Privatization of the former Supreme Court hostel. Clarification of the Supreme Court on the privatization of living space in a hostel. Required documents for the privatization of a dorm room

Determination of the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of 05/19/2015 N 4-KG15-3 Requirement: On recognition as a social tenancy agreement, recognition of ownership of housing in the privatization procedure. Circumstances: The plaintiffs were provided with housing in a dormitory in connection with their work at the plant, a lease was concluded, later the plant was transformed and a list of objects not subject to privatization was approved, which did not include the plaintiffs' dormitory. Decision: The claim was satisfied, since the lack of registration of the municipal property right cannot deprive the plaintiffs of the right to privatize; in the presence of a statutory and unfulfilled obligation to transfer the hostel to the jurisdiction of local self-government bodies, the emergence of the rights of citizens for social hiring cannot be put in ...

SUPREME COURT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

DEFINITION

The Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, composed of:

presiding Klikushin A.A.,

judges Vavilycheva T.Yew. and Gorokhova B.A.

examined in open court a civil case at the suit of VA Kozionov, A. Kozionova. to JSC "Experimental Machine-Building Plant named after VM Myasishchev" Zhukovsky, the Territorial Administration of the Federal Agency for State Property Management in the Moscow Region on the recognition of the agreement of February 9, 2010 N 134 as a social tenancy agreement, recognition of the ownership of residential premises

on cassation complaints Kozionov V.A. on the ruling of the Presidium of the Moscow Regional Court of August 6, 2014 and the appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Moscow Regional Court of October 15, 2014 No.

After hearing the report of the judge of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation Vavilycheva T.Yu., after hearing the explanations of the representative Kozionov V.A. - N.V. Safonova, who supported the arguments of the cassation appeal, Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation

established:

Kozionov V.A., Kozionov A.V. filed a lawsuit against OJSC "Experimental Machine-Building Plant named after V.M. Myasishchev" Zhukovsky, the Territorial Administration of the Federal Agency for State Property Management in the Moscow Region on the recognition of the agreement dated February 9, 2010 N 134, concluded between FSUE "Experimental Machine-Building Plant named after VM Myasishchev" and Kozionov V.A. a social tenancy agreement and on the recognition of ownership of residential premises, consisting of two rooms N 1 and 3 with an area of ​​11.8 sq. m and 11.3 sq. m respectively, located at:<...>region, g.<...>, d.<...>sq.<...>by way of privatization. The requirements are based on the provisions of Articles 2, 18 of the RF Law of July 4, 1991 N 1541-1 "On the privatization of the housing stock in the Russian Federation".

By the decision of the Zhukovsky City Court of the Moscow Region dated June 7, 2013, the claims were satisfied. The contract for the lease of specialized residential premises dated February 09, 2010 N 134, concluded between the V.M. Myasishchev Experimental Machine-Building Plant and V.A.

For Kozionov V.A. and Kozionov A.The. in the course of privatization, the right of common shared ownership of room no. 1 with a total area of ​​11.8 sq. m, located at:<...>region, g.<...>, d.<...>, sq.<...>, 1/2 share in ownership for each.

For Kozionov V.A. and Kozionov A.The. in the course of privatization, the right of common shared ownership of room no. 3 with a total area of ​​11.3 sq. m, located at:<...>region, g.<...>, d.<...>, sq.<...>1/2 share in ownership for each.

By the appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Moscow Regional Court dated November 27, 2013, the decision of the court of first instance was upheld.

By the decision of the Presidium of the Moscow Regional Court of August 6, 2014, the appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Moscow Regional Court of November 27, 2013 was canceled, the case was sent for a new consideration to the court of appeal.

By the appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Moscow Regional Court dated October 15, 2014, the decision of the first instance court was canceled, and a new decision was made to dismiss the claims.

In the cassation complaints Kozionov V.A. the question of canceling the ruling of the Presidium of the Moscow Regional Court of August 6, 2014 and the appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Moscow Regional Court of October 15, 2014 in view of significant violations of substantive and procedural law.

By the ruling of the judge of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated March 30, 2015, the applicant's cassation complaints with the case were transferred for consideration in the court session of the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.

Having checked the case materials, having discussed the arguments of the cassation complaints, the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation finds that there are grounds for canceling the ruling of the Presidium of the Moscow Regional Court of August 6, 2014 and the appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Moscow Regional Court of October 15 2014

In accordance with Art. 387 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, grounds for canceling or changing court decisions on cassation are significant violations of substantive law or norms of procedural law that influenced the outcome of the case and without which it is impossible to restore and protect violated rights, freedoms and legitimate interests, as well as protection of public interests protected by law.

Such violations of the norms of substantive law were committed by the courts when passing the contested court decisions.

It was established that the living quarters, consisting of two rooms N 1 and 3, located at the address:<...>region, g.<...>st.<...>, d.<...>, sq.<...>, was provided as a hostel to V.A. Kozionov. in connection with work in FSUE "Experimental Machine-Building Plant named after VM Myasishchev" on the basis of an order on June 17, 1983 (case file 98).

8 in this room Kozionov V.A. lives and is registered at the place of residence since June 21, 1983, the son of V.A. - Kozionov A.V.,<...>year of birth, since May 18, 1994 (l.d. 9).

February 9, 2010 FSUE "Experimental Machine-Building Plant named after VM Myasishchev" with VA Kozionov entered into a lease agreement for specialized living quarters (dorm rooms) (case sheets 7 - 8).

March 5, 2010 by transforming the FSUE "Experimental Machine-Building Plant. State Property Management Agency No. 52 dated April 2, 2008 and the order of the Territorial Administration of the Federal Agency for State Property Management in the Moscow Region No. 719 dated December 31, 2009, the V.M. Myasishchev Experimental Machine-Building Plant OJSC was established.

By order of the Territorial Administration of the Federal Agency for State Property Management in the Moscow Region of December 31, 2009 N 719 "On the terms of privatization of the federal state unitary enterprise" V.M. Myasishchev "approved the list of objects not subject to privatization as part of the property complex of FSUE" Experimental Machine-Building Plant named after V.M. Myasishchev ".

In accordance with the deed of transfer of objects that are not subject to privatization, a residential building (hostel) located at:<...>region, g.<...>, d.<...>, was not included in the privatized property of OJSC "Experimental Machine-Building Plant named after VM Myasishchev" and was transferred to the federal treasury, the disposal of which is carried out by TU FAUGI in the Moscow region.

According to the specified transfer act, the planned further use of this residential building is transfer to municipal ownership in accordance with Federal Law of August 22, 2004 N 122-FZ and Federal Law of December 31, 2005 N 199-FZ (case file 132 - 135).

Satisfying the claim of V.A. Kozionov and Kozionova A.V., the court of first instance proceeded from the fact that the lack of registration of municipal property rights cannot deprive the plaintiffs of the right to privatization, since in accordance with the law, the dormitory building should be transferred to municipal ownership.

The Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Moscow Regional Court agreed with these conclusions, having upheld the said decision by the appeal ruling of November 27, 2013 No.

The court of cassation, canceling these court decisions, pointed out that the dormitory building, in which the disputed premises are located, was not transferred to the municipal ownership, the obligation for such a transfer was not established by law. In this regard, the disputed living quarters belong to the specialized housing stock, the hostel has not changed its status and is under the jurisdiction of the OJSC "Experimental Machine-Building Plant named after VM Myasishchev". At the time the plaintiffs moved into the disputed dwelling, it was used as belonging to a specialized housing stock, and a lease agreement was concluded with the plaintiffs in accordance with a model contract for the lease of specialized dwellings.

In a new consideration of the case, the court of appeal recognized that the plaintiffs did not have the right to privatization, since the dormitory building had not been transferred to municipal ownership and belonged to a specialized housing stock.

It is impossible to agree with the indicated conclusions of the courts on the following grounds.

By virtue of Part 1 of Article 1 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, housing legislation is based on the need for state authorities and local authorities to provide conditions for the exercise by citizens of the right to housing, its safety, inviolability and inadmissibility of arbitrary deprivation of home, on the need for the unimpeded implementation of relations arising from, regulated by housing legislation, rights.

According to the provisions of Article 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 used as hostels, and transferred to the jurisdiction of local governments, 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 social hiring agreement are applied.

Article 18 of the Law of the Russian Federation of July 4, 1991 N 1541-1 "On the privatization of the housing stock in the Russian Federation" determines that when state or municipal enterprises and institutions are transferred to a different form of ownership or when they are liquidated, the housing stock under the economic control of enterprises or the operational management of institutions, must be transferred to the economic management or operational management of the successors of these enterprises, institutions (if they are determined) or to 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.

At the same time, paragraph 1 of Appendix 3 to the Decree 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 districts, cities of Moscow and St. Petersburg and municipal property "it is established that state property objects (including housing and non-residential stock) located on the territory under the jurisdiction of the relevant Council of People's Deputies are municipal property.

At the request of G.P. Khovanskaya recently issued a clarification from the Supreme Court. In fact, it removes all obstacles for residents of hostels to exercise their right to free privatization of housing. Now no one can refuse to privatize tenants, on the basis that the status of a hostel has not been removed, there are no social rent agreements, etc. As for privately owned hostels, this explanation can also be used for them, although this issue is not so clearly spelled out there. Taking into account the fact that the Constitutional Court canceled "March 1" (so do not pay attention to what is written in the statement of the Supreme Court about March 1), and the Duma extended the privatization, we can say that now there are no longer any legislative barriers to free privatization by residents of their housing in hostels.

Vice-chairman
Supreme Court of the Russian Federation
109289, Moscow, st. Ilyinka, 7/3
June 21, 2006_______
on No. KhGP-351/6 dated 02.14.2006
Deputy of the State Duma of the Russian Federation G.P. Khovanskaya
Dear Galina Petrovna!

To your letter containing a request for clarification on whether it is possible, starting March 1, 2005, to privatize residential premises located in residential buildings that previously belonged to state or municipal enterprises or state or municipal institutions and were used as hostels, which were transferred to management of local governments, I report the following.
This issue was discussed at the meeting of the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on June 7, 2006, and the answer to it was approved and included in the Review of judicial practice for the first quarter of 2006 in the following version.

"Article 2 of the Law of the Russian Federation" On the Privatization of the Housing Stock in the Russian Federation "(as amended on May 20, 2002) provides for the right of citizens occupying residential premises in the state and municipal housing stock, including the housing stock under the economic management of enterprises or operational management of institutions (departmental fund), on the terms of social employment, to acquire these premises in ownership under the conditions provided for by the specified 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 up to 18 years old.

Based on Art. 4 of the Law of the Russian Federation "On the privatization of the housing stock in the Russian Federation" residential premises in hostels are not subject to privatization.

In accordance with Art. 7 of the Federal Law "On the Enactment of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation" to relations on the use of residential premises that were in residential buildings belonging to 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 the contract of social employment 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 law and the legal regime established for residential premises provided under social agreements is applied to them. hiring.

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 by local government bodies. ...
Consequently, citizens who occupy these residential premises have the right to acquire them as property, guided by Art. 2 of the Law of the Russian Federation "On the privatization of the housing stock in the Russian Federation".

It should be borne in mind that only an isolated dwelling (apartment or room) is subject to privatization, since within the meaning of Part 2 of Art. 62 of the RF Housing Code, non-insulated living quarters cannot be an independent subject of a social tenancy agreement.

In accordance with Art. 4 of the Law of the Russian Federation "On the privatization of the housing stock in the Russian Federation" (as amended on December 29, 2004), residential premises provided to citizens under social tenancy agreements after March 1, 2005 are not subject to privatization.

From the above it follows that residential premises in hostels located in residential buildings previously owned by state or municipal enterprises or state or municipal institutions and used as hostels, which were provided to citizens and transferred to the municipal housing stock before March 1, 2005, may be acquired by citizens in the course of privatization into ownership after March 1, 2005, provided that this dwelling is isolated.

It should also be borne in mind that clause 1 of the Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of January 10, 1993 No. 8 "On the use of social, cultural and communal facilities of privatized enterprises" (declared invalid since March 29, 2003 by the Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of March 26, 2003 No. 370) it was established that during the privatization of enterprises that are in federal (state) ownership, housing stock objects could not be included in the privatized property. These objects, being federal (state) property, should have been under the jurisdiction of the administration at the location of the object.

However, in practice, there were cases when, in violation of the current legislation, after the privatization of state and municipal enterprises, residential premises in hostels were transferred to municipal ownership. These legal relations should be subject to the same provisions governing the privatization procedure as in the privatization of residential premises in hostels owned by state or municipal enterprises. "

SUPREME COURT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

DEFINITION

Case No. 18-B12-18

presiding Harlanov A.B., judges Pchelintseva L.M. and Momotov V.The.

claim case

civil court session [hidden], Milashenko

[hidden], Milashenko (Nevilko)

their interests and interests

operating in

minor Nevilko [hidden] and [hidden], to the territorial administration of the Federal Agency for Federal Property Management in the Krasnodar Territory and others on invalidating tenders in respect of real estate, invalidating the lease agreement and other requirements, in a counterclaim of the territorial administration of the Federal Agency for Management federal property in the Krasnodar Territory to Milashenko [hidden] Milashenko 1D Milashenko (Nevilko) [hidden]

Milashenko [hidden] on reclaiming property from someone else's illegal possession and releasing it

on the supervisory complaint of Milashenko [hidden] Milashenko

Milashenko

Milashenko

(Nevilko) [hidden] on the determination of the judicial board on

After hearing the report of the judge of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation V.V. Momotov, the explanations of the representative of LLC "Chernomorsky Medical Center" Velikhova O.A., who objected to the satisfaction of

supervisory appeal, the prosecutor of the General Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation E.S. Zaseeva, who supported the arguments of the supervisory appeal, the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation

established:

Milashenko M.D dormitory building

Since 1984, together with family members, has been living at the address: [hidden]

[hidden] where is infused as a worker

Black Sea Experimental Oyster Farm, later reorganized and transformed into JSC Scientific Experimental Marine Biotechnological Center Bolshoy Utrish.

The plaintiffs are registered in this premises at their place of residence, they have no other housing, they are consumers of public services.

October 25, 2005 between Milashenko M.D. and the Federal State Unitary Enterprise "Scientific and Experimental Marine Biotechnological Center" Bolshoy Utrish "signed an agreement for the lease of residential premises in the houses of the state and municipal housing stock in the Russian Federation in relation to sq. 2 with a total area of ​​44 sq. M, located at: [hidden]

[hidden] This agreement

concluded on the basis of a warrant for a dwelling.

Federal State Unitary Enterprise “Scientific and Experimental Marine Biotechnological Center“ Bolshoi Utrish ”on the basis of the order of the Federal Agency for Federal Property Management No. 675-r dated December 30, 2005, was privatized by transforming into JSC Scientific and Experimental Marine Biotechnological Center“ Bolshoy Utrish ”.

by the address:

dorm # [hidden] _

[hidden] in which the plaintiffs' apartment is located was not included in the privatized property.

December 5, 2007 Milashenko M.D. applied to JSC Scientific and Experimental Marine Biotechnological Center Bolshoy Utrish with a request to transfer the occupied apartment to the common share ownership by way of privatization.

JSC Scientific Experimental Marine Biotechnological Center Bolshoy Utrish refused to privatize the disputed apartment.

According to the territorial administration of the Federal Agency for Federal Property Management in the Krasnodar Territory, the property located at the address: [hidden] is federal

property, refers to a specialized housing stock and is listed as a hostel in the register of federal property, in connection with which apt. 2, located in this hostel, is not subject to privatization.

November 13, 2007 by the territorial administration of the Federal Agency for Federal Property Management in Krasnodar

the region held an auction in the form of a tender for the right to conclude an agreement

dorm building rent

On November 16, 2007, based on the results of the auction held between the territorial administration of the Federal Agency for Federal Property Management for the Krasnodar Territory (lessor) and LLC "Chernomorsky Medical Center" (lessee), a lease agreement for the dormitory building was concluded [hidden]

From clause 1.1 of the contract and the act of the technical condition of the building, it follows that the hostel (has the status of non-residential premises.

The transfer of a residential building to a non-residential building in accordance with the procedure established by law was not carried out.

The plaintiffs applied to the court with the above claim, referring to the fact that in 1984 M.D. Milashenko. in connection with his recruitment to the state enterprise Black Sea Experimental Oyster Farm, he was moved into a controversial apartment, where he was registered at his place of residence and has lived to this day. Subsequently, all plaintiffs are registered in this premises at their place of residence. The legality of the plaintiffs' residence for 27 years has not been disputed by anyone. They ask to declare the lease agreement for the hostel building invalid, since the hostel building was not transferred to non-residential in the manner prescribed by law, and therefore it could not be leased to the Black Sea Medical Center LLC. In addition, they referred to the illegality of the bidding for the right to conclude a lease agreement, since at the time of the bidding the territorial department of the Federal Agency for Federal Property Management in the Krasnodar Territory did not have the right of ownership, the right was registered only on January 24, 2008. does not testify to the illegality of their move into apartment 2, which they used on the basis of a residential lease agreement, fulfilled their responsibilities for the maintenance of this premise, paid utility bills.

The Territorial Administration of the Federal Agency for Federal Property Management in the Krasnodar Territory did not recognize the claim, filed a counterclaim in court, referring to the fact that the auction with the transfer of the hostel building for rent to the Black Sea Medical Center LLC was made legally, since the hostel building is uninhabited. It was believed that M.D. Milashenko unauthorizedly occupied the disputed premises in the hostel, since the order for moving in was not presented to the court. In this connection, the plaintiffs, in accordance with the established procedure, did not acquire the right to use the hostel as non-residential premises.

By the decision of the Anapskiy District Court of the Krasnodar Territory dated February 14, 2011, the initial claim was partially satisfied, the auction and the lease agreement were declared invalid. The rest of the claim for the recognition of the hostel as residential premises, exclusion of the registration as non-residential premises was denied. The counterclaims were denied.

By the decision of the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Krasnodar Regional Court of May 24, 2011, the decision of the Anapa District Court of the Krasnodar Territory of February 14, 2011 was canceled, a new decision was made in the case to dismiss the initial claim and satisfy counterclaims on reclaiming property from someone else's illegal possession and its release.

The decision of the judge of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of October 14, 2011 refused to transfer the supervisory appeal Milashenko M.D., Milashenko AA, Milashenko N.M., Nevilko (Milashenko) V.M., acting in her own interests and in the interests of the minor Nevilko S.Yu., for consideration in the court session of the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.

In the supervisory complaint of Milashenko M.D., Milashenko AA, Milashenko N.M., Nevilko "" Milashenko) V.M., acting in her own interests and in the interests of the minor Nevilko S.Yu., filed on November 21, 2011, the question is raised on the abolition of the ruling of the judicial collegium for civil cases of the Krasnodar Regional Court of May 24, 2011 No.

In accordance with Article 2 of the Federal Law of December 9, 2010 No. 353-FZ "On Amendments to the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation", appeal, cassation and supervisory complaints and representations of the prosecutor that have not been considered on the date of entry into force of this Federal Law shall be considered according to the rules in force on the day of their submission to the court of the appropriate instance.

Since the applicants' supervisory appeal, filed on December 1, 2011, was not considered on the date the said Federal Law entered into force (i.e., on January 1, 2012), it is considered in accordance with the rules of the previous Chapter 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation.

The ruling of the Deputy Chairman of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated March 30, 2012 canceled the ruling of the judge of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated October 14, 2011 and the complaint of M.D. Milashenko, AA Milashenko, N.M. Milashenko, V.M. Nevilko (Milashenko). , acting in her own interests and in the interests of the minor Nevilko S.Yu., with the case were transferred for consideration in the court session of the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.

Having checked the case materials, having discussed the arguments set out in the supervisory appeal, the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation finds the complaint to be satisfied, and the ruling of the cassation instance to be canceled.

In accordance with Article 387 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, the grounds for canceling or changing judicial decisions in the order of supervision are significant violations of substantive or procedural law that influenced the outcome of the case, without the elimination of which

restoration and protection of violated rights, freedoms and legitimate interests, as well as protection of public interests protected by law are impossible.

Such violations were committed by the court of cassation when considering this case.

Resolving the dispute, the court of first instance came to the conclusion that the claims of Milashenko M.D., Milashenko A.M., Milashenko N.M., Nevilko Milashenko) V.M. were satisfied, acting in her own interests and in the interests of the minor Nevilko S.Yu., in part of the invalidation of the auction of November 13, 2007, the invalidation of the lease agreement for the said dormitory building [hidden] of November 16, 2007 and the application of the consequences of the invalidity of this transaction. In this case, the court proceeded from the fact that at the time of the auction for the conclusion of the right to lease the hostel, the territorial administration of the Federal Agency for Federal Property Management in the Krasnodar Territory did not have ownership of the building (premises) of the hostel, and therefore did not have the right to conduct these auctions , the transfer of the hostel building under a lease agreement violates the rights of the plaintiffs as residents of the hostel.

Canceling the decision of the first instance and making a new decision in the case to dismiss the initial claim and satisfy the counterclaims, the judicial collegium for civil cases of the Krasnodar Regional Court proceeded from the fact that the plaintiffs did not submit a warrant for occupying the disputed premises in the hostel, in connection with which , their stay in this room is illegal. In addition, the panel of judges pointed out the nullity of the prisoner on October 25, 2005 between the Federal State Unitary Enterprise “Scientific and Experimental Marine Biotechnological Center“ Bolshoy Utrish ”and Milashenko M.D. lease agreements due to the lack of the landlord's authority to dispose of federal property on behalf of the owner.

Meanwhile, the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation considers that one cannot agree with such conclusions of the court of the cassation instance.

In accordance with part 1 of Article 40 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, everyone has the right to housing. No one can be arbitrarily deprived of their home.

According to part 4 of article 3 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, no one can be evicted from the home or restricted in the right to use the home, including the right to receive utilities, except on the grounds and in the manner provided for by this Code and other federal laws.

Part 1 of Article 15 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation determines that the objects of housing rights are residential premises.

The totality of all residential premises located on the territory of the Russian Federation constitutes the housing stock (part 1 of article 19 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation).

By virtue of clause 2 of part 3 of article 19 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, one of the components of the housing stock is a specialized housing stock - a set of state and municipal housing stock intended for living of certain categories of citizens and provided according to the rules of Section IV of this Code.

The residential premises of the specialized housing stock include, among other things, residential premises in hostels (clause 2 of part 1 of article 92 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation).

According to Article 109 of the Housing Code of the RSFSR (in force at the time the plaintiffs moved into the said living quarters), hostels can be used for the residence of workers, employees, students, students, as well as other citizens during the period of work or study.

The procedure for the provision of living space in hostels and the use of it is determined by the Council of Ministers of the RSFSR, in particular by the Resolution of the Council of Ministers of the RSFSR dated August 11, 1988 No. 328 "On Approval of the Model Regulations on Hostels."

Clause 10 of this Resolution provides that the living space in the hostel is provided to workers, employees, students, students, as well as other citizens by the joint decision of the administration, the trade union committee and the Komsomol committee of the association, enterprise, institution, organization or educational institution that runs the hostel ... On the basis of the decision taken, the administration issues a warrant for the lease of living space in a hostel in the prescribed form. Upon arrival in the hostel, the order is handed over to the administration of the hostel.

Consequently, after the administration of the Black Sea Experimental Oyster Farm, later reorganized and reorganized into JSC Scientific and Experimental Marine Biotechnological Center Bolshoy Utrish, decided to move Milashenko M.D. with the family in the hostel, the order issued for moving in was subject to delivery to the administration of the hostel.

Thus, the conclusion of the court of cassation that the stub of the order for occupying the living space in the hostel, issued by A.D. Milashenko, which is available in the case file, is incorrect. (brother of Milashenko M.D.) cannot serve as admissible evidence confirming the legality of the plaintiffs' residence in the initial claim in the disputed residential premises, since due to the housing legislation in force at the time of the emergence of the disputed legal relations, the order itself issued for the family of Milashenko A.D., was subject to delivery to the administration of the hostel at the address: [hidden],

In addition, the fact that a citizen does not have a warrant to occupy a living space when actually moving into an apartment provided to him, living in it, or fulfilling the duties of an employer does not in itself serve

an obstacle for such a person to have the right to use the living quarters.

As established during the consideration of the case, A.D. Milashenko Since 1984 they have been living with their family in the said dwelling in the hostel and are responsible for paying utility bills.

The conclusion of the court of cassation that the lease agreement of the disputed real estate dated October 25, 2005, concluded between M.D. Milashenko, is also incorrect. and FSUE "Scientific and Experimental Marine Biotechnological Center" Bolshoy Utrish "is insignificant.

At the same time, the court proceeded from the fact that at the conclusion of this agreement, the FSUE Scientific and Experimental Marine Biotechnological Center Bolshoy Utrish was not a person who had the right to act on behalf of the owner, with reference to Article 99 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation as amended at the time conclusion of the contract.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, in paragraph 41 of the Plenum resolution of July 2, 2009 No. 14 "On some issues arising in judicial practice when applying the Housing Code of the Russian Federation" residential premises, which gives the right to move in and live in a residential area, is, according to Article 99 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, the decision of the owner of such residential premises or an authorized government body or an authorized local government body or another person authorized by him acting on his behalf (for example, administration of a state unitary enterprise, state or municipal institution) on the provision of a citizen who is not provided with living quarters in the corresponding settlement, specialized living quarters.

Based on the above explanations, the administration of a state unitary enterprise has the right to conclude contracts with citizens for the lease of specialized residential premises located at the enterprise on the basis of the right of economic management.

Consequently, the Federal State Unitary Enterprise “Scientific and Experimental Marine Biotechnological Center“ Bolshoy Utrish ”, as established by the court of cassation, which possessed the said real estate on the basis of the right of economic management, had the right to conclude, on behalf of the owner of the said hostel, the Russian Federation, a lease agreement for specialized living quarters.

The conclusion of the court of second instance on the absence of grounds for recognizing the tenders of November 13, 2007 for the right to conclude a lease agreement for the dormitory building and the transaction concluded on the basis of their results dated November 16, 2007 invalid contradicts the requirements of the law.

Part 1 of Article 17 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation determines that the living quarters are intended for citizens to live.

In this regard, in order to conclude a lease agreement for the building of the said hostel with a legal entity, in this case Chernomorsky Medical Center LLC, whose main activity, as established by the court of first instance, is the activities of sanitary and resort institutions, it is necessary to transfer it to non-residential premises.

According to Part 1 of Article 23 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, the transfer of residential premises into non-residential premises and non-residential premises into residential premises is carried out by a local government body.

The decision to transfer or to refuse to transfer the premises must be made based on the results of consideration of the relevant application and other documents submitted in accordance with Part 2 of this article by the body carrying out the transfer of premises, no later than forty-five days from the date of submission of these documents to this body ( Part 4 of Article 23 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation).

Based on the provisions of the above legal norms, evidence of the acquisition of non-residential status by a residential premises is only a decision of the local government on the appropriate transfer.

Meanwhile, the case materials do not contain the decision of the local government to transfer the said hostel building to non-residential premises.

In addition, the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Krasnodar Regional Court indicated that the court of first instance did not give a proper legal assessment to the technical passport of the Anapa BTI, compiled as of September 27, 2002, and extracts from the Unified State Register of Real Estate Rights presented in the case materials. property and transactions with it, according to which the disputed building of the hostel has the status of a non-residential building.

At the same time, the panel of judges comes to the conclusion that the decision of the first instance court was canceled and a new decision was made in the case.

Meanwhile, the indication by the court of cassation on the need for additional examination of the evidence in the case is the basis for referring the case for a new consideration to the court of first instance, and not for making a new decision on the case.

The court of cassation concluded that the disputed residential premises could not be an object of housing rights, since the expert opinion of January 24, 2011 No. 304/10, made by an expert of the Expert Information and Legal Bureau, established that the disputed apartment does not correspond the requirements of building codes and regulations and other standards.

The procedure for recognizing a dwelling as unfit for living is enshrined in the Regulation on recognizing a premise as a dwelling, a dwelling as unfit for living and an apartment building

emergency and subject to demolition or reconstruction, approved by the Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated January 28, 2006 No. 47.

There is no information in the materials of the case that the disputed property was declared unfit for habitation in accordance with the procedure established by law, and therefore the conclusion of the court of cassation cannot be recognized as correct.

Articles of laws on Case No. 18-B12-18

As part of the judicial reform, in accordance with the Federal Constitutional Laws "On the Judicial System of the Russian Federation" and "On Arbitration Courts in the Russian Federation", a unified judicial system has been created in the country. It also includes federal arbitration courts.

Arbitration courts are specialized courts for resolving property, commercial disputes between enterprises. They also consider claims of entrepreneurs to invalidate acts of state bodies that violate their rights and legitimate interests. These are tax, land and other disputes arising from administrative, financial and other legal relations. Arbitration courts consider disputes involving foreign entrepreneurs.

Dormitories and service housing

HOSTELS AND OFFICE HOUSING

Conclusion of a social rent agreement or privatization of housing in a former departmental dormitory

The introductory law to the RF Housing Code (Art. 7) transferred all former departmental dormitories to social hiring if they were transferred to municipal ownership. The local administration must conclude an unconditional social employment contract with the lawfully universes. If the hostel was previously illegally privatized by the asset holding company, then the citizens who moved in before the privatization of the hostel can privatize the occupied housing. In practice, the local authorities will invent the following illegal conditions:

Have a low-income status and be registered with housing,

Have no other place to live

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,

Other.

Here you need to contact the local administration (in the case of privatization of a hostel - also to the owner of the building) with an application for the privatization of the occupied (previously provided) dwelling, and the received refusal to appeal to the court.

It is necessary to submit the available documents on the status of the residential building, documents on moving in (in the absence of a warrant - the decision of the administration, receipts for payment for housing and communal services for the longest possible period), a financial personal account and an extract from the house book, a floor plan and explication of the BTI, information on non-participation in privatization at the previous addresses of residence since August 1991 (as well as on residence there), state duty and some others.

The available judicial practice allows us to decide in favor of the principals controversial cases of finding premises in non-residential premises, the presence of unlawful redevelopment, moving into a bed, the presence of registration (registration) at a different address, etc.

Specialists of the human rights organization "Voskhod" held numerous litigations in court in such cases, the overwhelming majority of which ended in favor of the principals, and even achieved the recognition by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation as illegal of a number of provisions of resolutions of the Moscow Government restricting the rights of employers in former departmental hostels.

The transformation of the former departmental dormitories of the corridor layout into mega-communal facilities and the refusal to conclude a social rent agreement for the occupied (previously provided) rooms without taking into account the areas of common building auxiliary premises

Article 7 of the Introductory Law to the RF Housing Code 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 dormitories into mega-communal dormitories and agree to sign a social rent agreement only if the living room's footage of the corridor, vestibule, bathroom, kitchens, etc. is registered. Otherwise, the social rent agreement is not signed. As a result of exceeding the footage, your rent will increase and you can be removed from the housing register.

Several Moscow courts have repeatedly found it illegal to impose social lease agreements with oversized footage, but unfortunately, the Moscow State Property Inspectorate continues its vicious practice, forcing people to go to court.

In case of ineffectiveness of complaints to the higher authority and the prosecutor's office, it is necessary to apply to the court without missing the statute of limitations. To go to 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 authority and a refusal to conclude a social rent agreement (privatization) of a residential premises of an existing residential area.

The main problem in these cases is the too contradictory practice of the lower courts, and it is necessary to convince the judge of the correct interpretation of the legislation and the inadmissibility of transferring the former hostel to a mega-communal apartment the size of an entire floor.

After the successful completion of the litigation, we turn to the Moscow prosecutor's office with a demand to take measures of the prosecutor's response to another violation of the housing rights of Muscovites.

Privatization of service housing

The RF Law "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 does. In a number of cases, the landlord has no right to refuse to privatize office housing. These include, in particular, working off the landlord for more than 10 years (in Moscow), privatization of the hostel building by the landlord, and others.

The practice of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on these issues 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.

THE MOST IMPORTANT JUDICIAL PRACTICE

Hostel

The hostel transferred to municipal ownership automatically loses the status of a hostel and goes into social employment; a special decision of the local authorities about this is not required - the determination of the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of 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 service housing or a dormitory only if he has the right to non-eviction without providing other housing before March 1, 2005 - the determination of the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated November 26, 2013 . No. 39-KG13-4; dated 16.12.2014 No. 81-KG14-18) clause 43 of the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 02.07.2009 No. 14

When the family is in the housing register by March 2005, or there are grounds to be on it, as well as acquired during the period of validity of Art. 108 Housing Code of the RSFSR, benefits for non-eviction from housing in a hostel (for example, divorce in the presence of children), this family cannot be evicted from service 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 16.12.2014, No. 81-KG14-18)

The tenant settled according to the housing legislation of the RSFSR is recognized legally universes even in the absence of a warrant and a lease agreement, in the event of actual settling, residence and performance of the tenant's duties, if the right to use has not been challenged - the determination of the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of 04/23/2013 No. 5-KG13-41. The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation has confirmed its previous legal position

The court's refusal to invalidate the privatization of a dormitory building by a legal entity does not affect the ability of citizens to privatize the dwelling they occupy (). 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 utility 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 of 07.10.2014 No. 78-KG14-18 )

Moving into a non-residential premises on an order as an employee, with registration at the place of residence and compliance of the premises with the requirements for residential ones, does not allow it to be considered non-residential and evicted without the use of the RF Housing Code (to reclaim from someone else's illegal possession) - determination of the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court RF dated 01.04.2014 No. 18-KG14-7

Providing a citizen with a living space in a former working dormitory after the privatization of a dormitory building by an enterprise does not mean the emergence of a commercial lease relationship. In the event that a citizen moves into a previously occupied living space in the same hostel before the privatization of the hostel, his residence is regulated by the norms of the RF Housing Code on social hiring, since the existing Housing Code of the RSFSR did not provide for commercial hiring. The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation confirmed that the change by a citizen of a dwelling in a hostel, as a result of which the dwelling previously occupied by him does not retire from the possession of the owner (former landlord), but is only replaced by another dwelling, cannot serve as a basis for depriving him of the right to purchase in 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 - the determination of the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of 03.17.2015 No. 31-KG14 -9

OFFICE HOUSING

Departmental service housing, when transferred to municipal ownership, loses the status of service housing and automatically turns into social rental; a special decision of the local authority about this is not required -

The exclusion of housing from the departmental (military town from the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Defense of Russia) changes its status and affiliation (determination of the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of 08.07.14, No. 41-KG14-14)

Decree of the Moscow Government dated 05.08.2008 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 - the decision of the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 14.05.2013 No. No. 5-KG13-18
Housing rights of citizens living in service housing are determined by the legislation of the owner of the housing stock: federal, regional or municipal - the determination of the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 02.07.2013 No. 16-KG13-8

Article 13 of the Introductory Law to the RF Housing Code supplements the established part 2 of Art. 103 of the RF Housing Code of guarantees of non-resettlement without providing other housing for citizens moved into hostels and service housing before the RF Housing Code is put into effect (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 RF LCD

The grounds for not being evicted from service housing due to injury or illness under Part 2 of Art. 103 ZhK RF is the presence of their causal relationship with the performance of duties of military service - the definition of the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of 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 on its assignment to a service building does not confirm the existence of a service status. In this regard, the norms of the law on eviction from service housing are inapplicable -