Is it possible to privatize specialized residential premises? How to privatize service housing: step-by-step instructions

The Law on Privatization (Articles 1, 2, 3, 11, etc.) clearly states that privatization of housing is possible only in houses of the state and municipal housing stock.

Taking into account the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, which defines the concepts of “right of state property” and “right of municipal property”, it should be noted that we are talking about property (housing stock) of the Russian Federation (federal property), housing stock owned by the constituent entities of the Russian Federation - republics, territories, regions, cities of federal significance (Moscow and St. Petersburg), autonomous regions and autonomous okrugs (property of constituent entities of the Russian Federation). This housing stock, which is in federal ownership and the property of constituent entities of the Russian Federation, belongs to the state housing stock (Article 214 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). It may be under the economic control or operational management of state enterprises and institutions. The housing stock owned by urban and rural settlements, as well as other municipal entities, belongs to the municipal housing stock (Article 215 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). This fund is also assigned to municipal enterprises and institutions that own, use and manage it in accordance with the law. In particular, on the basis of the Law on Privatization, state and municipal enterprises and institutions, on behalf of the owner of the housing stock, independently decide the issue of transferring specific residential premises into the ownership of citizens; in other words, they are a party to the agreement for the transfer of residential premises through privatization.

Currently, these provisions regarding types of housing stock are enshrined in Art. 19 Housing Code of the Russian Federation.

Depending on the form of ownership, the housing stock is divided into:

– private housing stock – a set of residential premises owned by citizens and legal entities;

– state housing stock – a set of residential premises owned by the Russian Federation (housing stock of the Russian Federation) and the constituent entities of the Russian Federation (housing stock of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation);

– municipal housing stock – a set of residential premises owned by municipalities.

Depending on the purpose of use, the housing stock is divided into:

– housing stock for social use – a set of residential premises provided to citizens under social tenancy agreements in the state and municipal housing stock;

– specialized housing stock – a set of residential premises intended for residence of certain categories of citizens in the state and municipal housing stock;

- individual housing stock - a set of residential premises in a private housing stock, which are used by citizens - owners of these premises for their residence, the residence of members of their family and (or) for the residence of other citizens on the basis of free use, as well as legal entities - owners of these premises for residence of citizens under the specified conditions of use;

– housing stock for commercial use - a set of residential premises in a private housing stock, which are used by the owners of these premises for the residence of citizens on the basis of paid use or are provided by the owners of these premises on the basis of a lease or other agreement to persons for possession and (or) use.

Privatization of housing is possible only in houses of the state and municipal housing stock, and specifically: in the housing stock for social use (those residential premises that are provided and used on the basis of a social tenancy agreement). This follows from the current civil and housing legislation. However, at the first stage the privatization of public housing stock was also carried out.

In the resolution of the Supreme Council of the RSFSR “On the implementation of the RSFSR Law “On the privatization of housing stock in the RSFSR”” (1991), public associations (organizations) were recommended to transfer and sell housing in their ownership into the ownership of citizens under the conditions provided for state and municipal housing stock. This also applied to housing stock owned by trade unions. The extension of the conditions for the privatization of housing in state and municipal housing stock to public housing stock was due to the fact that these three types of housing stock belonged to the so-called socialized housing stock (housing stock of organizations). The legal regime for the use of these residential premises was almost the same.

Today, citizens living in the above residential buildings (previously included in the public housing stock) have no legal basis for the privatization of occupied premises, since the property of public associations, including the housing stock, after the adoption of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation (1994) acquired a different legal regime . It refers to a private form of ownership, and, therefore, there can be no talk of privatization of housing in accordance with the Law on Privatization. The transfer of residential premises in this fund to citizens is now possible only on the basis of civil transactions, including under a gift agreement. This approach was confirmed in the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated August 24, 1993 No. 8 “On some issues of application by courts of the Law of the Russian Federation “On the privatization of housing stock in the Russian Federation””: “Citizens living under a rental or rental agreement in public housing buildings do not have such a right on the basis of the Law of the Russian Federation “On the Privatization of Housing Stock in the Russian Federation.” At the same time, the owner of a public housing stock or a body authorized by him can independently decide on the free transfer of residential premises occupied by them to citizens. If a dispute arises in this case, it should be resolved based on the conditions established by the owner and the procedure for transferring housing into the ownership of the citizens living in it.” Here it is necessary to make a clarification: the original version of this Law provided for the privatization of residential premises occupied under a lease agreement; Now this provision is absent from the Law.

In addition, the issue of the property of public associations is regulated by the Federal Law of May 19, 1995 No. 82-FZ “On Public Associations”, according to which the legal capacity of a public association as a legal entity arises from the moment of state registration of this association. A public association can carry out its activities without forming a legal entity, but in this case it cannot own property. Only public associations that are legal entities can own the property necessary to support their activities, including housing stock. The law defines the sources of formation of the property of a public association (entrance and membership fees, voluntary contributions and donations, etc.), and the established procedure for the formation of the property of public associations allows us to conclude that their property belongs to private ownership and the owners of the property are the public associations themselves - legal persons, with the exception of cases of formation of public institutions, to which property is assigned with the right of operational management.

In other words, current legislation classifies the property of public associations (including housing stock) as private ownership. And in relation to the private housing stock, the concept of “privatization” is not applicable at all.

Free housing can be obtained by those citizens who do not have their own square meters and cannot resolve this issue on their own. Housing may be provided by local authorities or the employer. At first glance, there is no particular difference for settled citizens, but in fact the difference is significant. Municipal property is issued for indefinite use, and official property is issued only for the duration of work duties.

In accordance with the Privatization Law, it is impossible to transfer official housing into personal property, since it belongs neither to the state nor to municipal authorities.

However, there are many nuances that will allow you to privatize a residential premises, even if it has the status of official.

The privatization procedure is regulated by Law No. 1541-1, which was put into effect on July 4, 1991. This regulatory act defines the conditions for participation in the program for obtaining municipal property into private ownership. There are three main criteria:

1. The procedure is free of charge.
2. The decision to privatize is made independently and voluntarily.
3. You can privatize living space once.

For many years, the Law had deadlines for implementation, which limited the possibilities of using the right to privatization. But in February 2018, this restriction was lifted so as not to infringe on the interests of those citizens who did not have time to exercise their right.

Legislative norms governing the privatization procedure establish some restrictions. According to them, the following cannot be privatized:

1. Emergency residential facilities.
2. Rooms located in dormitory buildings.
3. Residential area, which is located on the territory of closed military camps.
4. Service housing.

Other reasons for refusal are considered unfounded and are subject to challenge.

Purpose of official housing

Service housing is premises allocated by employers to their employees to temporarily solve their housing problem.

Not every employer can boast of having their own housing stock. Large organizations and enterprises purchase real estate specifically for the opportunity to attract smart specialists to work without being tied to their search geographically. Many public sector employees also live in service apartments, for example, employees of the Ministry of Defense.

Service-type housing, although provided free of charge for living, still has significant differences from social apartments. The square meters allocated by the employer are provided to the employee under a rental agreement with a clear limitation on the period of residence in it - for the duration of work. If an employee is dismissed at his own request or due to gross violations of labor discipline, he loses the right to continue to be in the premises and must leave it as soon as possible.

Despite the differences in concepts, they also have similarities. An employee who has received the right to occupy the provided square meters has the right to move his family members there; moreover, when determining the size of the premises, they must be taken into account. Residents must register at their place of residence and fulfill the duties assigned to them by the tenancy agreement, taking into account the norms of the Housing Code.

Restrictions on privatization

Privatization as a procedure cannot be applied in every case. To carry it out, certain conditions must be present. According to the law, every citizen has the right to privatize living space, but only those who live in social premises legally, that is, have registration and a social tenancy agreement concluded with the local administration, can use it. Office premises do not fit into these categories because:

1. They are provided not by the state, but by a specific employer.
2. Between the parties there is simply a rental agreement, not a social lease agreement.

And the object itself is on the balance sheet of the enterprise, not the municipality, which does not allow it to be classified as real estate subject to privatization.

All these restrictions and conditions do not deny the very possibility of privatization. But unlike municipal property, office premises can be transferred to the category of private property only by permitting.

Many enterprises establish certain criteria, after fulfilling which the employee can privatize the allocated housing. This may be an additional measure to reward its employees for long and responsible work or a way to attract qualified personnel. Sometimes the privatization of official housing is carried out not thanks to, but in spite of, if the enterprise needs to get rid of the housing stock and responsibility for its maintenance.

Conditions for transfer of ownership

The privatization of official housing, except for the clear prohibition set out in Law No. 1541-1, is not regulated in any way. But in recent years, cases of litigation over the right to privatize such objects have become more frequent, so by 2018, some practice had developed, which is explained by the decisions of the Supreme Court and clarifications from it. When deciding on the possibility of residents of departmental premises obtaining property rights, one should be guided by the articles of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation and take into account the constitutional rights of citizens. These regulatory documents allow you to coordinate controversial relationships and make the right decisions in difficult situations.

Privatization of departmental housing can be carried out by those persons who live there under a lease agreement concluded with the tenant and have not lost the right to use it. You can become the owner of office premises in two cases:

1. The tenant who legally owns the allocated square meters agrees to the procedure.
2. For a number of reasons, the living space lost its official status.

The variability of situations in each individual case allows us to expand the range of opportunities for those wishing to privatize departmental housing.

Owner's consent

Municipal housing can be privatized on a general basis; the administration can deny this right only based on the prohibitions set out in Law No. 1541-1. Departmental premises are privatized according to a different principle – licensing.

An employee of the Ministry of Defense or any other organization living in official housing has the right to submit an application for privatization, but only the employer himself decides whether to approve it or not. The absence of federal regulations in this area allows owners to set their own rules. Some enterprises regulate these procedures with internal local acts, which may contain information about who, when and under what conditions can obtain ownership rights to departmental square meters.

In some cases, you can do without the owner’s consent. Thus, military personnel receive the right to free square meters, which can be privatized in the following cases:

1. The serviceman was transferred to the reserve due to length of service.
2. The dismissal was made earlier due to health reasons.
3. Family members of a soldier who died in the line of duty.
4. The premature transfer to the reserve took place due to organizational and staffing measures.

Long-term cooperation with the employer is a good reason to obtain ownership rights, but does not guarantee it.

Removing service status

In 2006, a decision was made that obligated all owners of official living space to register it in the appropriate status.

Employers had to submit an application to Rosreestr, supported by documents, with a request to assign the facility departmental status. Not everyone has taken advantage of this right, and today there are many residential premises that, although they were issued by tenants, are currently not listed as either departmental housing or municipal housing. Often such confusion was caused by enterprise reorganizations, bankruptcy and liquidation.

The absence of any official status gives the right to residents living in such living space to carry out privatization. This is legally regulated by Article 7 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, which clearly states that relations that do not fall under any regulatory document are regulated by housing standards that are suitable in this situation. Citizens file a lawsuit to recognize their right to the privatization procedure in relation to the disputed object.

Tenants have the right to independently transfer residential properties to the municipal fund. As soon as the transition has been documented, Law No. 1541-1 comes into force in relation to housing and it becomes possible to privatize it on a general basis.

Procedure for transfer of ownership

If you want to privatize departmental residential premises, you should be prepared for the fact that the process itself will differ from the standard procedure and take longer. If there are grounds for transfer of rights or the owner’s consent to this procedure, step by step it will look like this:

1. An application is written addressed to the tenant with a request to allow the privatization of the living space.
2. Permission is obtained from the employer.
3. A package of documents is being collected for the local administration. Its completeness should be clarified in advance, as it may differ from the standard one.
4. An application is being written for the privatization of the specified premises.
5. The papers are transferred to the Housing Department of the locality where the property is located.
6. Documents are reviewed for the allotted time, as a result of which a decision is made to allow or deny the procedure. The refusal must be motivated.
7. Approval of the application allows you to conclude a privatization agreement, which actually confirms the transfer of ownership rights to the housing.

Having received an agreement on the transfer of ownership rights, it is necessary to register them in the prescribed manner - through Rosreestr.

Submitting an application

Preparing an application begins with collecting documents. This stage is extremely important, since papers should be collected for all persons living in the premises. This list must include:

1. Passports of all residents over 14 years of age.
2. Birth certificate for children under 14 years of age.
3. Consent to privatization or refusal of it.
4. The tenant's permission to transfer ownership.
5. Rental agreement for living space.
6. Cadastral and technical passport of the premises.
7. Certificates stating that citizens have not previously privatized municipal or official housing.
8. Extract from the Unified State Register of Real Estate.

The list may be supplemented with other forms.

The application is written on specially designed forms. They can be obtained from the housing department or downloaded on the Internet. The application form contains a large amount of information. In particular, the following data is entered into it:

1. About the property owner.
2. Participants in the privatization process.
3. Residential property.
4. About the desire to become private owners of square meters.

The correctness of filling out the application, as well as the complete set of documents for it, is checked by the specialist accepting the application. After registering the application, you must wait for the final verdict, which will be announced within a month.

Owner's decision

Privatization of service housing begins with the decision of the owner. You can get it by submitting an application to your employer. This document is written arbitrarily, the main thing is that it contains the following points:

1. On what basis and when was the residential premises allocated?
2. Information about the premises.
3. The number of persons living in the apartment, including all registered family members.
4. What reasons, in the applicant’s opinion, are decisive for issuing permission to transfer ownership.

The statement must fully explain the employee's position. It would be a good idea to support what has been said with references to internal regulations or state legislation.

The owner of the living space makes a decision not based on his personal opinion and preferences. He must take into account whether there are justified reasons for refusal or, conversely, approval. For example, the organization’s Charter may stipulate that after serving a certain continuous period, an employee has the right to privatize living space or other conditions.

The owner issues a decision in writing, regardless of whether it is positive or negative. The paper is certified by the manager’s signature and a round seal and must be registered as an outgoing document.

Conclusion of an agreement

A positive outcome of privatization is expressed in the conclusion of an agreement on the transfer of ownership rights. This document is concluded between the current and future owner of the residential premises. The agreement is drawn up according to the rules established by the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation. It must contain comprehensive information about the procedure being carried out, the rights and obligations of the new owner after taking possession.

The privatization agreement is proof that the office premises have passed into the possession of these citizens. It is filled out as follows:

1. Information about the residential premises is entered - address, size of the total and living area, number of rooms, etc.
2. Information about each participant in the agreement. Please note that the agreement includes information about all residents who receive their share of the premises.
3. The size of the shares is determined for each.
4. Information about the rental agreement, which allowed move-in and gives the right to stay.
5. Grounds for transfer of property.
6. Responsibilities assigned to new owners.

The agreement is signed by all participants in the privatization and by the representative of the municipal government responsible for the privatization of residential properties.

State registration

State registration of real estate is a mandatory procedure that is carried out after any change of rights. Owners who have privatized official living space can exercise the full range of their rights only after state registration.

The state registration procedure is carried out as follows:

1. Documents are being prepared. Identity cards of all co-owners, technical and cadastral passport, privatization agreement.
2. A state fee is paid for entering information.
3. A statement is being written.

The entire package of documents is submitted to the specialist for registration.

You can undergo state registration by submitting papers to Rosreestr or MFC. The re-registration process takes no more than 10 days, after which you can dispose of the property at your own discretion. The new owner can sell the home, rent it out, donate it, bequeath it, or make it the subject of collateral. Additional consent for such actions from the former owner is not required.

Resolving controversial issues

The instructions for privatization look simple, but in the case of official living space, most residents have to resolve many controversial issues before receiving the legal right to real estate. Situations in which one party cannot reach an agreement with the other are resolved in court.

The reasons for the dispute may be different, but the final requirements are always identical - to recognize the right to privatization. The lack of clear legislative norms allowing for the privatization of official housing often leads to negative results in filed claims. However, the desire to exercise your rights and protect your interests allows you to achieve the impossible and win litigation.

Going to court

Legal proceedings regarding the privatization of official housing in most cases are initiated by citizens living in such premises. When going to court, they should prepare as follows:

1. Collect evidence that will allow you to defend your claims. This stage requires maximum preparation; the more forms are collected, the higher the likelihood of receiving a positive verdict.
2. File a claim. Experts say that a properly drafted claim is the key to success. In complex and confusing situations, it is better not to write it yourself, but to contact a qualified lawyer.
3. Pay the state fee.

The defendant is notified of the filed claim without fail. He can also justify his position and provide documentary evidence that he is right.

The decision is made on the basis of all the facts covered in strict accordance with current legislation. In controversial situations regarding privatization, the court most often takes the side of the residents, confirming their right to housing.

Arbitrage practice

A striking example of resolving a controversial issue was the statement of claim, which was considered in the Yaroslavl region. The plaintiff went to court to protect his interests and the rights of the minor child who lives with him. On the merits of the matter, he reported the following:

1. In 1988, my father got a job at a company that gave him a service apartment.
2. In 1998, he quit his job, but the employer did not indicate the need to evict him, so he continued to live in the allocated apartment.
3. At the moment, the father has died, and the son and his child are registered and live in the indicated premises.
4. The plaintiff decided to privatize the living space and found out that this property was transferred to the balance of the city.
5. He applied to the local administration with a request for privatization, but was refused due to the lack of a social lease agreement.
6. The request to conclude an agreement was rejected on the grounds that this premises is official and is listed in a special housing stock.

Due to the fact that the plaintiff has been living in the premises for a long time, and his right to stay there was not challenged by the previous owner of the property, the court decided to fully satisfy the applicant’s demands and allow him to carry out the privatization procedure in equal shares for himself and the minor.

Official housing is an apartment that belongs to a government agency or a specific organization. Such housing is provided to employees and employees for temporary residence. These apartments are registered with a specialized housing stock.

When a state or organization provides such housing to an employee or employee, a rental agreement is concluded with him. This agreement applies only for the duration of the employment relationship.

A departmental apartment can be returned to the state or organization at any time, and the rental agreement is terminated by agreement of the parties or the personal initiative of the tenant. Cancellation of the agreement is possible through the judicial authorities if citizens living in the apartment do not fulfill their obligations for the proper maintenance of housing or for other reasons. Let's figure out whether it is possible to privatize official housing into ownership.

Legislation and relevance of the issue of privatization of official housing

The property is transferred to a specialized housing stock based on an application to the City Administration, which must be submitted by the body or organization where the employee works. Based on the Law, housing located on the first floors is allocated for departmental apartments. The city council considers the application and makes a decision to include the apartment in the departmental real estate, which is then provided to the employee for use.

Today, as many years ago, the number of service apartments is significant. This question does not lose its relevance in our time, since there are many professions, and therefore workers, who must live at the place of their activity or not far from this place. These include:

• housing and communal services workers;
• customs officials, tax inspectorate;
• rescuers;
• fisheries workers;
• military officers;
• wipers and so on.

Privatization of housing is formalized in accordance with the Law “On Privatization” No. 1541-1 dated July 4, 1991.

The decree of the President of our country states that a citizen can privatize official housing only once. In addition, you can privatize a service apartment if the owner of the housing stock (a government agency or organization) takes this step. After all, many people have worked all their lives in one or another organization or government agency and they have no other housing to live there after retirement. In this way, social support for these citizens is provided.

Conditions and documents for registration of housing

The law on the privatization of housing in the Russian Federation allows subjects to independently establish conditions and rules for the privatization of departmental apartments in each specific region. This means that organizations or government agencies can make decisions about privatization on their own initiative.

Who can privatize

Carrying out privatization of an apartment is the right of the organization, but not an obligation. Therefore, the employee must only submit an application and hope for a positive decision. A person must work at the enterprise for at least 10 years in order to be able to apply for privatization.

The list of persons who can receive and formalize the privatization of an apartment includes:

• deputies;
• officials;
• military personnel;
• employees of the Ministry of Emergency Situations and police;
• customs officials, Federal Tax Service, judges, forestry and fisheries workers;
• teachers and doctors.

Thus, valuable personnel are attracted to work. Thanks to this special program, now every employee who has worked for many years in a government agency can obtain housing ownership.

The company has the right to consider the application within 2 months and when a positive response is given, an agreement is concluded between the employee and the company on the transfer of ownership of the apartment.

List of documents

First, the employee must submit an application to the owner of the housing stock with a request to privatize the apartment. Once this application has been approved, written permission must be obtained from the application. You also need to prepare the following documents:

It is necessary to obtain extracts from house books at the addresses where the family has lived since 1991. It is also necessary to pay the state fee and attach a receipt for payment to the package of documents.

The first step is to obtain written permission from the property owner. Then you need to go to the BTI to obtain a cadastral passport. When these documents are ready, having collected the entire package of documentation, you should contact the reception of the Housing Policy Department.

If the service housing was built or acquired as the property of a commercial organization, it can be privatized. But you must first obtain permission in writing from the owner of the company to transfer this housing to a citizen. When the resolution is put forward and the permit is already in hand, you can begin to collect documents for the privatization process.

If the service housing previously belonged to a state or municipal institution, and then such an organization transferred its housing stock to local governments. Privatization of an apartment in this case is possible if the institution operates in the same legal form as at the time of transfer of funds, that is, there has been no reorganization, privatization of the organization or its transformation into a joint-stock company. If the organization does not transfer the apartment to the municipality, then citizens living in this premises do not have the right to privatize it

If service housing “hangs” on the balance sheet of former state-owned enterprises that have long been privatized or reorganized into commercial organizations, this indicates the reluctance of the municipality to take ownership of the housing stock. But this will not entail restrictions on the rights of citizens to transfer ownership of an apartment and conclude a social tenancy agreement.

Resolution of the issue in court

A service apartment can be privatized only if the owner agrees to exclude this living space from his housing stock. Employers are usually not interested in changing the status of their apartments and therefore may refuse an employee to transfer housing to the municipality. However, they have every right not to indicate the reason for their decision.

The only option for the employee is to file a lawsuit. Only on the basis of a positive court decision in favor of the employee, the local government body will be able to exclude the apartment from the number of official ones. Based on the court decision, the executive committee decides on such actions.

But it is not so easy to achieve a positive decision. There are many decisions in the courts that are not in favor of the plaintiffs. This indicates the absence of any rules that would oblige owners to allow the transfer of service apartments to municipal ones. However, employees turn to the courts, especially those citizens who have worked for many years in one institution or organization, because they have no other housing after retirement.

Arbitrage practice

When applying to the court, it is necessary to indicate the period of work in the institution or organization of the owner of the housing stock. As judicial practice shows, these indicators can be of great importance for the court. If a person has worked his entire life in a government agency, and after retirement, he has nowhere to live, since the owner demands that the apartment be returned to the enterprise fund, refusing to change the housing status. In this case, only the court will help the citizen not to be left homeless.

A refusal of a positive decision may follow if there is evidence of improper use of housing or when data on the length of work was deliberately overstated by the employee.

There have been cases in judicial practice when a positive decision in favor of the plaintiff was made, but it was not implemented. Then the employee can file a lawsuit again and the decision will be made as quickly as possible with a positive outcome.

Thus, if the legal right to obtain housing ownership based on a court decision is not fulfilled for any reason, then the state must ensure the implementation of this right.

The owner will be required to change the status of the service apartment and transfer it to the municipality. Registration of property rights takes place in the bodies that carry out state registration of rights to real estate on the basis of a decision of the judicial authorities.

Video: Advice from a lawyer on how to privatize official housing

Let's sum it up

• To privatize a service apartment, it is necessary to change its status from service to municipal. This can be done based on the decision of the owner and the city executive committee.

• Government institutions and organizations can independently decide on the transfer of housing to the municipality and privatization

• A citizen who wants to privatize a service apartment must have a written decision in hand.

• The right to privatization can be used by every employee who lives in a service apartment and has worked for the owner’s state-owned enterprise for at least 10 years.

• In addition to the written decision, it is necessary to prepare a package of other important documents.

• The procedure for privatizing a service apartment is very simple if there is a decision by the owner.

• If such a decision cannot be obtained, then you can file a lawsuit.

• Judicial practice shows that it is difficult to achieve a positive court decision, but this is possible if a person has worked in an institution for a long time.

(Feofilaktov A.S.) (“Housing Law”, 2010, No. 2)

PRIVATIZATION OF RESIDENTIAL PREMISES IN SPECIALIZED HOUSING FACILITIES: PROBLEMS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT PRACTICE

A. S. FEOFILAKTOV

Feofilaktov A. S., head of the legal department of the State Educational Institution of Higher Professional Education "Vladimir State University".

Housing rights of citizens are among the most significant in the system of human rights at the present stage of state development. The economic situation in our country today is such that for many citizens, purchasing residential property is either extremely difficult from a financial point of view or completely impossible due to low income and high housing costs.

The privatization of residential premises of the state and municipal funds, introduced by the legislator in 1991, has become one of the most common grounds for the emergence of citizens' ownership rights to residential premises. Since the adoption of the first edition of the Law of the Russian Federation “On the privatization of the housing stock of the Russian Federation,” the procedure and conditions for free transfer of ownership to individuals have been repeatedly changed and supplemented. During the validity of this Law, a new Housing Code of the Russian Federation was adopted, which significantly influenced the status of various types of housing stock, and as a consequence, the rules for their privatization. Due to the fact that the legislator set an expiration date for the right of citizens to free privatization of the premises they occupy, in the last few years the number of legal disputes regarding the right to privatize residential premises has increased significantly, which, in turn, has identified a number of problems in law enforcement practice and differences in approaches to the interpretation of legal norms. Among civil cases considered by courts of general jurisdiction on issues of housing privatization, disputes regarding claims by citizens for the right to receive ownership of residential premises located in houses of a specialized housing stock deserve special attention. This circumstance is due to the fact that in the period before the Housing Code of the Russian Federation came into force, many multi-apartment residential buildings did not have a clearly defined status or the status established in official documents did not correspond to the actual condition of residential premises. Many problematic issues of privatization of specialized housing stock not regulated by legislation are resolved only by judicial practice in specific cases. At the same time, over the past few years, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation has given a fairly large number of clarifications on this category of judicial disputes, which, it should be said, are interpreted differently by different courts. Thus, there is, on the one hand, the importance and significance of the problem of privatization of specialized housing stock for thousands of families in Russia, on the other hand, there is legislative uncertainty of many issues related to the resolution of such cases. First of all, you need to decide what a specialized housing stock is under current legislation. Article 92 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation provides for seven types of specialized housing stock, including: - service residential premises; - residential premises located in dormitories; - residential premises of the maneuverable stock; — living quarters in houses of the social service system; — residential premises of the fund for temporary settlement of internally displaced persons; — residential premises of the fund for the temporary settlement of refugees; - residential premises for the social protection of individual citizens. Specialized housing stock is state (federal or regional) or municipal property and can be recognized as such only after a decision is made by an authorized body of state power or local government in the manner prescribed by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of January 26, 2006 N 42<1>. ——————————— <1>Collection of legislation of the Russian Federation. 02/06/2006. N 6. Art. 697.

Comments: Eva Shipunova, Ph.D., lawyer. Indeed, citizens have the right to privatize residential premises free of charge until March 1, 2010 (Federal Law of December 29, 2004 N 189-FZ “On the entry into force of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation”). At the same time, taking into account the fact that currently approximately 15 - 18% of citizens have not yet managed to privatize residential premises, the State Duma of the Russian Federation is considering in the first reading a bill to amend this Law in terms of extending the privatization period for three years (http:/ /www.duma.gov.ru/).

If we analyze the existing judicial practice on citizens' claims for the privatization of residential premises, it should be emphasized that the vast majority of disputes in this area are related to official housing, as well as premises located in dormitories. These types of specialized housing stock have existed almost from the very beginning of the Soviet period in the history of the Russian Federation and have been provided to citizens in the largest quantities for many years.

PRIVATIZATION OF OFFICE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES

First of all, it should be said that, by virtue of Article 93 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, office residential premises are understood to be those premises that are intended for the residence of citizens in connection with the performance of their duties under an employment contract with state authorities, local governments, state or municipal enterprises and institutions, as well as in connection with the appointment or election to government positions at the federal and regional levels. The decision to provide a citizen with residential premises is made by its owner, taking into account that in this case this is a public legal entity, which is acted on behalf of an authorized government body. A rental agreement is concluded with the person who is provided with office housing in the prescribed form, which is approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated January 26, 2006 N 42. Law of the Russian Federation dated July 4, 1991 N 1541-1 “On the privatization of housing stock in the Russian Federation” in article 4 indicated that office residential premises are not subject to privatization. However, in paragraph 2 of the same article there is a reservation that the owners of the housing stock, as well as bodies authorized by them or enterprises and institutions to which the official housing stock is assigned with the right of operational management or economic management, have the right to make decisions on the privatization of official residential premises.

Comments: Eva Shipunova, Ph.D., lawyer. I would like to note that this rule on the need to classify specialized residential premises as part of the state or municipal housing stock is also observed in judicial practice. Thus, when considering a claim for the eviction of S. from a service apartment due to the expiration of the employment contract, the court found that the residential premises were built by the plaintiff (ZAO Syzranskoye) at his own expense. Residential premises were not transferred to state or municipal ownership. Therefore, the court rightly concluded that a commercial lease agreement had been concluded between the parties and that S. had been evicted.<1>. ——————————— <1>Judicial practice in housing cases (Features of application of the new Housing Code) // Judicial Bulletin. June 2006 N 2(26); http://www. scourt. vens. ru/vestnik/vestnik26/63.

In judicial practice, one of the most important questions has arisen about which residential premises fall under the status of official premises, which entails a restriction of the right of the persons living in them to privatize this apartment. The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation gave a clear explanation in one of these cases. So, in particular, N. filed a lawsuit against the administration of the Central District of Tver, the administration of the city of Tver to protect the right to privatization, indicating that it was necessary to recognize as erroneous the entry in order No. 13593 dated July 5, 1989 that it is official, and also oblige the defendants to transfer ownership of the residential premises of apartment 2 in building 63 on the street to her. Simeonovskaya in Tver. By decision of the Central District Court of Tver dated September 15, 2005, N.’s claims were denied. The case was not considered in cassation. Based on the plaintiff’s supervisory complaint, the case was referred to the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, which overturned the decision of the trial court, pointing out the following circumstances. The court found that in accordance with decision No. 176-1 of June 19, 1989 of the executive committee of the Central District Council of People's Deputies of Kalinin (Tver), the industrial housing repair and maintenance department is allowed to use a separate two-room apartment No. 2 for office living space house 63 on the street. Kalyaeva (currently Simeonovskaya St.). By the minutes of the meeting of the workshop committee of the PZhREU of the Central District of Tver No. 8 dated June 22, 1989, this living space was provided to the mechanic of the Housing Department No. 3 N.I. and warrant No. 13597 dated July 5, 1989 was issued for a family of three. According to the divorce certificate issued by the registry office of the Tver administration on May 22, 1999, the marriage between N.I. and N. was terminated on May 22, 1999 based on the decision of the Central People's Court of Tver dated May 5, 1999. Currently, N. and her son N.A. live and are registered in the disputed residential area. Resolving the case and dismissing the claim, the court came to the conclusion that the residential area occupied by the plaintiff is for service and therefore, in accordance with Article 4 of the Law of the Russian Federation dated 07/04/1991 N 1541-1 “On the privatization of housing stock in the Russian Federation”, according to which office residential premises are not subject to privatization, it is not subject to privatization. In accordance with Article 101 of the Housing Code of the RSFSR, which was in force at that time, residential premises are included in the number of official premises by decision of the executive committee of the district, city, or city-district Council of People's Deputies. According to paragraph 2 of the Regulations on state registration of the housing stock in the Russian Federation, approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of October 13, 1997 N 1301, residential buildings, specialized buildings (dormitories, shelter hotels, houses of flexible stock, special houses) are subject to state registration, regardless of the form of ownership for single elderly people, boarding houses for the disabled, veterans and others), apartments, office premises, other residential premises in other buildings suitable for habitation. The inclusion of residential buildings and residential premises in the housing stock and exclusion from the housing stock are carried out in accordance with the housing legislation of the Russian Federation. From the foregoing it follows that after a decision is made to include residential space in the number of office premises, this residential premises must be registered as such with the state real estate registration authorities. Whereas the defendants did not present such evidence. Therefore, according to the applicant, the court unlawfully recognized the residential premises occupied by the plaintiff as official and refused to privatize this premises. In addition, if we assume that the disputed residential premises were official, then the court of first instance should have taken into account that no one made demands on N. to evict the said residential premises after N.I. left the said apartment, and also that Currently, she cannot be evicted from the residential premises she occupies without the provision of other residential premises in accordance with Article 13 of the Federal Law “On the Enforcement of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation”, which provides that citizens who live in service residential premises provided to them before the entry into force of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, are registered in accordance with paragraph 1 of part 1 of Article 51 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation as needing residential premises provided under social tenancy agreements, or have the right to be registered on this basis, cannot be evicted from the specified residential premises without the provision of other residential premises, if their eviction was not permitted by law before the entry into force of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation. Therefore, the court had grounds to admit that the disputed residential premises had lost the status of official premises and therefore, in accordance with Article 2 of the Law of the Russian Federation “On the privatization of housing stock in the Russian Federation”, it was subject to transfer into ownership through privatization<1>. ——————————— <1>Determination of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated June 23, 2006 N 35-B06-12.

Thus, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation emphasized that the ban on the privatization of official residential premises established by law is valid only if the residential premises are registered with the state registration authorities of rights to real estate and transactions with it as official residential premises. Otherwise, citizens have the right to exercise their right to privatize this residential premises, regardless of the fact that it was provided to them in connection with their work in a state or municipal institution. From the very beginning of the Law on the Privatization of Housing, the question arose as to whether a citizen has the right to obligatorily demand from the owner or other owner of residential premises on the basis of paragraph 2 of Article 4 of the Law of the Russian Federation “On the privatization of housing stock in the Russian Federation” to make a decision on the transfer to him ownership of the occupied service apartment or this issue is solely within the competence of the owner of the housing stock. It should be said that in most cases, the courts recognized the right of enterprises to independently decide whether or not to grant a particular citizen the right to privatize official housing, and claims to declare the refusal to privatize such apartments unlawful were not satisfied. This problem was finally resolved only by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, which considered the individual complaint of citizens about the inconsistency of the Constitution of the Russian Federation with such an interpretation by the courts of paragraph 2 of Article 4 of the above Law. The position of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation is of particular interest due to the fact that in the reasoning part the Court gave an interpretation of the legal status of service residential premises, which is still relevant after the introduction of the new Housing Code of the Russian Federation. In particular, the Determination of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation indicates the following circumstances. By the decision of the Prikubansky District Court dated August 27, 2004, left unchanged by the Determination of the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Karachay-Cherkess Republic dated October 12, 2004, the claims of N. A. Ivanova and M. K. Filkina for recognition of the refusal of privatization were refused. official residential premises are illegal. In her complaint to the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, citizen N.A. Ivanova asked to check the constitutionality of the provisions of Article 4 of the Law of the Russian Federation “On the privatization of housing stock in the Russian Federation”, according to which service residential premises are not subject to privatization, with the exception of the housing stock of state farms and other agricultural enterprises equated to them; owners of the housing stock or bodies authorized by them, as well as enterprises to which the housing stock is assigned with the right of full economic management, and institutions to whose operational management the housing stock is transferred, have the right to make decisions on the privatization of office residential premises. The applicant believed that the aforementioned provisions, allowing for a ban on the privatization of office residential premises and the possibility of such privatization depending on the consent of the owner (owner) of the housing, violate her rights guaranteed by Articles 19 (Part 1), 46 (Part 1) and 55 (Part 3 ) Constitution of the Russian Federation. Resolving the issues raised in the complaint, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation emphasized that the legislator, while defining the range of objects not subject to privatization, as a general rule introduced a ban on the privatization of office residential premises. Due to the legal position set forth by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation in Resolution No. 25-P dated November 3, 1998 in the case of verifying the constitutionality of certain provisions of Article 4 of the Law of the Russian Federation “On the privatization of housing stock in the Russian Federation”, the definition of the range of objects not subject to privatization cannot be considered a restriction of the rights and freedoms of a person and a citizen if the intended purpose of the residential premises, its location and other circumstances determining the peculiarities of the legal regime of housing exclude the possibility of transferring it to private ownership. Service residential premises, in accordance with Article 101 of the Housing Code of the RSFSR, are intended for occupancy by citizens who, due to the nature of their labor relations, must live at or near their place of work. The associated special legal regime of official living space, expressed in the peculiarities of the provision and use of it, its special functional purpose, which involves the occupation of official living space by a certain circle of workers, as well as its corresponding territorial location are factors that predetermine, in principle, the impossibility of privatization of official housing, which taking into account the legal position expressed by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation cannot be considered as a violation of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. At the same time, the legislator, fulfilling his duty to ensure the right of citizens to privatize housing and maintaining the necessary balance of their interests and the interests of the owners (owners) of the relevant housing stock, granted the latter the right to make decisions on the privatization of office residential premises. The grounds and conditions for making such decisions, taking into account the provisions of Article 72 (clause “k” of part 1) of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, may be established by the legislation of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation. Forcing the owner (owner) of the housing stock to transfer office residential premises into the ownership of citizens is unacceptable, since according to Article 9 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, citizens and legal entities, at their own discretion, exercise their civil rights. Thus, Article 4 of the Law of the Russian Federation “On the privatization of the housing stock in the Russian Federation” vests the owners of the housing stock or bodies authorized by them, as well as enterprises to which the housing stock is assigned with the right of economic management, and institutions to whose operational management the housing stock is transferred , the right to make decisions on the privatization of official residential premises, taking into account the admissibility of a general ban on the privatization of official residential premises, cannot in itself be considered a violation of any constitutional rights and freedoms of the applicant<1>. ——————————— <1>Ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated December 21, 2004 N 441-O “On the refusal to accept the complaint of citizen Nina Aleksandrovna Ivanova about the violation of her constitutional rights by the provisions of Article 4 of the Law of the Russian Federation “On the privatization of housing stock in the Russian Federation.”

Based on this legal position, it follows that the decision on the privatization of a service apartment is the exclusive right of the owner (holder of a limited property right) of this residential premises and it is not permissible to force him in court to forcibly provide this residential premises into the ownership of the tenant in the manner of privatization. This approach should also be considered justified due to the fact that, by virtue of Article 209 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, it is the owner who has the right to dispose of his property and a deviation from this rule would indicate a significant restriction of the owner’s rights without the necessary grounds. The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation confirmed the indicated approach of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation to the privatization of office residential premises even after the entry into force of the new Housing Code of the Russian Federation in one of the reviews of judicial practice. Thus, in particular, the lower courts were given an explanation that service residential premises are not subject to privatization, but the owners of the housing stock and their authorized bodies, as well as enterprises to which the housing stock is assigned the right of economic management, and institutions to whose operational management it is transferred housing stock has the right to make decisions on the possibility of privatization of office residential premises<1>. ——————————— <1>Review of legislation and judicial practice of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation for the first quarter of 2006, approved by the Resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated June 7 and 14, 2006.

One of the most significant problems for law enforcement practice in cases of declaring illegal the refusal to privatize official residential premises is the solution to the question of whether a citizen has the right to privatize an official apartment if the residential premises have passed from state ownership into the ownership of private organizations, including business companies and partnerships This circumstance is due to the fact that in the early - mid-90s, a fairly large number of state-owned enterprises were privatized through reorganization into joint-stock companies, while residential buildings with service living quarters, where employees of state-owned enterprises already lived, were transferred to the authorized capital of these companies. A typical example is the following case, which was also the subject of consideration in the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. Borisova G.V. filed a lawsuit against the limited liability companies "Nosta-Tyulgan" and "Agrofirma-Tyulgan" to conclude an agreement for the privatization of residential premises at the address: Orenburg region, Tyulgansky district, village. Tuguztemir, st. Tsentralnaya, 18, citing the fact that this living space was provided to her in 1991 by the Metallurg state farm as a young specialist. Since June 18, 1991, she has been registered in the house. Currently, this house is on the balance sheet of Agrofirma-Tyulgan LLC, which refused to privatize the residential premises to the plaintiff. Considering this refusal to be illegal, G.V. Borisova asked to oblige the defendants to enter into an agreement with her for the privatization of the occupied residential premises. By the decision of the Tyulgansky District Court of the Orenburg Region dated 02/11/2002, G.V. Borisova’s claim was satisfied: Agrofirma-Tyulgan LLC is obliged to conclude an agreement with G.V. Borisova for the privatization of residential premises at the address: s. Tugudtemir, Tyulgan district, Orenburg region, st. Tsentralnaya, 18. By the ruling of the judicial panel for civil cases of the Orenburg Regional Court dated May 28, 2002, the court decision was canceled and the case was sent for a new trial. By decision of the Tyulgansky District Court of the Orenburg Region dated October 7, 2002, the claim was rejected. The case was not considered in cassation. By the resolution of the Presidium of the Orenburg Regional Court dated December 23, 2002, the protest of the regional prosecutor was rejected and the court decision dated October 7, 2002 was left unchanged. In Borisov’s supervisory appeal, G.V. asks to uphold the decision of the Tyulgansky District Court of the Orenburg Region dated February 11, 2002, canceling all subsequent court decisions. By rulings of the judge of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated August 14, 2003 and September 26, 2003, the case was requested to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and transferred for consideration on the merits to the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. The Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation considered this case by way of supervisory review and overturned all the judicial acts that had taken place, pointing out the following circumstances. In resolving the dispute and dismissing the claim, the court proceeded from the fact that previously house 18 on the street. Central in the village. Tugudtemir belonged to the collective farm named after. Kalinin, there is no evidence that this collective farm was transformed into the state farm "Metallurg" and the latter provided the house about which the dispute arose to the plaintiff, there are no title documents for this house at present, ownership of it is in accordance with the established procedure not registered. In accordance with Article 2 of the Federal Law of July 4, 1991, with subsequent amendments and additions, “On the privatization of housing stock in the Russian Federation,” citizens of the Russian Federation occupying residential premises in the state and municipal housing stock, including housing stock under the economic management of enterprises or the operational management of institutions (departmental fund), on the terms of social rent, has the right, with the consent of all adult family members living together, as well as minors aged 14 to 18 years, to acquire ownership of these premises on the terms provided for by this Law, other regulations of the Russian Federation Federation and constituent entities of the Russian Federation. According to Article 4 of the same Federal Law, residential premises in disrepair, in dormitories, in houses of closed military camps, as well as service residential premises, with the exception of the housing stock of state farms and other agricultural enterprises equated to them, and located in rural areas housing stock of stationary institutions for social protection of the population. In this case, in accordance with Article 50 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the RSFSR (Article 56 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation) and taking into account the specific circumstances of the case, the defendants had to provide evidence that house 18 on the street. Central at the time of provision for use by the plaintiff did not belong to the state housing stock or was a service residential premises, i.e., it was not subject to privatization. Since they did not present such evidence and are absent in the case, the court had to proceed from the requirements of the above-mentioned norms of the Federal Law, taking into account that when a state enterprise transfers to another form of ownership, by virtue of Article 18 of the same Federal Law, the right to privatize residential premises is preserved. Under such circumstances, the appealed court decisions cannot be considered legal and they are subject to cancellation, and the case must be sent for a new consideration, since, as can be seen from the message of Agrofirma-Tyulgan LLC dated October 16, 2003, the said company was reorganized in the form of separating branches into independent enterprises. Therefore, during a new consideration, it is necessary to determine the proper defendant in the case.<1>. ——————————— <1>Determination of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated October 24, 2003 N 47-B03-4.

Thus, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in this case indicated that the burden of proving the fact that the residential premises are official and, as a consequence, not subject to privatization, lies with the defendant, i.e. the relevant enterprise against which the claim for recognition of the right to privatize office residential premises.

PROBLEMS OF PRIVATIZATION OF HOSTELS

Along with official residential premises, a significant number of citizens currently live in hostels of various types and types. For judicial practice, the problems of considering disputes regarding the privatization of such residential premises are also acute. This circumstance is due to the fact that during the Soviet period, a fairly large number of residential buildings had the status of a hostel, owned by government agencies and enterprises. After the start of the process of denationalization of the economic system, many houses, called hostels, passed into private hands or into municipal ownership, in addition, often hostels in fact ceased to be such, although in the title documentation they were still specialized housing stock. On many controversial issues, decisions were made by higher courts, which allowed local judicial authorities to form a certain law enforcement practice. Just as in relation to office residential premises, the Law of the Russian Federation “On the privatization of housing stock in the Russian Federation” in Article 4 establishes a ban on the privatization of residential premises. At the same time, unlike official residential premises, their owners or owners with the right of operational management or economic management are not given the opportunity to make decisions on the privatization of any premises in the hostel. At first glance, the situation seems quite simple: the ban on the privatization of hostels is established by the legislator and, accordingly, cannot be challenged without making appropriate amendments to the regulations. Nevertheless, the courts of general jurisdiction annually receive thousands of claims for recognition of the right to privatize dorm rooms, a significant part of which are satisfied. Let us consider the most common categories of cases related to the requirement to recognize the right to privatize a hostel. First of all, it should be pointed out that in accordance with Article 7 of the Federal Law of December 29, 2004 N 189-FZ “On the Enactment of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation”, relations for the use of residential premises that were located in residential buildings owned by state or municipal enterprises or state or municipal institutions and used as hostels, and transferred to the jurisdiction of local governments, the norms of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation on social tenancy agreements apply<1>. ——————————— <1>Collection of legislation of the Russian Federation. 01/03/2005. N 1 (part 1). Art. 15.

This norm, introduced by the legislator, is interpreted in such a way that citizens living in these hostels are given the right to privatize the residential premises they occupy in the hostels. In particular, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, in one of its reviews of practice, pointed out a number of important circumstances. “From this article (we are talking about Article 7 of this Law) it follows 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 force of law and the legal regime is applied to them established for residential premises provided under social tenancy agreements.” 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 the 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 government bodies . Consequently, citizens who occupy these residential premises have the right to acquire their ownership, guided by Article 2 of the Law of the Russian Federation “On the privatization of housing stock in the Russian Federation.” It should be taken into account that only isolated residential premises (apartment or room) are subject to privatization, since, within the meaning of Part 2 of Article 62 of the RF Housing Code, non-isolated residential premises cannot be an independent subject of a social tenancy agreement<1>. ——————————— <1>Review of judicial practice of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation for the first quarter of 2006, approved. By the Resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of June 7 and 14, 2006.

At the same time, despite this clarification, in the practice of courts of general jurisdiction, considerable contradictions arise when resolving specific disputes regarding such claims of citizens. First of all, a problem arose in judicial practice: whether the regime of “legal relations under a social tenancy agreement” provided for by law is at the same time the right of citizens living in a former hostel to privatize the occupied premises. If we literally interpret Article 7 of the Law on the Introduction of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, then the norms of the Code should be applied specifically on social hiring, which do not say anything about privatization. In this regard, initially, judicial practice developed along the path of refusing to privatize such hostels, before the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation gave the necessary clarifications on this issue. An example is the following case. T. appealed to the court to the administration of Bryansk, the municipal unitary enterprise “Housing Economy” of the Sovetsky district of Bryansk to invalidate the refusal to privatize residential premises. In support of her demands, she indicated that she is the tenant of a residential premises - room No. 56 measuring 11.2 square meters. m in the hostel located at:<…>. The specified building (house<…>) is currently in municipal ownership. Her minor daughter T.E. also lives in room No. 56. Believing that she has the right to privatize the disputed residential premises, T. appealed to the administration of the city of Bryansk with an application for the free transfer of the occupied room in the hostel into her ownership. However, she was denied this application with reference to Article 4 of the Law of the Russian Federation “On the privatization of housing stock in the Russian Federation,” which establishes a ban on the privatization of residential premises located in dormitories. Not agreeing with this refusal and considering that her right to privatize the residential premises had been violated, T. asked the court to impose on the administration of Bryansk the obligation to conclude an agreement with her on the free transfer of the disputed residential premises into her ownership. The defendants did not admit the claim. By the decision of the Sovetsky District Court of Bryansk dated August 31, 2005, T.’s claim was left unsatisfied. The judge of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, having considered the case on the supervisory appeal, did not agree with the conclusions of the trial court, pointing to the following circumstances. In accordance with Article 4 of the Law of the Russian Federation dated July 4, 1991 N 1541-1 “On the privatization of housing stock in the Russian Federation,” residential premises located in dormitories are not subject to privatization. In resolving the dispute and refusing the claim, the court proceeded from the fact that since the house<…> on the basis of the decision of the executive committee of the Bryansk City Council dated June 26, 1974 N 442 is a hostel, when transferred from LLC "Bryansk Social Rehabilitation Enterprise of the All-Russian Society of the Deaf" to municipal ownership, the status of the building did not change, then, by virtue of the above norm, the administration of Bryansk refused to privatize the room occupied by T. in the specified house is legal. In addition, the court justified the conclusions about T.’s refusal of the claim by reference to Article 7 of the Law of the Russian Federation of December 29, 2004 N 189-FZ “On the entry into force of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation”, according to which relations for the use of residential premises that were located in residential buildings that belonged to state or municipal enterprises or state or municipal institutions and were used as dormitories, and transferred to the jurisdiction of local governments, the norms of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation on social tenancy agreements are applied. In interpreting this norm, the court came to the conclusion that the legislator, in relation to the residential premises listed above, provided only for the possibility of their use under a social tenancy agreement, while not allowing the privatization of such residential premises. However, we cannot agree with the conclusions of the trial court set out in the rendered decision for the following reasons. From the literal meaning of Article 7 of the Law of the Russian Federation “On the entry into force of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation” it follows that dormitories that belonged to state or municipal enterprises or state or municipal institutions and were transferred to the jurisdiction of local governments from the moment the said Federal Law came into force lose the status of hostels and the legal regime established for residential premises provided under social tenancy agreements is applied to them. Consequently, citizens occupying the above residential premises, from the moment the Federal Law “On the Entry into Force of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation” comes into force, acquire in relation to these residential premises all the rights and obligations provided for the tenant of a residential premises under a 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 the specialized housing stock, does not prevent citizens from exercising the rights of a tenant of residential premises under a social tenancy agreement, since the implementation of such rights cannot be made dependent on the registration by local government bodies of these documents. The list of rights of a tenant of residential premises under a social tenancy agreement, provided for in Part 1 of Article 67 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, is not exhaustive (Part 2 of Article 67 of the said Code). Article 2 of the Law of the Russian Federation dated 04.07.1991 N 1541-1 “On the privatization of housing stock in the Russian Federation” (as amended by the Law of the Russian Federation dated 20.05.2002) provides for the right of citizens occupying residential premises in the state and municipal housing stock, including housing stock located in the economic management of enterprises or the operational management of institutions (departmental fund), on the terms of social rent, acquire these premises into ownership on the terms provided for by this Law, other regulations of the Russian Federation and constituent entities of the Russian Federation, with the consent of all adult family members living together, and also minors aged 14 to 18 years. In this regard, it is necessary to indicate that only isolated residential premises (apartment or room) are subject to privatization, since, within the meaning of Part 2 of Article 62 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, non-isolated residential premises cannot be an independent subject of a social tenancy agreement. From the above it follows that residential premises in dormitories located in residential buildings that previously belonged to state or municipal enterprises or state or municipal institutions and were used as dormitories, which were provided to citizens and transferred to municipal ownership (municipal housing stock), can be purchased citizens through the procedure of privatization of property, provided that this residential premises is isolated. Since the hostel is located at:<…>, was transferred to the operational management (on the balance sheet) of the municipal institution “Directorate of the Single Customer of the Sovetsky District” on the basis of the order of the administration of the city of Bryansk dated 07/05/2000 N 606, adopted in pursuance of the decision of the Small Council of the Bryansk City Council of People’s Deputies dated 06/08/2000 “On acceptance into municipal ownership of the city of Bryansk of a specialized residential building (dormitory) at the address:<…>", then from the moment the Federal Law "On the Entry into Force of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation" came into force, the specified residential building lost the status of a hostel and T., who occupies an isolated residential premises in this house - room No. 56, has the right to acquire this residential premises as property in privatization procedure. Thus, in deciding to reject T.’s claim on the grounds that she did not have the right to privatize the disputed residential premises, the court applied a rule that was not subject to application (Article 4 of the Law of the Russian Federation “On the privatization of housing stock in the Russian Federation” in the part prohibiting the privatization of residential premises located in dormitories), and, having applied to the legal relations in question the norm to be applied (Article 7 of the Law of the Russian Federation “On the Enforcement of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation”), gave it an incorrect interpretation, which led to the incorrect resolution of the present case. In connection with the above, the court decided to transfer the case on the merits by way of supervision to the Presidium of the Bryansk Regional Court<1>. ——————————— <1>Determination of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated July 18, 2006 N 83-B06-7.

Another typical example is a case where the interpretation of the question of how the relationship between a resident and the administration of a hostel was formalized was controversial. M. filed a lawsuit against the administration of Lipetsk for recognition of ownership of the room<…>, indicating that she moved in on the basis of an order dated August 8, 1985, issued by the joint department of everyday life and housing and communal services (OUB and Housing and Communal Services) Glavlipetskstroy. Due to the liquidation of this organization, the house<…>Based on the decision of the Lipetsk Regional Council of People's Deputies dated March 4, 1993 No. 54, it was transferred to municipal ownership. M. believes that in accordance with the Law of the Russian Federation “On the privatization of the housing stock in the Russian Federation” and Article 7 of the Federal Law “On the entry into force of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation”, he has the right to purchase an occupied room in a hostel as his own in the manner of privatization. By the decision of the Oktyabrsky District Court of Lipetsk dated September 30, 2008, the claim was satisfied. By the ruling of the judicial panel for civil cases of the Lipetsk Regional Court dated November 12, 2008, the decision of the district court was canceled and a new decision was made in the case to refuse to satisfy the claim. By way of supervision, the case was transferred to the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, which canceled the cassation ruling, pointing out the following. In resolving the case and satisfying the stated claims, the court of first instance proceeded from the fact that the transfer of the house itself<…>into municipal ownership entailed the loss of its status as a hostel and the plaintiff could not be limited in the right to receive ownership of the occupied residential premises through privatization. In addition, the court found that M. actually did not use the bed, but the entire living room<…>in the specified house. Canceling the decision of the court of first instance and making a new decision in the case to refuse to satisfy the stated claim, the cassation court referred to the fact that the actual use of the entire room in the presence of a warrant that only granted the right to use a bed in a dormitory cannot indicate the occurrence of The plaintiff has the right to privatize the living room. Meanwhile, it is impossible to agree with such conclusions of the cassation court, since they are based on incorrect interpretation and application of substantive law. As follows from the case materials, the dormitory<…> accepted into municipal ownership on the basis of Resolution of the Supreme Council of the Russian Federation dated December 27, 1991 N 3020-1 “On the division of state property in the Russian Federation into federal property, state property of republics within the Russian Federation, territories, regions, autonomous regions, autonomous districts, cities Moscow and St. Petersburg and municipal property”, by decision of the Lipetsk Regional Council of People’s Deputies dated 03/04/1993, i.e. at the time Article 7 of the Federal Law “On the Entry into Force of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation” dated 12/29/2004 came into force ( hereinafter referred to as the Introductory Law), the specified hostel was transferred to municipal ownership. Article 2 of the Law of the Russian Federation “On the privatization of housing stock in the Russian Federation” provides for the right of citizens occupying residential premises in the state and municipal housing stock, including housing stock under the economic management of enterprises or the operational management of institutions (departmental fund), on the terms of social rent , acquire ownership of these premises on the terms provided for by this Law, other regulations of the Russian Federation and constituent entities of the Russian Federation, with the consent of all adult family members living together, as well as minors aged 14 to 18 years. According to Article 4 of the Law of the Russian Federation “On the privatization of housing stock in the Russian Federation,” residential premises in dormitories are not subject to privatization. In accordance with Article 7 of the Introductory Law, the norms of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation are applied to relations for the use of residential premises that were located in residential buildings owned by state or municipal enterprises or state or municipal institutions used as hostels and transferred to the jurisdiction of local governments on the social tenancy agreement. From this article it follows 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 force of law and the legal regime established for residential premises provided under social contracts applies 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 the 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 government bodies . In addition, in view of the loss of the status of a dormitory by force of law in these houses, as well as taking into account the requirements of the current legislation on the application of provisions on a social tenancy agreement to residential premises located in such houses, citizens who occupied part of the residential premises on a “bed-bed” basis, also acquire the right to use it under the terms of a social tenancy agreement, since Article 7 of the Introductory Law provides for the application of the norms of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation on social tenancy agreements to relations for the use of residential premises located in residential buildings that previously belonged to state or municipal enterprises or state or municipal institutions and used as dormitories, without any exceptions or restrictions. In this regard, citizens living at the time of entry into force of Article 7 of the Introductory Law in such residential premises on a “bed-bed” basis should be given the use of an isolated residential premises as a whole and one social tenancy agreement should be concluded with them as co-tenants.

Comments: Eva Shipunova, Ph.D., lawyer. As arguments for the conclusion formulated by the author about providing citizens with residential premises in a hostel, and not a bed, I would also like to note the following. Firstly, the term “bed”, which is not fixed by the current housing legislation, is quite arbitrary. A bed space may most likely be the subject of a rental agreement (particularly in resort areas) rather than a rental agreement. Secondly, co-tenants share not only a bed, but, as a rule, the entire area of ​​the room.

Residential premises transferred for use to such citizens under a social tenancy agreement are subject to subsequent privatization on the basis of the Law of the Russian Federation “On the privatization of housing stock in the Russian Federation” in equal shares, subject to the consent of each of them to receive ownership of housing. A citizen who actually used the entire residential premises (room) in a house that was a dormitory, and lived in it at the time Article 7 of the above Introductory Law came into force, also cannot be refused to conclude a social tenancy agreement for the entire isolated residential premises, if this at the time of entry into force of this article of the Introductory Law, the residential premises were not provided in the prescribed manner for the use of several persons, or the right to use the residential premises of other persons was terminated on the grounds provided for by law (moving to another place of residence, death, etc.). As follows from the case materials, M. actually used an isolated room<…>since 1985; from the moment of moving in until the moment of consideration of the dispute in court in 2008, she lived in it without sharing other persons, paid for the entire occupied living space of the specified room (case sheet 32 ​​- 48). From a copy of the order (case file 7) issued by M., it follows that she was granted the right to stay in a dormitory indicating the room number -<…>. In case of such violations, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld the decision of the court of first instance<1>. ——————————— <1>Determination of the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated July 28, 2009 N 77-B09-5.

Thus, we see that, according to the legal position of the Supreme Court, if a citizen, according to documents, occupied only part of the living space, the so-called “bed,” in a dormitory, but in fact used an isolated room, which may be the subject of a social rental agreement, then he is given the right to privatize such premises. The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, in its clarifications on the application of housing legislation on the privatization of specialized housing stock, removes a number of quite serious contradictions and eliminates the gaps in legal regulation made by the legislator. It is impossible not to note one more important instruction, set out in the already mentioned Review of judicial practice for the first quarter of 2006: “It is also necessary to take into account that paragraph 1 of Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of January 10, 1993 N 8 “On the use of social, cultural and communal facilities” appointment of privatized enterprises" (recognized as no longer in force on March 29, 2003 by Decree of the President of the Russian Federation dated March 26, 2003 N 370) it was established that during the privatization of enterprises under federal (state) ownership, housing facilities could not be included in the privatized property . These objects, being federal (state) property, were to be under the jurisdiction of the administration at the location of the object. However, in practice, there have been cases when, in violation of the current legislation, after the privatization of state and municipal enterprises, residential premises in dormitories were transferred to municipal ownership. These legal relations should be subject to the same provisions governing the privatization procedure as for the privatization of residential premises in dormitories owned by state or municipal enterprises.” Here we also see the legal position of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, which is that in case of any ambiguity in the interpretation of the rule on the right to privatize a hostel, the dispute should be resolved on the merits in favor of the citizens living there, which, in the author’s opinion, is due only to the lack of proper legal regulation of these issues . An example is the following civil case on a similar dispute, which was also considered in the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. M. filed a lawsuit against OJSC UNIMILK Company, the Territorial Administration of the Federal Agency for Federal Property Management in the Samara Region, the Ministry of Property Relations of the Samara Region, and the Russian Federal Property Fund for recognition of the right of ownership of residential premises through privatization. In support of the stated requirement, the plaintiff indicated that from 1988 to the present she has been living in a room<…> in the city of Samara. The specified living quarters, located in the dormitory, were provided to her by the state enterprise Kuibyshev Dairy Plant in connection with labor relations. During the privatization of this state-owned enterprise in 1993, the authorized capital of Samaralakto OJSC, which was formed at that time (currently a branch of Samaralakto Dairy Plant OJSC UNIMILK Company), included a hostel building at the specified address, which violated the requirements of the law. Since 2004, the defendant has been insisting on concluding a commercial lease agreement with the plaintiff for the occupied room. By decision of the Industrial District Court of Samara dated August 22, 2008, M.’s claims were denied. By the ruling of the judicial panel for civil cases of the Samara Regional Court dated October 21, 2008, the decision of the court of first instance was left unchanged. By the resolution of the Presidium of the Samara Regional Court dated February 13, 2009, these court decisions were left unchanged. By way of judicial supervision, the case was referred to the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, which overturned all judicial acts issued in the case, pointing out the following. In resolving the case and refusing the claim, the courts, guided by the provisions of Articles 1, 2 and 4 of the Law of the Russian Federation “On the Privatization of the Housing Stock in the Russian Federation”, which prohibit the privatization of residential premises located in dormitories, proceeded from the fact that the residential premises occupied by the plaintiff are located in a building that has the status of a dormitory and belongs to the private housing stock, while residential premises of the state and municipal housing stock are subject to privatization; the ownership right of JSC “Company “UNIMILK” in relation to the hostel as a real estate object is registered in the prescribed manner; By the decision of the Federal Arbitration Court of the Volga District dated January 31, 2008, the judicial act of the Eleventh Arbitration Court of Appeal was left unchanged, which refused to apply the consequences of the invalidity of the void transaction of privatization of the property complex "Kuibyshev Dairy Plant" in terms of inclusion in the authorized capital of Samaralakto OJSC, created during privatization, hostel building at the above address. Meanwhile, according to the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, it is impossible to agree with the conclusions of the courts, since they are based on incorrect interpretation and application of substantive law. As can be seen from the case materials, M. has been living in the room since 1988<…>dormitories at the address: Samara,<…>. On August 19, 1993, Agreement No. 193 was concluded between the Property Fund of the Samara Region and Samaralakto OJSC (currently Samaralakto OJSC), according to which Samaralakto OJSC transferred property as authorized capital in accordance with the approved privatization plan, including dormitory building<…> . The ownership of the hostel building was registered by the Federal Reserve Service for the Samara Region on October 7, 2004. In accordance with Article 18 of the RSFSR Law of July 4, 1991 N 1541-1 “On the privatization of housing stock in the RSFSR” (since December 23, 1992, the Law of the Russian Federation “On the privatization of housing stock in the Russian Federation”), the housing stock assigned to enterprises by right full economic management or transferred to institutions for operational management; in the event of privatization of these enterprises, institutions were subject to privatization together with them on the terms established by law, or transfer to the relevant Council of People's Deputies on whose territory it is located. Federal Law of December 23, 1992 N 4199-1 “On amendments and additions to the Law of the RSFSR “On the privatization of housing stock in the RSFSR” introduced changes to Article 18 of the said Law, according to which, when state or municipal enterprises or institutions transfer to another form ownership of the housing stock, which is under the full 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 are identified) or to the management of local governments in the prescribed manner, preserving all housing rights of citizens, including the right to privatize housing. Paragraph 1 of Decree of the President of the Russian Federation dated January 10, 1993 N 8 “On the use of social, cultural and communal facilities of privatized enterprises” established a ban on the inclusion of housing facilities in the privatized property during the privatization of enterprises that are in federal (state) ownership. These objects, being federal (state) property, must be under the jurisdiction of the local administration at the location of the object. The norm containing a ban on privatization as part of the property complex of a unitary enterprise of the housing stock and its infrastructure facilities is also established in Article 30 of the Federal Law of December 21, 2001 N 178-FZ “On the privatization of state and municipal property.” In accordance with paragraph 1 of paragraph 4 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated August 24, 1993 N 8 “On some issues of application by courts of the Law of the Russian Federation “On the privatization of housing stock in the Russian Federation”, the transition of state and municipal enterprises to another form of ownership or their liquidation is not affect the housing rights of citizens, including the right to free privatization of housing. The above norms, to be applied in a systematic relationship with Article 2 of the Law of the Russian Federation “On the privatization of housing stock in the Russian Federation”, which provides for the right of every citizen occupying residential premises in the state and municipal housing stock to privatize these premises, did not allow the inclusion of objects housing stock, which includes dormitories, as part of the privatized property of state and municipal enterprises. Such objects were subject to transfer to municipal ownership. By the resolution of the Federal Arbitration Court of the Volga District of January 31, 2008, the inclusion of the dormitory building<…>into the privatized property of Samaralakto OJSC was recognized as illegal, however, in satisfaction of the prosecutor’s application to partially invalidate decisions, agreements, certificates and apply the consequences of the invalidity of the void transaction of privatization of the state enterprise Kuibyshev Dairy Plant in terms of inclusion in the authorized capital of the newly formed Samaralakto OJSC dormitory buildings<…>denied due to missing the statute of limitations. Thus, from the case materials it follows that during the privatization of the Kuibyshev Dairy Plant property complex in 1993, the hostel in which the plaintiff lives was included in the list of privatized real estate objects unlawfully. However, the inclusion of a residential building in the privatized property of a state and municipal enterprise in violation of current legislation should not affect the housing rights of citizens who moved in and lived in these residential premises before privatization, including the right to free transfer of housing into the ownership of citizens on the basis of Article 2 Law of the Russian Federation “On the privatization of housing stock in the Russian Federation”. Meanwhile, when resolving this dispute, the courts did not take into account the specified provisions of federal legislation, which led to an incorrect resolution of the dispute and a violation of M’s rights. A legal assessment was not given to the fact that, on the basis of Article 19 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, OJSC was part of the private housing stock The UNIMILK company can only locate residential premises for commercial use, which does not include dormitories. In connection with this, the case was sent for a new trial in the court of first instance. Here we see that even the refusal of the arbitration courts to satisfy the claim to recognize an unlawful transaction for the privatization of a hostel and its inclusion in the privatized enterprise did not become a reason for refusing the demand for privatization by the residents of the hostel they occupied<1>. ——————————— <1>Determination of the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated July 28, 2009 N 46-B09-21.

Often, issues of privatization of hostels are widespread, when residents of one of the houses demand the privatization of the apartments they occupy, and regional or local authorities try to keep this housing in their ownership. This problem is especially acute in cities where prices for housing and land plots located under dormitories are highest, where new housing could be built. The following case may be a typical example.

Comments: Eva Shipunova, Ph.D., lawyer. However, it should be noted that there are exceptions to the general rule, thoroughly analyzed by the author, about the impossibility of including the housing stock in the privatized enterprise. Thus, in accordance with Article 3 of the Federal Law “On the Peculiarities of Management and Disposal of Railway Transport Property,” in the process of privatization of federal railway transport property, a single economic entity is created by seizing property from federal railway transport organizations and introducing it into the authorized capital of a single economic entity (JSC RUSSIAN RAILWAYS"). Paragraph 6 of Article 9 of the Federal Law “On the Peculiarities of Management and Disposal of Railway Transport Property” and paragraph 15 of Article 43 of the Federal Law “On the Privatization of State and Municipal Property” lift the ban on contributing to the authorized capital of the housing stock. This is justified by the fact that JSC Russian Railways, in accordance with the Decree of the President of the Russian Federation “On approval of the List of strategic enterprises and strategic joint-stock companies,” is included in the List of strategic enterprises and strategic joint-stock companies; participation of the Russian Federation in the management of JSC Russian Railways ensures strategic interests, defense capability and security of the state, protection of morality, health, rights and legitimate interests of citizens of the Russian Federation; JSC Russian Railways also partially participates in fulfilling the social function of the state, maintaining low ticket prices for passengers. During the privatization process, it was necessary to include in the authorized capital such a complex of property that would ensure the implementation of the entire technological cycle of organizing the transportation process. Such a complex should not have led to increased costs for the industry and to a deterioration in the social security of railway workers. If the housing stock were transferred to local governments, it could not be used to provide workers in the railway industry; in fact, there would be a liquidation of the housing stock and a deterioration in the social protection of workers in the railway industry. At the same time, since all shares of JSC Russian Railways are owned by the Russian Federation (Part 1 of Article 7 of the Law “On Peculiarities of Management and Disposal of Railway Transport Property”), the founder of a single economic entity (JSC Russian Railways) is the Russian Federation (Article 4 of the Law “On Peculiarities of Management and Disposal of Railway Transport Property”), privatization of railway transport property should not be considered literally as a way of transferring property into private ownership. The legislator sought to increase the efficiency of the railway industry, increase its competitiveness in the world market, and adaptation to market economic methods by forming a unified structure, which, due to its importance for the state, remains under the control of the latter.

B.I.M., B. Yu.Z., U.M.F., R.Ya.M. and others (84 people in total) filed a lawsuit against the Department of Housing Policy and Housing Fund of Moscow, the Prefecture of the North-Eastern Administrative District of Moscow, the Federal Agency for Federal Property Management, the Main Directorate of the Federal Registration Service for Moscow for invalidation order of the Federal Agency for Federal Property Management, registered right of operational management, recognition of ownership of residential premises in the manner of privatization and the obligation to carry out state registration of rights on the supervisory complaint of B.I.M., U.M.F., R.Ya.M. ., I.K.V., K.N.N., G.M.L., Z.D.S., K.P.I., K.A.S., I.P.A. , Sh. E.Ya., P.V.Yu., F.V.E., in support of which they indicated that they live in a hostel at the address: Moscow, Yasny proezd, 19, which was organized in in accordance with the decisions of the executive committee of the Moscow City Council dated August 28, 1975 N 2177, dated November 12, 1981 N 3235 and on the basis of the decision of the executive committee of the Kirov District Council of People's Deputies of Moscow dated November 25, 1981 N 54/5 for workers of the Smena MPSHO. They were moved into the apartments occupied by the plaintiffs in this building in the 1980s and 1990s as employees of the Smena medical school and Cheryomushki medical school and were registered in them at their place of residence. By order of the Federal Agency for Federal Property Management dated October 19, 2004 N 549-r, building No. 19 on Yasny Proezd in Moscow was transferred to the operational management of the Federal Penitentiary Service of Russia in Moscow. By the decision of the Moscow Arbitration Court dated September 20, 2006 and the Resolution of the 9th Arbitration Court of Appeal dated February 27, 2007, the privatization transaction of residential building No. 19 on Yasny Proezd in Moscow was declared invalid and it was established that it belonged to municipal property directly by virtue of direct indication of the law, regardless of whether it is formalized in the prescribed manner. The decision and resolution of the courts entered into legal force. In September 2007, the plaintiffs appealed to the Moscow City Government as the authority exercising the functions of the owner of municipal housing in Moscow (by virtue of Part 2 of Article 14 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation) to conclude privatization agreements with them for the occupied apartments. By letter of the Deputy Prefect of the North-Eastern Administrative District of Moscow dated September 27, 2006 N 3936, the conclusion of contracts was refused due to the location of residential premises in a dormitory, which, according to Article 4 of the Law of the Russian Federation dated July 4, 1991 “On the privatization of housing stock in the Russian Federation,” excludes the possibility of their privatization, as well as for the return of the building to federal ownership based on the decision of the Arbitration Court of the city. Moscow dated September 20, 2006. The plaintiffs consider this refusal illegal and asked the court to invalidate the order of the FAUFI “On the transfer of the dormitory building, which is on the balance sheet of OJSC MPSHO “Smena” (Moscow), to the Moscow Department of Execution of Punishments of the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation” dated October 19, 2004 N 549 -R; invalidate the registered right of operational management of the Federal Penitentiary Service of Russia in Moscow for the building at the address: Moscow, Yasny proezd, 19; recognize as illegal the refusal of the North-Eastern Administrative District Prefecture of Moscow and the Department of Housing Policy and Housing Fund of Moscow to conclude privatization agreements with the plaintiffs; recognize the right of shared ownership in the procedure of privatization of house No. 19 on Yasny Proezd in Moscow for all plaintiffs. By decision of the Babushkinsky District Court of Moscow dated June 19, 2008, the claims were rejected. By the ruling of the judicial panel for civil cases of the Moscow City Court dated August 28, 2008, the decision of the court of first instance was left unchanged. The plaintiffs' supervisory appeal to cancel court decisions was left unsatisfied by the presidium of the Moscow City Court. The case was referred for review by way of supervision to the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, which canceled all judicial acts in the case, pointing out the following circumstances. In refusing to satisfy the claims, the court proceeded from the fact that by order of the FAUFI dated October 19, 2004, house No. 19 was transferred to the operational management of the Federal Penitentiary Service of Russia for the city of Moscow, no evidence was presented of the transfer of the hostel into the ownership of the city of Moscow; The executive authorities of the city of Moscow did not comply with the procedure for transferring the hostel to the city's housing stock, and the registration of the ownership rights of the city of Moscow for this building was not carried out; the presence of rental agreements for residential premises, rental agreements for residential premises concluded with the plaintiffs of OJSC MPSHO "Smena", in the opinion of the court, is not a legally significant circumstance for resolving the dispute, the plaintiffs occupy a bed in the hostel, no social rental agreements were concluded with them. The same arguments are given in the cassation ruling. However, the Judicial Panel did not agree with these arguments due to the following. In resolving the dispute, the court did not take into account that in accordance with Article 18 of the RSFSR Law of July 4, 1991 N 1541-1 “On the privatization of housing stock in the RSFSR”, the housing stock assigned to enterprises with the right of full economic management or transferred to institutions for operational management, in In the event of privatization of these enterprises and institutions, it is subject to privatization together with them on the terms established by law, or to transfer to the relevant Council of People's Deputies on whose territory it is located. Federal Law of December 23, 1992 N 4199-1 “On amendments and additions to the Law of the RSFSR “On the privatization of housing stock in the RSFSR” introduced changes to Article 18 of the said Law, according to which, when state or municipal enterprises or institutions transfer to another form ownership of the housing stock, which is under the full 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 are identified) or to the management of local governments in the prescribed manner, preserving all housing rights of citizens, including the right to privatize housing. Clause 1 of the Decree of the President of the Russian Federation dated January 10, 1993 N 8 “On the use of social, cultural and communal facilities of privatized enterprises” (recognized as no longer in force on March 29, 2003 by Decree of the President of the Russian Federation dated March 26, 2003 N 370) established a ban on inclusion of housing facilities in the privatized property during the privatization of enterprises under federal (state) ownership. These objects, being federal (state) property, must be under the jurisdiction of the local administration at the location of the object. The above-mentioned norms, subject to application in a systematic relationship with Article 2 of the Law of the Russian Federation “On the privatization of housing stock in the Russian Federation”, which provides for the right of every citizen occupying residential premises in the state and municipal housing stock to privatize these premises, did not allow the inclusion of objects housing stock, which includes dormitories, as part of the privatized property of state and municipal enterprises. Such objects were subject to transfer to municipal ownership. Clause 1 of Appendix No. 3 to the Resolution of the Supreme Council of the Russian Federation dated December 27, 1991 No. 3020-1 “On the division 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, the cities of Moscow and St. Petersburg and municipal property”, housing and non-residential assets managed by the local administration are classified as municipal property directly by virtue of the direct instructions of the law. Thus, the house in which the plaintiffs live was not subject to inclusion in the list of privatized real estate properties. By the decision of the Moscow Arbitration Court dated September 20, 2006, the application of the Moscow prosecutor to OJSC MPSHO “Smena” to invalidate the privatization of building No. 19 (dormitory) was satisfied; the court established that the building belonged to municipal property by virtue of a direct indication of the law. The disposal of a hostel building by transferring it to operational management in violation of current legislation should not affect the housing rights of citizens who moved in and lived in these residential premises before the relevant order was issued, including the right to free transfer of housing into the ownership of citizens on the basis of Article 2 Law of the Russian Federation “On the privatization of housing stock in the Russian Federation”. When resolving this dispute, the court did not give a legal assessment to the specified provisions of federal legislation, which indicates a significant violation of the norms of substantive law. In addition, when resolving the dispute, the court of first instance made an unfounded conclusion that the plaintiffs occupy a bed in the hostel; the court did not evaluate the plaintiffs’ arguments that they occupy apartments and isolated rooms in building No. 19; there is no bed for them was provided. The specified circumstances, which are essential for the resolution of the dispute, were subject to verification and establishment during the consideration of the civil case, however, in violation of the requirements of Article 198 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, they were not examined or verified by the court, which became the basis for the cancellation of all judicial acts that took place in the case and the direction of the case for a new trial in the court of first instance<1>. ——————————— <1>Determination of the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 06/09/2009 N 5-В09-22.

One of the most pressing issues arising in judicial practice in cases of privatization of hostels is the problem of the possibility of privatization of residential premises, which are formally considered hostels according to documents, but in fact do not meet the characteristics of a hostel. Here, first of all, it is necessary to determine what characteristics are legally established for hostels under the current legislation. Article 94 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation establishes that dormitories are provided for temporary residence of citizens during the period of their work, service or study. Thus, the first sign of a hostel - the basis for the provision of residential premises must be determined by the existence of labor, service or student relations between citizens and the landlord (owner or legal owner). If the hostel was provided outside of these legal relations, then there are already certain doubts about confirming the status of this premises and, as a consequence, the established restrictions on its privatization. Paragraph 3 of this article of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation determines that dormitories are equipped with furniture and other items necessary for the residence of citizens. The Code does not mention any other signs of a dormitory. However, they are present in other legal acts, including those adopted before the entry into force of the current Housing Code of the Russian Federation. Thus, in particular, the Approximate Regulations on Hostels, approved by Resolution of the Council of Ministers of the RSFSR dated August 11, 1988 N 328, are still in use.<1>, with changes and additions. This document additionally determines that dormitories must also be equipped with equipment that belongs to the landlord and is temporarily issued to resident citizens, and the necessary service personnel must be formed in the dormitory (commandant, watchman, cleaners and other employees of the landlord), in addition, there must be a decision of the authorized body on the inclusion of a certain residential premises in the register of hostels. ———————————<1>SP RSFSR. 1988. N 17. Art. 95.

The most important in this regard can be recognized as the legal position of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, expressed in the Determination of November 2, 2000 N 220-O “On the refusal to accept for consideration the request of the Sovetsky District Court of Krasnodar to verify the constitutionality of Article 4 of the Law of the Russian Federation “On the privatization of housing stock” In Russian federation". According to this Determination, the Sovetsky District Court of the city of Krasnodar is prosecuting a case on the application of citizen N.V. Garkavenko to the municipal unitary enterprise “Obschezhitie” to remove obstacles in the privatization of residential premises. Having come to the conclusion that Article 4 of the Law of the Russian Federation “On the privatization of housing stock in the Russian Federation”, which contains a ban on the privatization of residential premises located in dormitories, violates the rights of citizens enshrined in Articles 19, 35 (part 2) and 55 (Part 3) of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the court, having suspended the proceedings in the case, submitted a request to verify the constitutionality of this norm to the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation. According to the Resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated November 3, 1998 in the case of checking the constitutionality of certain provisions of Article 4 of the Law of the Russian Federation “On the privatization of housing stock in the Russian Federation”, the state, enshrining in law the right to privatization, is obliged to ensure the possibility of its implementation by citizens, guaranteeing upon transfer certain property into the ownership of subjects of private law, compliance with the principles and norms enshrined in the Constitution of the Russian Federation. At the same time, restricting the rights and freedoms of man and citizen by defining the range of objects that are not subject to privatization is permissible only if the circumstances that actually determine the features of the legal regime of housing, primarily its intended purpose, exclude the possibility of transferring residential premises to private ownership. The legislative ban on the privatization of residential premises in dormitories is associated with their special purpose as housing for temporary residence and a special legal regime (impossibility of exchange, division, subletting, etc.), which does not violate the constitutional rights of citizens enshrined in Articles 40 and 35 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the provisions of which do not prevent the classification of residential premises located in dormitories as not subject to privatization. In addition, by virtue of Articles 28 and 29 of the Housing Code of the RSFSR, citizens living in dormitories (with the exception of seasonal and temporary workers, persons working under a fixed-term employment contract, as well as citizens settled in connection with training) are in need of improved housing conditions and has the right to receive other residential premises for use and subsequently privatize it. Thus, they are guaranteed the right to private property and the right to own property as provided for in Article 35 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. At the same time, the courts, when resolving the issue of the legality of extending a special legal regime to a particular residential premises, should not limit themselves only to formal confirmation of the intended purpose of this premises and are obliged to check the facts justifying such extension in each specific case<1>. ——————————— <1>Determination of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated November 2, 2000 N 220-O.

Thus, in fact, the courts were given the opportunity, when considering citizens' claims for the privatization of residential premises located in dormitories, to decide whether a particular residential premises corresponds to the characteristics of a dormitory and whether a ban on its privatization was justified, taking into account all the circumstances affairs. An example of a solution to such a problem is the following case, also considered by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, where a controversial issue arose about the validity of extending the restriction on the privatization of residential premises located in a dormitory. S. filed a complaint with the court against the actions of the director of the Tchaikovsky rest home in refusing to privatize the apartment. The applicant pointed out that the director of the holiday home illegally refused to privatize his apartment, since he had moved into the apartment as an exchange. By the decision of the Klinsky District Court dated January 22, 1996, left unchanged by the Decision of the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Moscow Regional Court dated February 22, 1996, the application was denied. By the resolution of the Presidium of the Moscow Regional Court dated 05/07/1996, the protest of the prosecutor of the Moscow Regional Court was left unsatisfied. The Judicial Collegium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, having considered the case by way of supervision, indicated the following. In refusing to satisfy the complaint, the court proceeded from the fact that the residential premises about which the dispute arose, on the basis of the order of the President of the Russian Federation dated October 13, 1992, was included in the list of enterprises, institutions and organizations included in the Medical Center under the Government of the Russian Federation that are federal property not subject to privatization. Meanwhile, the court did not establish whether the Tchaikovsky rest house with all its property, including the housing stock on its balance sheet, was part of the said Medical Center, and whether this property was also an object of federal property not subject to privatization, since according to The list of institutions, enterprises and organizations included in the Medical Center under the Government of the Russian Federation, approved by the said order of the President of the Russian Federation dated October 13, 1992, presented in the case, only includes the Tchaikovsky rest house (case file 14). In addition, the court did not take into account that, in accordance with the order of the Council of Ministers - Government of the Russian Federation dated January 19, 1993 N 80-R, the Tchaikovsky rest house was transferred to the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Social Protection of the Russian Federation. The court did not determine whether in this case the Tchaikovsky holiday home with the housing stock on its balance sheet is an object of federal property not subject to privatization. In accordance with Article 19 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation on the equality of all before the court and the law, regardless of any circumstances, and Part 3 of Article 55 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the rights and freedoms of man and citizen can be limited by federal law only to the extent necessary for the purpose of protecting the foundations of the constitutional system, morality, health, rights and legitimate interests of other persons, ensuring the defense of the country and the security of the state. According to Article 4 of the Law of the Russian Federation “On the privatization of housing stock in the Russian Federation,” an exhaustive list of residential premises is established that, regardless of the type of ownership (state, federal or municipal), are not subject to privatization. Exceptions include residential premises in disrepair, in dormitories, communal apartments, in houses of closed military camps, as well as office premises. This list is not subject to broad interpretation. No evidence was presented to confirm that the residential area where the plaintiff lives falls within one of the listed exceptions. Additional restrictions on the rights of citizens are not provided for either by the Constitution of the Russian Federation or by federal law. It is impossible to recognize as correct the conclusion of the Presidium of the Moscow Regional Court that the residential premises are an integral part of the housing stock of the Tchaikovsky rest house and have the characteristics of a service residential premises, since this issue was not the subject of consideration by the court of first instance and cassation. Based on the above arguments, the supervisory authority overturned all judicial acts in the case and sent the case for a new trial to the same court.<1>. ——————————— <1>Determination of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated May 11, 2000 N 4-B00-1.

The example of this case shows that the disputed premises did not meet one of the most significant characteristics of a hostel - provision in connection with labor (official or student) relations between the resident and the owner of the house, which makes the ban on the privatization of residential premises unfounded. At the same time, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation recognizes as unlawful the practice when lower courts independently determine any features of a hostel that are not established in regulations, but the courts, due to the existence of these features, refuse to privatize citizens. For example, the location of the residential premises does not matter, which is confirmed by the materials of the following civil case. Spouses N. and N.I. applied to the court to declare illegal the refusal of the Novosibirsk mayor's office to transfer ownership to them in the manner of privatization of residential premises located at the address:<…>, referring to the fact that they occupy an apartment in the specified building<…> , which was provided to them with the permission of the administration of the MU “Center for Social Services”. The residential building in which they live is a dormitory and was previously on the balance sheet of PA Sever. In 1998, the house was transferred to municipal ownership of Novosibirsk. Their request to transfer the occupied residential premises into ownership through privatization was left unsatisfied. They asked to recognize the refusal to privatize the apartment as illegal and to oblige the Novosibirsk mayor’s office to conclude an agreement on the transfer of ownership of the occupied apartment. The defendant considered the refusal to privatize to be legal, pointing out that the residential premises occupied by the plaintiffs were located in a dormitory and, by virtue of the law, were not subject to privatization. By the decision of the Iskitimsky District Court dated June 7, 2008, the plaintiffs’ demands were satisfied: the refusal to privatize was declared illegal, and the Novosibirsk mayor’s office was entrusted with the obligation to conclude a corresponding agreement with the plaintiffs. By the ruling of the judicial panel for civil cases of the Novosibirsk Regional Court dated September 23, 2008, the decision of the first instance court was canceled and a new decision was made to refuse to satisfy the stated claims. Based on the plaintiffs' supervisory complaint, the case was considered by the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, which canceled the cassation ruling for the following reasons. In making a new decision in the case, the cassation court referred to Article 4 of the Law of the Russian Federation “On the privatization of housing stock in the Russian Federation,” which contains a ban on the privatization of residential premises located in dormitories. Based on the fact that the disputed residential premises are located in a dormitory, the conditions for changing the status of which are absent, the norms of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation on social tenancy agreements are not applicable to relations for the use of such residential premises. According to the plaintiffs, the cassation court did not take into account the provisions of Article 7 of the Federal Law of December 29, 2004 N 189-FZ “On the entry into force of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation”, according to which relations for the use of residential premises that were located in residential buildings owned by state or municipal enterprises or state or municipal institutions and used as hostels, and transferred to the jurisdiction of local governments, the norms of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation on social tenancy agreements are applied. From this legal norm it follows that dormitories that belonged to state or municipal enterprises and institutions and were transferred to the jurisdiction of local governments lose their status as dormitories by force of law and the legal regime established for residential premises provided under social tenancy agreements is applied to them. At the same time, the absence of a local government decision to exclude the relevant house from the specialized housing stock cannot 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 relevant documents by local government bodies. Thus, citizens who occupy residential premises in these houses have the right to acquire their ownership, guided by Article 2 of the Law of the Russian Federation “On the privatization of housing stock in the Russian Federation.” It is clear from the case materials that, on the basis of Resolution of the head of the administration of the Novosibirsk region dated April 14, 1997 N 218, housing facilities, social, cultural and public utility facilities under the economic control of PA "Sever" were transferred to municipal ownership of the city of Novosibirsk ( pp. 9, 10). By Decree of the Novosibirsk City Hall dated February 12, 1998 N 128, the housing stock, social, cultural and public utility facilities on the balance sheet of PA “Sever” were accepted into municipal ownership, including the dormitory at the address:<…>(case sheet 6 - 8). After the entry into force of the Federal Law of December 29, 2004 N 189-FZ “On the Enactment of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation”, the status of a dormitory for this residential building was lost by force of law and citizens occupying isolated residential premises in this house have the right to purchase them in property in accordance with Article 2 of the Law of the Russian Federation dated 04.07.1991 N 1541-1 “On the privatization of housing stock in the Russian Federation”, which was taken into account by the court of first instance, but was not taken into account by the court of cassation. It is impossible to agree with the arguments of the cassation instance that the intended purpose of the disputed residential premises, its special location on the territory of this health camp, outside the city limits, prevents its privatization, since house No. 2 on the street. Timurovskaya in the village. Morozov is part of a single health complex, which excludes the possibility of transferring residential premises into ownership. The law does not limit the right of citizens to privatize residential premises that were previously used as a hostel, based on its special location. The defendant formally maintains the status of the hostel at building No. 2 on the street. Timurovskaya in the village. Morozov violates their right to privatization, enshrined in Article 2 of the Law of the Russian Federation “On the privatization of housing stock in the Russian Federation.” In connection with these circumstances, the decision of the court of first instance was upheld, and the cassation ruling was canceled<1>. ——————————— <1>Determination of the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated June 30, 2009 N 67-B09-4.

Summing up the considered problems related to judicial practice in cases of claims for recognition of the right to privatize office premises and dormitories, it is necessary to note the following most significant aspects of the issues raised. 1. The legislative ban on the privatization of specialized housing stock, primarily service housing and dormitories, has a number of application conditions that have been developed by the law enforcement practice of the Supreme and Constitutional Courts of the Russian Federation. In fact, the restriction on the privatization of these types of residential premises must be justified by the circumstances of the case. 2. Courts are given the opportunity, when considering citizens’ claims for recognition of the right to privatize service apartments and dormitories, to independently decide on the validity of restricting the right to their privatization, while taking into account as a formal factor the inclusion in the relevant documentation (including the register of rights to real estate and transactions with him) of a certain object to the category of specialized housing stock, and the actual signs of the disputed housing - the presence of certain properties characteristic of the residential premises of a specialized housing stock: grounds for provision, completeness of inventory and furniture, presence of staff, internal regulations, etc. 3 Only isolated premises can be privatized, and again, the actual residence of citizens is taken into account, and not the premises that were formally allocated to them according to documents, since there are often inconsistencies here. 4. Dormitories transferred to the jurisdiction of local governments from state (municipal) enterprises or institutions can be privatized by the citizens living in them, since these premises lose their status from the moment the right to them of the relevant institution is terminated. In this case, it does not matter whether the status of these houses has changed according to the documents and whether a social tenancy agreement for residential premises has been drawn up with the citizens living there. 5. Dormitories included in the authorized capital of privatized enterprises in the 90s can also be privatized regardless of whether the privatization deal for the dormitory as a whole was declared invalid due to a violation of the legislation on the transfer of state-owned enterprises to private ownership.

——————————————————————

The premises that are allocated to the employee for the period of fulfillment of his labor obligations are called office premises. Such housing is owned not by the municipality, but by a specific organization. According to the law, official housing cannot be privatized. This will only be possible if its status is changed and it is placed on the balance sheet of local government bodies.

Is it possible in 2019

Housing legislation divides premises into certain categories. One of them is specialized housing: flexible houses, service apartments. The latter are provided to citizens in connection with work on the basis of a contract, the validity of which does not exceed the term of the employment contract. After finishing her work, the person, together with members of her family, must leave the premises.

There are exceptions to this rule, and the following categories cannot be evicted from an apartment without providing another place of residence:

• an employee who has retired;
• family members of a military man, fire service employee or law enforcement officer who died or went missing while performing their official duties;
• an employee who received group 1 or 2 disability due to the fault of the employer;
• family members of employees who have passed away;
• if orphans live in the home.

As for the possibility of privatizing office premises, such a procedure is prohibited by law on general grounds. Contacting the local municipality is useless in this case, since the housing does not belong to local authorities, but is owned by a certain department or enterprise.

But there is a way out of this situation: you need to obtain the consent of the owner organization to privatize a service apartment. This is the main difference between receiving ownership of official housing and municipal housing. In the second case, the local authorities cannot refuse privatization to a person if his documents are in order.

If the management of the department agrees to the privatization of a service apartment, it must be transferred to the balance of the municipality and only after that it will be possible to carry out the privatization procedure

Reasons

The privatization of official housing has only a few legal grounds, which are enshrined in legislative acts. Thus, the basic law on privatization contains provisions prohibiting the privatization of such premises. This law reserves the right to make decisions on granting the right to privatize official housing to the owner.

It is important to define the concepts and understand which dwellings are classified as official ones and, as a result, cannot be privatized. The Supreme Court provided clarification on this matter. Government Decree No. 1301 of 1997 states that dormitories, shelters, hotels, office and other premises that are suitable for people to live in must be registered with the state.

Taking into account the above, after making a decision to include a certain premises in the category of official premises, it must be registered as such with the state registration authorities.

The ban imposed on the privatization of such housing has certain conditions for its application. They were developed on the basis of law enforcement practice.

Decisions of the Supreme Court of Russia stipulate that restrictions on the rights of individuals to privatize official housing must be justified by legislative norms. The courts have the opportunity to decide whether the restriction of human rights to privatization was justified.

Arbitrage practice

The Constitutional Court, in its decision of April 18, 2006 No. 119-0, determined that the right to participate in privatization should be ensured by the possibility of observing certain human guarantees during the transfer of property to open joint-stock companies. Among such guarantees is the right to housing, which is enshrined in the Constitution, allowing individuals to privatize it.

Based on this, we can come to the conclusion that the transfer of premises of an official nature to the ownership of commercial structures cannot limit the right of the persons who live in them to privatize such premises. In the event of a transfer of ownership rights from the state or municipality to a commercial organization, this cannot lead to adjustments or termination of rental contracts.

In this case, indicating in the documents the status of the premises as “official” is a formal factor that cannot limit the rights of citizens to privatization. This statement is confirmed by the court decision of August 26, 2010 under No. 33-9579. The dispute in the case was that citizen Parkhomenko received a refusal from the OJSC to transfer ownership of the apartment to him under the privatization procedure.

The defendant justified his refusal by the fact that the plaintiff was occupied in office space, which, according to the law, cannot be privatized. The applicant claimed that the apartment was provided to him under a social rent contract and he did not know anything about the fact that it had official status.

The case materials contain information that this apartment was registered to an Open Joint Stock Company, which was recorded in the Unified State Register of Real Estate Rights.

The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, justifying this by the fact that the state registration certificate of the apartment confirms that it does not belong to either state or municipal property. The ownership rights to it belong to the OJSC, and therefore the applicant cannot privatize it in accordance with the provisions of the law on privatization.

However, at the moment when the housing was provided to the applicant, it was in state ownership. After the transfer of ownership to the OJSC, no document was signed that would have secured its official status. Taking into account the position of the Supreme and Constitutional Court on this issue, the fact of transfer of proprietary rights cannot lead to a change or termination of the rental contract. In this regard, the new lessor is subject to the terms of the old contract.

There is another opportunity for the privatization of official housing, which is described in the decision of the judicial panel on civil issues of the Supreme Court of Russia dated March 26, 2013 No. 5-KG13-14. It says that service housing, which was previously in state ownership, and that which was assigned to the department on the basis of operational management or economic management, and was later transferred to the ownership of the municipality, can be acquired by a person in ownership through the privatization procedure.

Procedure

Privatization of a service apartment can be carried out exclusively by permit. This means that this opportunity is not assigned to the person as his right, it is a step forward taken by the employer. There is no need to treat this procedure as unrealistic: many enterprises have a social program according to which, in order to attract qualified workers, 10 years work is provided with housing.

The first step that an employee should take to carry out privatization is to submit an application addressed to the head of the organization that owns the office apartment. Typically, such an application is considered no more than two months. A decision can be made either in favor of the employee or contrary to his interests.

To privatize the official housing stock, it is necessary to ensure that housing loses its status as official.

What steps do you need to go through to become the owner of such an apartment:

1. The organization must transfer the premises to the balance of the local municipality. Transfer issues must be resolved on the basis of an agreement between the two structures, which is drawn up taking into account all legal and regulatory requirements.
2. After completing the procedure for transferring the apartment and completing all the documents, the person who wants to privatize the apartment applies to the municipality with a corresponding application.
3. The application and the documents submitted with it are considered in the manner prescribed by federal legislation. Based on the results of the review, the authority makes a decision on the possibility of privatization.
4. If a citizen has been refused privatization because he submitted an incomplete package of documents or some inaccuracy was found in them, he has the right until March 1, 2019 to eliminate all problematic issues and re-apply.
5. If a person has received the go-ahead for privatization, he enters into an agreement with the local administration, which is then registered with Rosreestr.

Features of privatization of official housing

When privatizing official housing, some features of the process should be taken into account. For example, if the administration of an organization refuses to privatize housing, you can sue the management, demanding that they contact the municipal authorities to transfer the housing, or the municipality, demanding that the housing be transferred to the citizen on a privatization basis. This path will not be easy; moreover, not all citizens who want to protect their rights are able to achieve a decision in their favor.

In addition, it is possible to transfer a service apartment into private ownership not only through the privatization procedure. The law does not prohibit the conclusion of contracts of gift or sale.

It will not be possible to privatize office space if a person has already used his right and privatized housing earlier. For example, I lived in a municipal apartment under a social rental contract and privatized it, then got another job, where I received official housing.

For military personnel

The following categories of military personnel can receive free housing:

• laid off as a result of staff reorganization;
• those who were dismissed due to length of service;
• those transferred to the reserve due to health reasons;
• family members.

Housing obtained in this way can be privatized on the general terms provided for by the privatization procedure. The situation is different with office housing. This right is not enshrined in direct legislation; however, there is an exception to every rule.

Official housing, which is provided to the military, belongs to the housing stock of the Russian Ministry of Defense and is intended for those individuals who protect the security of the Russian state, and such an apartment can be privatized with the consent of its owner, who is the Ministry of Defense

A serviceman cannot privatize a home that:

• recognized as emergency;
• is in a dormitory;
• located in a closed military town.

You can privatize an apartment from which the official status has been removed.

For this purpose you need:

1. Submit a report to the unit commander about transferring the apartment to the municipality. This document does not have a specific form, the main thing is that the requirements are clearly stated and there are links to current legislation.
2. If a refusal is received, the decision can be appealed in court. The claim must state the grounds, requirements and list the documents that are attached to it. Do not neglect the need to pay state fees.
3. If a positive decision is made and the apartment is transferred to the balance of the municipality, a social rental contract must be signed.
4. After this, privatization can be carried out on a general basis.

The serviceman must provide the following documents for privatization:

• application for transfer of ownership of housing;
• a document confirming the tenant’s right to reside in the property;
• information about other real estate that a person owns;
• certificate of non-participation in privatization earlier for the employer and his family members;
• passport;
• excerpt from the house book;
• cadastral passport;
• social rental contract;
• extract from the order regarding dismissal from service.

In order for housing to be deprived of service status, it must be recognized that the serviceman needs improved housing conditions.

For state employees

A draft law was submitted to the State Duma of Russia, which provides for the possibility of indefinite privatization of service apartments by state employees. Many employees who work in this field have the only option for permanent residence - company housing.

Individuals who work in the interests of society are entitled to receive ownership of office premises of the housing stock, however, such a right will not be granted to everyone. The draft law introduces restrictions on the categories of applicants who will be able to privatize official housing.