541-1.

The court refused to recognize the plaintiff's ownership of the room in the former dormitory by way of privatization, since the plaintiff was moved into the disputed premises during the period when the hostel was already owned by the CJSC (the defendant), the dwelling did not belong to the state or municipal housing stock.

The plaintiff was provided with a bed in a hostel in connection with the conclusion of an employment contract with a CJSC (the defendant), the plaintiff actually lives in the disputed room, pays for utilities, according to an extract from the house book, for several years he had a temporary registration at the specified address, was subsequently registered constantly.

At the same time, the plaintiff was moved into the disputed dorm room after the CJSC (defendant) acquired the right of ownership to it, i.e. at the time of the transfer of the disputed real estate object to CJSC (the defendant), the plaintiff did not live in the dormitory of the enterprise and was not registered there. Consequently, there are no grounds for transferring this residential premises into the ownership of the plaintiff by way of privatization. In addition, the plaintiff did not confirm the fact of the occupancy of the room legally, in particular, did not submit a lease agreement or a warrant; there is no evidence of legal possession and use of the room.

(Appellate ruling of the Moscow City Court dated 16.02.2016 in case N 33-5529 / 2016)

There are no grounds for recognizing the plaintiffs 'ownership of the disputed residential premises (two-room apartment in a former family dormitory): on the basis of the order of the prefect, the plaintiffs' family was provided with residential premises under a sale and purchase agreement using a mortgage loan with the imposition of the obligation to vacate the disputed residential area occupied by them in a hostel and deregistered in need of better housing conditions.

(Appellate ruling of the Moscow City Court of 18.12.2015 in case N 33-48150 / 2015)

The court recognized the plaintiff's right of ownership to an isolated room in a former dormitory by way of privatization, since the plaintiff occupies it legally, has no other living quarters, did not participate in the privatization of residential premises earlier, and other persons do not claim the room occupied by the plaintiff.

The court explained that during the privatization of the property complex of the CJSC, the housing stock, including the house in which the plaintiff lives, was not subject to inclusion in the list of real estate objects to be privatized. The ownership right to the building of the hostel arose from the CJSC since 1991, was registered in the Unified State Register of Legal Entities in 2010; At the same time, the CJSC made state registration of the ownership right to the hostel, when the objects of communal and social and cultural purposes were to be under the jurisdiction of the local administration at the location of the object and were not subject to privatization by the enterprise. When transferring the hostel to the municipal fund of Moscow during the privatization of the property complex of the CJSC, the plaintiff had to conclude a social lease agreement for an isolated dwelling, taking into account the actual use of the occupied room. The court took into account that the plaintiff was moved into the room and lived in it before the privatization of the CJSC, therefore the subsequent privatization does not affect the plaintiff's right to privatize the occupied dwelling.

Note. From 01.01.2017 the Federal Law of 13.07.2015 N 218-FZ "On state registration of real estate" is in effect. It provides for the maintenance of the Unified State Register of Real Estate (USRN), which includes, in particular, the register of real estate objects (real estate cadastre) and the register of rights, restrictions on rights and encumbrances of real estate (register of real estate rights), registry files and cadastral maps (Art Articles 1, 7 of the Federal Law of 13.07.2015 N 218-FZ).

The court recognized for the plaintiffs the right of common shared ownership of the dwelling in the former dormitory, having established that the plaintiffs had been living in the disputed premises as in a dwelling for several years, were registered in it at the place of residence, and explaining that the argument that the plaintiffs did not pay for utilities for residential premises have no legal significance for resolving a dispute over the right to privatize such premises. The plaintiffs lived in the disputed residential building at the time of its incorporation into the privatized enterprise; during the privatization of the property complex of the enterprise, the housing stock, including the dormitory in which the plaintiff lives, was not subject to inclusion in the list of real estate objects to be privatized.

(Appellate ruling of the Moscow City Court of 10.12.2015 in case N 33-46126 / 2015)

The court found that between the plaintiffs and the Federal State Unitary Enterprise there was a legal relationship regulated by a social tenancy agreement, the plaintiffs had not previously exercised their right to free privatization, there were no grounds for refusing to privatize housing, and recognized the plaintiffs' right of ownership in equal shares to rooms in the former dormitory.

It follows from the materials of the case that one of the plaintiffs, as an employee of the Federal State Unitary Enterprise, was provided with living quarters in the form of two rooms in an apartment in which the plaintiffs were registered at their place of residence; the house is under the economic jurisdiction of the Federal State Unitary Enterprise and is included in the housing stock; the plaintiffs applied to the DZHPiZhF in Moscow, to the Federal Property Management Agency, to the Federal State Unitary Enterprise with applications for the transfer of the rooms they occupied to the ownership of the property by way of privatization, but the plaintiffs were denied the transfer of the rooms. The plaintiffs bear the costs of maintaining the dwelling, pay for utilities, a financial and personal account has been opened for one of the plaintiffs; the dwelling is the only place of residence for the plaintiffs; previously, the plaintiffs did not use the right to acquire ownership of residential premises free of charge by way of privatization.

(Appellate ruling of the Moscow City Court dated 10.26.2015 in case No. 33-38011 / 2015)

Briefly about the important:

Claim

Basic:

On the recognition of the property right in the privatization procedure for an isolated living space (apartment or room) in a former hostel.

Note. Sometimes the main claim for the category of disputes under consideration, it is formulated as a requirement for the recognition of ownership of an isolated dwelling in a former dormitory in the manner of free privatization (for example, the Appellate ruling of the Moscow City Court of 20.02.2015 in case No. 33-5508) or in the procedure of free transfer of housing into ownership ( for example, the Appellate ruling of the Moscow City Court dated May 28, 2015 in case N 33-17722 / 15).

Additional:

On declaring illegal the refusal to privatize residential premises in a former hostel.

A former hostel is understood as a residential building that previously belonged to state or municipal enterprises or institutions and was used as a hostel, and was subsequently transferred to the jurisdiction of local governments (Article 7 of the Federal Law of December 29, 2004 N 189-FZ).

If the plaintiff uses a dwelling in a former dormitory, then the relations on the use of such dwelling are governed by the norms of the RF Housing Code on a social tenancy agreement. At the same time, the date when the dormitory building was transferred to the jurisdiction of local governments and the date when the dwelling space in the dormitory was provided to the plaintiff on legal grounds (Article 7 of the Federal Law of December 29, 2004 N 189-FZ, Resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of 11.04.2011 N 4-P).

Even if a social tenancy agreement has not been concluded with the plaintiff or there is no decision of the local government to exclude the building of the former hostel from the specialized housing stock, the plaintiff is considered the tenant of the residential premises under the social tenancy agreement (question 20 of the Review of Judicial Practice of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of 07.06.2006, 14.06. 2006 (section "Issues of application of housing legislation"), Appeal rulings of the Moscow City Court dated April 22, 2016 in case No. 33-11509 / 2016, dated December 18, 2015 in case No. 33-46348 / 2015, dated December 10, 2015 in case No. 33 -46126/2015). When considering a specific case, the court clarified that the plaintiff should not suffer adverse consequences related to the fact that the state authorities did not complete the procedure for ordering the hostel and transferring it to the municipal fund (for example, the Appeal ruling of the Moscow City Court dated May 28, 2015 in case No. 33- 17722/15). In another case, it was clarified that the refusal of the local government to accept the housing stock into municipal ownership, as well as the absence of a decision to exclude the relevant building from the specialized housing stock, cannot prevent citizens from exercising the rights of tenants of residential premises under social rental contracts, incl. the right to privatize housing (Determination of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 26.01.2016 N 18-KG15-239).

The exercise of the plaintiffs' rights to conclude a social tenancy agreement and subsequent privatization cannot be made dependent on the execution by local governments of documents on the transfer of residential premises in residential buildings belonging to state enterprises or institutions, which were used as hostels, under the jurisdiction of local governments ().

Satisfying claims for the recognition of the plaintiffs' property rights in the privatization procedure for residential premises in a former dormitory, the courts often establish the fact of illegal privatization of the dormitory building by organizations, i.e. the fact of privatization of a hostel by an organization in violation of the current legislation (for example). In such cases, the courts explain that the housing stock, including the house in which the plaintiff lives, was subject to transfer to municipal ownership, and not to be included in the list of privatized real estate objects (for example, Determination of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of 08.12.2015 N 4-KG15- 66, Appeal rulings of the Moscow City Court of 18.12.2015 in case N 33-46348 / 2015, of 10.12.2015 in case N 33-46126 / 2015).

The inclusion of the housing stock in the privatized property of a state and municipal enterprise should not affect the housing rights of citizens who moved in and lived in these residential premises before privatization, including the right to transfer housing free of charge into the ownership of citizens on the basis of Art. 2 of the Law of the Russian Federation of 04.07.1991 N 1541-1 (for example, the Appellate rulings of the Moscow City Court of 22.12.2015 in case N 33-48466 / 2015, of 18.12.2015 in case N 33-46348 / 2015).

As follows from Art. 7 of the Federal Law of December 29, 2004 N 189-FZ, to the legal relations of citizens who legally occupy residential premises in hostels, which were subject to transfer to the jurisdiction of local governments, the norms of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation on a social hiring agreement are applied, such citizens have the right to purchase these residential premises in ownership by way of privatization. At the same time, the law does not make these rights dependent on the recognition of a citizen as poor, as well as on placing him in a queue for improving housing conditions (for example, the Appellate ruling of the Moscow City Court of 02/08/2016 in case N 33-3863 / 2016).

In this category of disputes, it is possible to claim the recognition of ownership in the privatization procedure only for an isolated living space in a former hostel: an apartment or a room (question 20 of the Review of the judicial practice of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of 06/07/2006, 06/14/2006 (section "Issues of application of housing legislation ")). Citizens who occupy these living quarters in the former hostel have the right to file such a claim. The plaintiff may occupy such residential premises on the basis of an order, including an office and intradepartmental order, a rental agreement for residential premises in a hostel and other similar documents (for example, the Appeal rulings of the Moscow City Court of 10.12.2015 in case N 33-46126 / 2015, of 08.07 .2015 in case No. 33-23881 / 15, dated 20.02.2015 in case No. 33-5508).

Also, the plaintiff can live in the specified premises on the basis of a social tenancy agreement (for example, the Appellate ruling of the Moscow City Court of May 28, 2015 in case N 33-17722 / 15).

A situation is possible when, in the absence of a social tenancy agreement, the plaintiffs occupy a dwelling in a former dormitory on the terms of social tenancy: if the right to use the living space on the terms of a social tenancy agreement was recognized by an effective judicial act for the plaintiffs (for example, the Appellate ruling of the Moscow City Court of February 24 .2015 in case no. 33-5760). As a rule, plaintiffs are employees of a state or municipal enterprise (institution), on the balance sheet of which the dormitory building was previously listed (Resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of 11.04.2011 N 4-P, Determinations of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of 07.10.2014 N 78-KG14-18 , from 01.07.2014 N 18-KG14-73, Appeal rulings of the Moscow City Court of 30.05.2016 in case N 33-18956 / 2016, from 22.04.2016 in case N 33-11509 / 2016, from 22.12.2015 in case N 33-48466 / 2015, dated 12/18/2015 in case N 33-46348 / 2015).

In judicial practice, a position has emerged according to which citizens who occupied part of the dwelling in a former dormitory on a "bed-place" basis also acquire the right to use it under the terms of a social employment contract (for example, the Appellate ruling of the Moscow City Court of 20.04.2016 in case No. 33-10872 / 2016). After all, Art. 7 of the Federal Law of December 29, 2004 N 189-FZ provides for the application of the norms of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation on the social hiring agreement to relations for the use of residential premises located in residential buildings that previously belonged to state or municipal enterprises (institutions) and were used as dormitories, without any or exemptions and restrictions. Consequently, citizens living at the time of entry into force of Art. 7 of the Federal Law of December 29, 2004 N 189-FZ in such a living room on the basis of a "bed-place", an isolated living space as a whole must be transferred for use and one social employment contract must be concluded with them as with co-tenants (Determination of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation from 07/28/2009 N 77-B09-5).

It should be borne in mind that the court may refuse to recognize the plaintiff's right of ownership of the dwelling in the former hostel by way of privatization, if the documents on the basis of which the plaintiff occupies the disputed premises are recognized as illegal by a court act that has entered into legal force, and the plaintiff himself has not acquired the right to use premises. A similar situation took place in the consideration of a specific dispute, when the decision of the administration and the housing commission of the trade union to provide the plaintiff with premises, as well as the order for the right to occupy the premises by the plaintiff, were recognized as illegal by a previously adopted and effective court decision. By the same decision of the court, the plaintiff was recognized as having not acquired the right to use the dwelling, evicted from it without providing another dwelling and removed from the registration register (Appellate ruling of the Moscow City Court of 05/30/2016 in case N 33-18956 / 2016).

For this category of disputes, evidence confirming the fact of registration of the plaintiff in the disputed residential premises at the place of residence (the fact of permanent registration) may include information from the department of the Federal Migration Service of Russia in Moscow, as well as a list of citizens registered at the place of residence at a specific address. compiled by the Moscow branch of the Federal Migration Service of Russia. Please note that at present the FMS of Russia has been abolished, and its functions and powers have been transferred to the Main Directorate for Migration of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia (Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of 05.04.2016 N 156, Order of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia of 15.04.2016 N 192).

Please note that from 01.01.2017 a statement of claim can be filed with the court both on paper and in electronic form - including in the form of an electronic document signed with an electronic signature - by filling out a form posted on the official website of the court in the network Internet (part 1.1 of article 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation as amended by Federal Law of 23.06.2016 N 220-FZ).

To make a decision in favor of the plaintiff, it is necessary to prove the circumstances indicated in the table:

Statement of claim for the recognition of ownership of the residential premises (in the former hostel):

At ________________________ district court

Plaintiff: ___________ (full name) _____________

telephone: _____________________________,

Representative of the Claimant: Petukhov Oleg Anatolyevich

address: _______________________________,

phone: 8-929-527-81-33, 8-921-234-45-78,

e-mail mail: ____________________________

Defendant: ________ (name) _______

address: _______________________________,

telephone: ______________________________

State duty: ____________________ rubles

Statement of claim for the recognition of ownership

for living quarters (in a former hostel)

From "___" ________ _____, the Claimant lives in an isolated dwelling (apartment / room) at the address: ______ (hereinafter referred to as the "Dwelling").

The dwelling was provided to the Plaintiff by the Defendant / _____ on the basis of a rental agreement for residential premises in a dormitory from "___" ________ _____, N _____ / a standard rental agreement in a dormitory from "___" ________ _____ city N _____ / an order for occupation of a residential area in a hostel from "___" ________ _____ city N _____ / orders for the right to move into a dormitory in a dormitory from "___" ________ _____ N _____ / orders for the right to occupy a living space in a dormitory from "___" ________ _____ N _____ / service order dated "___" ________ _____, N _____ / other document in connection with the work / study / service / other of the Claimant in _____.

The plaintiff actually and permanently resides in the residential premises with "___" ________ _____, which is confirmed by the rental agreement of the residential premises in the hostel from "___" ________ _____, N _____ / by the standard rental agreement of the residential premises in the hostel from "___" ________ _____ . N _____ / certificate of verification of living conditions "___" ________ _____ city N _____ / financial personal account / extract from the house book / other housing documents / order for the lease of living space in a hostel from "___" ________ _____ city N _____ / an order for the right to move into a dwelling in a hostel from "___" ________ _____ N _____ / an order for the right to occupy a living space in a hostel from ___ ________ _____ N _____ / an order from ___ ________ _____ . N _____ / other documents.

The plaintiff is registered in the Residential Premises at the place of residence with "___" ________ _____, which is confirmed by information from the department of the FMS of Russia in Moscow / a list of citizens registered at the place of residence at the address: _____, compiled by the department of the FMS of Russia in Moscow / information from the passport office ____ / financial personal account / extracts from the house book from "___" ________ _____ / certificate of checking living conditions "___" ________ _____ N _____ / other documents.

The Plaintiff pays a payment for the Residential Premises and utility bills from "___" ________ _____, has no arrears, as evidenced by receipts / invoices for payment of housing and utilities / payroll of the Claimant confirming the deduction of rent from the Claimant's salary / other documents.

The plaintiff has not previously participated in privatization, does not own another residential premises, which is confirmed by a certificate from the Rosreestr Office in Moscow / a notification from the Rosreestr Office in Moscow / a response from the Rosreestr Office in Moscow / a certificate from the Moscow City Property Department / a certificate from the Department of Housing Policy and Housing fund of the city of Moscow / certificate from ____ TBTI of the city of Moscow / other documents.

The Claimant was not filed with a claim for eviction from the hostel. There is no evidence that such a claim has been brought against the Claimant.

Other persons do not apply for the Living Space. There is no evidence of claims by others of the rights to the Residential Premises.

The social tenancy agreement for the Residential Premises was not concluded with the Claimant. The plaintiff "___" ________ _____ applied to ________ with a request to transfer the Residential Premises to him by way of privatization and was refused in connection with ______.

In accordance with Art. 7 of the Federal Law of December 29, 2004 N 189-FZ "On the Enactment of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation" to the relations for the use of residential premises that were in residential buildings that belonged to state or municipal enterprises or state or municipal institutions and were used as hostels, and transferred to the jurisdiction of local government bodies, regardless of the date of transfer of these residential premises and the date of their provision to citizens on a legal basis, the norms of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation on the contract of social employment are applied.

According to Part 1 of Art. 2 of the Law of the Russian Federation of 04.07.1991 N 1541-1 "On the privatization of the housing stock in the Russian Federation", citizens of the Russian Federation who have the right to use residential premises of the state or municipal housing stock on the terms of social employment have the right to purchase them on the conditions provided for by the said Law, otherwise regulatory legal acts of the Russian Federation and regulatory legal acts of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, in the common property or in the ownership of one person, including a minor, with the consent of all adults and minors aged 14 to 18 who have the right to privatize these residential premises.

By virtue of Part 1 of Art. 11 of the Law of the Russian Federation of 04.07.1991 N 1541-1 "On the privatization of the housing stock in the Russian Federation", each citizen has the right to acquire ownership free of charge, by way of privatization, of housing in the state and municipal housing stock for social use once.

In the section "Issues of application of housing legislation" of the Review of the judicial practice of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated June 7, 2006, June 14, 2006 "Review of legislation and judicial practice of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation for the first quarter of 2006" it is indicated that hostels that belonged to state or municipal enterprises either state or municipal institutions and were transferred to the jurisdiction of local self-government bodies, lose the status of hostels by virtue of the law and the legal regime established for residential premises provided under social tenancy agreements applies to them. At the same time, the absence of a social tenancy agreement, as well as a decision of a local government body to exclude the corresponding house from a specialized housing stock, does not prevent citizens from exercising the rights of a tenant of residential premises under a social tenancy agreement, since their implementation cannot be made dependent on the execution of these documents by local governments. ... Consequently, citizens who occupy the said living quarters have the right to acquire them into ownership, guided by Art. 2 of the Law of the Russian Federation "On privatization of the housing stock in the Russian Federation".

Based on the foregoing, guided by Art. 7 of the Federal Law of December 29, 2004 N 189-FZ "On the Enactment of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation", Part 1 of Art. 2, Art. 6, part 1 of Art. 11 of the Law of the Russian Federation of 04.07.1991 N 1541-1 "On the privatization of the housing stock in the Russian Federation", Art. Art. 131, 132 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation,

Recognize the Claimant's ownership of the Residential Premises by way of privatization.

Applications:

1. Evidence confirming the provision of the Plaintiff with Residential Premises: the lease agreement for residential premises in a hostel from "___" ________ _____ city N _____ / standard lease agreement for residential premises in a hostel from "___" ________ _____ city N _____ / order for employment living space in a hostel from "___" ________ _____ city N _____ / order for the right to move into a dormitory in a hostel from "___" ________ _____ city N _____ / order for the right to occupy a living space in a hostel from ___ ________ _____ . N _____ / service order dated "___" ________ _____, N _____ / other documents.

2. Evidence supporting factual and permanent residence The plaintiff in the dormitory: the contract for the lease of dwelling space in the hostel from "___" ________ _____ N _____ / standard contract for the lease of dwelling space in the hostel from "___" ________ _____ N _____ / certificate of checking the living conditions "___" ________ _____ N _____ / financial personal account / extract from the house book / other housing documents / order for the lease of living space in the hostel from "___" ________ _____ city N _____ / order for the right to move into the living space in the hostel from "___ "________ _____ N _____ / order for the right to occupy living space in a hostel from" ___ "________ _____ N _____ / service order from" ___ "________ _____ N _____ / other documents.

3. Evidence confirming the registration of the Claimant in the Residential Premises at the place of residence: information from the department of the Federal Migration Service of Russia in Moscow / list of citizens registered at the place of residence at the address: ______, compiled by the department of the Federal Migration Service of Russia in Moscow / information from the passport office ____ / financial personal account / extracts from the house book from "___" ________ _____ / certificate of checking living conditions "___" ________ _____ N _____ / other documents.

4. Evidence confirming the payment by the Plaintiff of the payment for the Residential Premises and utility bills, absence of arrears: receipts / invoices for payment of residential premises and utilities / payroll of the Claimant confirming the deduction of rent from the Claimant's salary / other documents.

5. Evidence confirming that the Claimant has not previously participated in privatization, does not own another residential premises: certificate of the Rosreestr Office in Moscow / notification of the Rosreestr Office in Moscow / response of the Rosreestr Office in Moscow / certificate from the Moscow City Property Department / certificate from Department of housing policy and housing stock of the city of Moscow / certificate from ____ TBTI of the city of Moscow / other documents.

6. Evidence confirming the appeal of the Claimant with a request to transfer the Residential Premises to him in the ownership by way of privatization: application / refusal / other documents.

7. Copies statement of claim and documents attached thereto to the Respondent.

8. Receipt for payment of the state fee.

9. Power of attorney of the representative from "___" ______ ___ city N ___ (if the statement of claim is signed by the representative of the Claimant).

"___" __________ ____ G.

Representative of the Claimant:

________________ / Petukhov O.A.

(signature) (full name)

Judicial acts attached to the statement of claim.

The Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation recently made a decision that may be useful to very many residents of former and current hostels.

Now most of these buildings have been transferred to municipalities, and the former owners of the hostel - factories, collective farms, scientific institutions simply ceased to exist. But people stayed in these hostels. Moreover, their ranks have grown considerably. Dormitories became the only shelter for hundreds of thousands of families who, after the collapse of the USSR, moved to Russia. And to this day they continue to move. The problems faced by citizens registered in hostels, without exaggeration, concern millions. Moreover, they added new ones to the old problems. In Soviet times, our country could be safely called a country of hostels - most families in those years began their life together there. And nowadays, a huge number of citizens are born, grow up in hostels and go to adulthood along the common corridors of such houses.

The controversial situation considered Supreme Court, occurred in Volgograd. There, a citizen came to the district court with a claim and asked to declare that a family of three - a father, a mother and their daughter - had lost the right to use the living quarters.

2.5 million people today live in hostels according to data obtained during the All-Russian Population Census

In court, the citizen explained that he lived in a dorm room, which he was given as a factory worker in 1999. Since then, the man lives in it, pays for the communal apartment. Now the hostel 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 were problems. It turned out that the order for his move in says that the citizen received only a bed in this room. And plus to this in the same room, besides him, a family of three is also registered. Here the plaintiff asks to recognize these roommates as having lost their right to a room, since they do not live in it and have not lived before.

This family, in response to a similar claim to them, responded with counterparts and asked to move them into the disputed room. According to these people, they are forced not to live there, as they have a conflict relationship 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: he recognized the wife and daughter of a neighbor as not having acquired the right to a room. Their father and husband, who had also once been moved into a bed, was moved into the room by the district court and the plaintiff ordered to give the neighbor a duplicate of the keys.

The regional court of the Volgograd region canceled this decision of the district colleagues and made a new decision - to completely refuse the claim to the citizen living in the hostel.

The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation reviewed this case and expressed its point of view, different from the decision of the regional court.

This is what the Supreme Court said. Judging by the materials of the case, back in 1999 the plaintiff was given a "bed-place" in the dormitory of the plant, where he began to work. In 2004, the district administration gave the second bed in this room to another man. For each of them, separate personal accounts were opened, where utility bills are charged.

In 2011, the Volgograd administration adopted a decree "On changing the type of housing stock" and the factory hostel, having lost its previous status, became municipal property. This means that it became possible to privatize housing in a former hostel.

The district court, denying a 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, since he is in conflict with a neighbor.

The Regional Court stated that the applicant was not a proper claimant at all. He and his neighbor moved into the beds and have the right to use only these places, and not the whole room. So he does not have a social loan agreement on hand, which means that he cannot demand anything.

The Supreme Court clarified: The Housing Code (Article 62) says that the subject of a social tenancy agreement for a residential premises should be a house, apartment, part of a house or apartment. Non-insulated residential premises, auxiliary use premises and common property of an apartment building cannot be an independent subject of a social lease agreement.

The Federal Law "On the Enactment of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation" contains the 7th article. It says that the dormitories that have been transferred to municipal ownership are subject to the legal regime of residential premises provided under social rent 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 dwelling as a whole and with them it is necessary to conclude a social rent agreement.

In our case, both men received beds. This means that when the hostel was transferred to the city, the legal regime of the social rent agreement became applicable to them. This means that both of them are co-tenants.

The Supreme Court said that the regional court, when it adopted a new decision and denied the citizen's claim, did not take into account that the lack of written contract social rent for a dorm room does not prevent the plaintiff from being a co-tenant of the room under a social rent agreement. The Supreme Court emphasized that the implementation of the rights of a room dweller cannot be made dependent on the execution of such a document by local authorities.

The Supreme Court said - the right of the room's tenant does not depend on the execution of the document by officials

The conclusion of the regional court that the plaintiff does not have the rights of the employer under the social rent agreement, including the right to demand the recognition of the defendants as having lost their right to housing, does not correspond to the norms of substantive law.

The Supreme Court ordered regional court reconsider the wrong decision he made.

The latest trend of our time is the privatization of hostels. Directly in the legislation, there is a prohibition on the acquisition of ownership of such premises. But still, it is possible to carry out this procedure, observing certain conditions.

Dear Readers! The article talks about typical ways of solving legal issues, but each case is individual. If you want to know how solve your problem- contact a consultant:

APPLICATIONS AND CALLS ARE ACCEPTED 24/7 and WITHOUT DAYS.

It's fast and IS FREE!

What it is

The privatization of a dorm room has the same legal nature as the privatization of any residential property.

As a result of the privatization process, the citizen becomes the owner, until the completion of privatization, the owner is the municipality or the state.

What is regulated

The privatization processes of the housing stock by citizens, and accordingly the rooms in the hostel, are regulated by a number of acts:

• LCD RF;
• Civil Code of the Russian Federation;

Who has the right to do this

The right to privatize the room ( two rooms and more, it all depends on what area is transferred for living to specific persons) in the hostel belongs to each citizen living in the corresponding room, however, under certain conditions.

Minors and adults are equal in rights during privatization.

Requirements for living quarters

The main condition under which the privatization of a dorm room is possible is the use of the premises under a social tenancy agreement. At the same time, the presence of an already concluded contract is not always required, it is enough that the tenants have the right to conclude it ( for example, in the event of the death of the employer).

The lack of legal relations on social rent makes it possible to formalize privatization only through legal proceedings and not always.

An equally important condition is that the hostel should be owned by the municipality, the state or their successor organizations and not be specialized.

When a hostel belongs to a private structure or is run by an educational institution, privatization is not possible.

It will not be possible to privatize if, as a result of the redevelopment, the status of the building or its individual premises is changed from residential to non-residential.

Order

The privatization process is a detailed procedure, but the specifics of the object to be privatized leaves its mark on the established order.

If the object of privatization is to be a room or a number of rooms in a hostel, then the first step on the way to privatization should be a visit to the administration at the location of the hostel.

This is due to the fact that the privatization process is associated with the work of local authorities, they will explain what documents are needed.

Also, in the administration, you can find out exactly the status of the hostel and its belonging to the municipality or some other structure, which affects the possibility of starting privatization.

Under a social employment contract

Beds cannot be privatized on the basis of this provision.

In addition to the order or contract, you will need to obtain a document in the property register of the municipality about the status of the hostel in which it is planned to privatize the room. Other documents included in the package for the privatization of dorm rooms are identical as for the privatization of an apartment, house or other residential facility.

Video: nuances

Rooms in the student

Due to the fact that the hostels educational institutions(student) are specialized, their privatization is not allowed.

When living together

If you live together, you will need to obtain consent for privatization from all residents living together, including minors.

Documents for the privatization of a dorm room

The privatization of any residential property within the framework of the perpetual privatization of the public housing stock is an administrative procedure that is carried out upon the submission of a package of documents.

The list of documents looks like this:

• identity documents (for adults and minor adolescents over 14 years old passports, for minors - birth certificates), for each resident of the privatized area who refused, according to a written refusal to participate in the process, certified by a notary;
• social lease agreement for the object to be privatized;
• technical passports from BTI and cadastral;
• extracts from the house register and the register of objects on the balance sheet of the municipality;
• statement from the personal account;
• a document proving participation in privatization for the first time.

Sample application

On the Internet, you can find a sample of filling out an application for a privatization permit.

Resolving the issue through the court

Upon receipt of a refusal from local authorities to permit the privatization of a residential facility, the situation can be resolved and the ownership of the residential area can be obtained in the district court, which has jurisdiction over the territory on which the hostel is located.

The litigation takes place within the framework of the claim proceeding.

With a statement of claim from the court, you can ask:

• to recognize the property rights to the object in the privatization procedure;
• oblige the district authorities to conclude an agreement on the transfer of the object to private ownership through privatization.

Requirements are alternative and you need to state a specific requirement based on a specific situation. The application will need to attach a package of documents, which at the time of filing the claim does not differ from the package of documents required for privatization in the general procedure.

Most of the court decisions on statistics are in favor of citizens.

A decision with which a citizen does not agree can be appealed to a higher judicial authority. The last instance will be the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, whose decision can no longer be appealed.
A positive decision on entry into legal force is required to be sent to the municipality, where they are obliged to conclude an agreement on the transfer of ownership of a residential facility.

The resulting contract is subject to registration with Rosreest, after which the newly-made owner will be issued a certificate of ownership.

The cost of judicial privatization depends on many facts.

1. If you are engaged in the collection of all papers, as well as the preparation of a statement of claim on your own, then the price of the issue will be only the state duty ().
2. If you involve specialists, the amount will be much higher. How much it costs depends on a specific specialist, the amount of work performed by a specialist and his prices.

When there is no chance of winning a case

Before 2005 dorm rooms could not be transferred to the ownership of citizens by way of privatization. Such a prohibition was directly spelled out in the Changes in this matter have occurred 29.12.2004 when the new law was passed. On the privatization of dorm rooms, provisions appeared thanks to these short stories.

The new changes actually lifted the ban on the privatization of dormitory premises, it did not affect specialized premises (at enterprises, educational institutions, etc.).

The Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation recently made a decision that may be useful to very many residents of former and current hostels.

Now most of these buildings have been transferred to municipalities, and the former owners of the hostel - factories, collective farms, scientific institutions simply ceased to exist. But people stayed in these hostels. Moreover, their ranks have grown considerably. Dormitories became the only shelter for hundreds of thousands of families who, after the collapse of the USSR, moved to Russia. And to this day they continue to move. The problems faced by citizens registered in hostels, without exaggeration, concern millions. Moreover, they added new ones to the old problems. In Soviet times, our country could be safely called a country of hostels - most families in those years began their life together there. And nowadays, a huge number of citizens are born, grow up in hostels and go to adulthood along the common corridors of such houses.

The controversial situation, which was considered by the Supreme Court, took place in Volgograd. There, a citizen came to the district court with a claim and asked to declare that a family of three - a father, a mother and their daughter - had lost the right to use the living quarters.

In court, the citizen explained that he lived in a dorm room, which he was given as a factory worker in 1999. Since then, the man lives in it, pays for the communal apartment. Now the hostel 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 were problems. It turned out that the order for his move in says that the citizen received only a bed in this room. And plus to this in the same room, besides him, a family of three is also registered. Here the plaintiff asks to recognize these roommates as having lost their right to a room, since they do not live in it and have not lived before.

This family, in response to a similar claim to them, responded with counterparts and asked to move them into the disputed room. According to these people, they are forced not to live there, as they have a conflict relationship 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: he recognized the wife and daughter of a neighbor as not having acquired the right to a room. Their father and husband, who had also once been moved into a bed, was moved into the room by the district court and the plaintiff ordered to give the neighbor a duplicate key.

The regional court of the Volgograd region canceled this decision of the district colleagues and made a new decision - to completely refuse the claim to the citizen living in the hostel.

The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation reviewed this case and expressed its point of view, different from the decision of the regional court.

This is what the Supreme Court said. Judging by the materials of the case, back in 1999 the plaintiff was given a "bed-place" in the dormitory of the plant, where he began to work. In 2004, the district administration gave the second bed in this room to another man. For each of them, separate personal accounts were opened, where utility bills are charged.

In 2011, the Volgograd administration adopted a decree "On changing the type of housing stock" and the factory hostel, having lost its previous status, became municipal property. This means that it became possible to privatize housing in a former hostel.

The district court, denying a 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, since he is in conflict with a neighbor.

The Regional Court stated that the applicant was not a proper claimant at all. He and his neighbor moved into the beds and have the right to use only these places, and not the whole room. So he does not have a social loan agreement on hand, which means that he cannot demand anything.

The Supreme Court clarified: The Housing Code (Article 62) says that the subject of a social tenancy agreement for a residential premises should be a house, apartment, part of a house or apartment. Non-insulated residential premises, auxiliary use premises and common property of an apartment building cannot be an independent subject of a social lease agreement.

The Federal Law "On the Enactment of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation" contains the 7th article. It says that the dormitories, which were transferred to municipal ownership, are subject to the legal regime of residential premises provided under social rent 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 dwelling as a whole, and with them it is necessary to conclude a social rent agreement.

In our case, both men received beds. This means that when the hostel was transferred to the city, the legal regime of the social rent agreement became applicable to them. This means that both of them are co-tenants.

The Supreme Court said that the regional court, when it made a new decision and dismissed the citizen's claim, did not take into account that the lack of a written social rent agreement for a dorm room does not prevent the plaintiff from being a co-tenant of the room under a social rent agreement. The Supreme Court emphasized that the implementation of the rights of a room dweller cannot be made dependent on the execution of such a document by local authorities.

The conclusion of the regional court that the plaintiff does not have the rights of the employer under the social rent agreement, including the right to demand the recognition of the defendants as having lost their right to housing, does not correspond to the norms of substantive law.

The Supreme Court ordered the regional court to reconsider its wrong decision.