How is the privatization of a service apartment carried out?

Home » Housing disputes » Privatization of official housing

In a normal situation, privatization concerns exclusively municipal housing provided to citizens on the basis of a social rental agreement. The main features of such an agreement are its open-ended nature, as well as the lack of a clearly defined purpose. Due to the presence of the right to reside in such real estate, citizens, on the basis of Article 2 of Law No. 1541-1, can register housing as their own. That is, privatize. But do these standards apply to office housing?

Is it possible to privatize a service apartment?

A service apartment can be privatized only theoretically. In practice, such situations arise extremely rarely. The main problem is the need for the consent of the owner of the premises. And the state cannot force him under any circumstances. There is one controversial option - to transfer service housing to the municipal section and only then engage in privatization, but this also requires the permission of the owner. It is logical that the latter are extremely reluctant to take such measures, since they, in fact, involve the free transfer of real estate into the ownership of the municipality.

Reasons

The main basis for privatization of a service apartment is the consent of the owner. All other factors often do not play a special role and remain on the conscience of the owner of the premises. According to average data, potential apartment owners must meet the following requirements:

• They must enter into a rental agreement for this premises with the owner-enterprise.
• Residents or a tenant who has entered into a rental agreement must work in this company for at least 10 years. And he must live in the apartment for the same amount of time. It should be borne in mind that this norm is not fixed anywhere and is not formally binding. However, for a company that does go for privatization, it is important that the employee who registered ownership of the property continues to work successfully.
• Free privatization is possible only once in a lifetime, so it is important that a company employee has not previously participated in it. On the other hand, since the premises belong directly to the enterprise, it can simply be donated to the tenant, so the right to privatization will not be used.

Who is eligible

Based on Article 4 of the Law “On Privatization”, only those persons who live in premises belonging to the housing stock of state farms or similar agricultural enterprises have the right to privatize official housing, provided that they are located in rural areas. This also includes apartments with similar purposes that belong to permanent organizations involved in social protection of the population. In any case, it is the owners who decide whether residents will be able to exercise their rights to privatization or not.

Restrictions for the employee

The tenant of service housing must use it only for residential purposes. It is prohibited to use it:

• in business activities;
• for organizing business, warehouses, hotels;
• other use not for its intended purpose.

Is it possible to rent?

You cannot transfer the premises for rent or lease to another person (sublease) . If these violations are detected, the lessor goes to court. They are considered a valid reason for termination of the contract and eviction of the tenant. The court may impose other penalties in the form of a fine provided by law. Read more about penalties for illegal housing rentals here.

You will find more information about the procedure for registering a rental property on our website. In addition, you may need information about problems that may arise with tenants and ways to solve them, and about fraudulent rental schemes. Learn about the nuances of renting housing for long and short-term periods and how to organize a business renting apartments by the day.

Service rental housing is intended to create favorable living conditions for a certain category of citizens who have entered into employment contracts, but do not have their own housing. It is strictly regulated by the Housing Code of the Russian Federation and other legislative acts. All conditions, rights and obligations of the parties are stipulated in the Agreement. Compliance with it and hostel standards provides the opportunity to perform work duties without worrying about housing.

Office rental agreement

The contract for hiring office housing is concluded between an employee and an employer, be it a company or a government agency. Basic provisions based on the Housing Code of the Russian Federation:

• The agreement is concluded on a voluntary basis. The employer cannot force the employee to enter into it. The opposite is also true; the employee does not have the right to demand the provision of a separate place of residence if an agreement on this has not been reached earlier and has not been recorded in other documents.

Example: An employee gets a job at a company. At the time of his admission, an employment contract was concluded, one of the clauses of which indicates that the person must be provided with official housing. In such a situation, the employee has every right to demand the specified premises. If there is no such clause, then the requirements will be unreasonable.

• The tenant of service housing has no right to rent it out to third parties or exchange it. It should be borne in mind that usually all potential tenants are specified in the contract, starting directly with the employee and ending with members of his family.
• The agreement is concluded exclusively in writing and certified by the signatures of the parties. Notarization is not required.
• The contract is terminated in the event of dismissal.
• The employer is not required to register the occupants of the office premises.

Submission procedure

The issue of providing official housing is decided by its owner, which is formalized by a decision in the form of an order, resolution or regulation. The basis is an employment contract and a citizen’s application. After the decision is made, a rental agreement is concluded. Based on the agreement, a housing order is issued.

An application for the provision of official housing is written to the head of its owner (state, regional or local government body, organization that owns the housing). It indicates: the basis for the request, a reference to the citizen’s lack of housing of his own, information about the number of family members and the presence of persons under guardianship (preferably indicating age).

The necessary documents are attached, and consent is given to check personal data and data on family members to determine the accuracy of the information.

The transfer of the premises is carried out according to the acceptance certificate and the technical condition report . These documents must reflect all noticed deficiencies and malfunctions.

It is important for the tenant to take into account that when vacating housing in the future, its acceptance will be based on the specified acts, taking into account natural physical wear and tear.

Procedure for drawing up a standard agreement

The Housing Code of the Russian Federation quite clearly regulates the procedure for concluding and the content of a contract for the rental of office premises (Articles 100-102, 104). Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated January 26, 2006 No. 42 approved the form of a standard agreement, which is recommended to be followed when drawing up an agreement.

The document is signed by the employer and the head of the organization, who is designated by the owner as an authorized person. It should be noted that the employer can be not only a Russian citizen, but also a foreigner who has entered into an appropriate employment agreement (more information about renting an apartment to foreigners can be found in our material).

The contract includes the following main points:

• necessary information about the employer, lessor and authorized organization, incl. composition of the tenant’s family and information about other persons who will live with him;
• address, area and main characteristics of the housing provided;
• conditions of transfer for use and delivery at the end of the contract;
• rights and obligations of the parties;
• responsibilities for carrying out current and major repairs, the procedure for payment;
• conditions for early termination of the contract at the initiative of both parties;
• force majeure conditions;
• amount of rent (if any);
• contract time.

A separate paragraph highlights the possibility (impossibility) of privatization and transfer of office premises into the ownership of the employer. Particular attention should be paid to eligibility and duration of residence after termination of the employment agreement.

We do not recommend completing the documents yourself. Save time - contact our lawyers by phone:

8 (800) 302-76-94

Validity

The validity period of the contract corresponds to the duration of the employment agreement (contract) or tenure in an elected position (Part 3 of Article 104 of the RF Housing Code). The landlord can set a specific, temporary period for renting housing, but in this case the conditions and procedure for its extension must be prescribed.

A mandatory requirement is to maintain or extend the employment relationship with the employer. The employer must notify the owner of the property in a timely manner about the extension of the employment contract.

What documents should I attach?

To provide official housing, the following documents will be required:

• ID card (passport);
• an extract from the work book with a record of the place of work and position held;
• an extract from the Unified State Register or other document proving the absence of other housing in the property;
• Marriage certificate;
• certificate of family composition, guardianship documents;
• an employment contract with a term of employment relationship;
• employer's request for office housing.

All attached copies and extracts must be certified by a notary or the employer's seal. The property owner may ask for additional documents depending on the type of activity of the applicant.

How to privatize a service apartment

There are two ways to privatize a service apartment:

1. Obtain permission from the landlord for such a procedure, provided that the premises are one of those that can generally be privatized (the main requirement is that they are located in a rural area).
2. Convert a service apartment into a municipal one and then privatize it on a general basis. This is also only possible with the permission of the landlord. This system can be used if the premises are not located in a rural area.

Regardless of the chosen/available option, the general privatization procedure, with the exception of the mandatory requirement of permission from the landlord, is fully consistent with the usual one.

An employer can simply donate an apartment for good service/long service, but this is a very rare occurrence. In this case, privatization is not required and all that is needed is simply to register ownership.

Procedure

1. Obtain permission from the property owner.
2. Collect consent for privatization from all residents.
3. Prepare the necessary documents (see below).
4. Submit an application to the MFC.
5. Sign the privatization agreement.
6. Contact Rosreestr with the agreement and register ownership.

Procedure

Let's take a closer look at the procedure. The first step is to obtain permission from the employer. Usually, if the landlord agrees in principle to issue such a document, he also puts forward counterclaims.

Example: An employer is ready not only to provide a person and his family with housing, but will also allow them to register it as their property. However, the employment contract will stipulate the obligation to work at the enterprise for at least 15 years from the date of registration of ownership of the housing. Otherwise you need to pay a fine.

In fact, such situations are very rare. Most often, they are associated with the desire to attach a particularly valuable employee to the company, or they actually relate to rural areas, where there is a constant shortage of personnel. However, if permission for privatization has been received, then it is necessary to collect consent for this procedure from all inhabitants of the premises. In the vast majority of cases, they all belong to the same family and there are no problems. If one of the residents has previously participated in privatization, he can give consent, but then write a refusal to personally participate in privatization.

In such a situation, it turns out that the person does not mind that the premises in which he lives will be privatized, but at the same time he personally refuses to participate in the procedure, thereby losing the right to his share.

Next, after receiving consent, you need to collect all the necessary documents. Here the procedure differs somewhat from the standard one in favor of simplification. The point is that the owner-company usually already has all the necessary documentation on hand, since at one time he had to somehow obtain ownership of this very apartment. Thanks to this, there is no need to separately order certificates, extracts, registration certificates, and so on. All this is issued by the employer, which greatly simplifies and speeds up the procedure.

The next stage is submitting documents to the MFC. It is through multifunctional centers that it is easiest to formalize privatization. To do this, you need to provide the consent of all residents, permission from the owner and a certain list of documents (see below). You will also have to write a corresponding statement on the spot.

Once submitted, the application will be reviewed for a couple of months or less (but no more). If approval follows, a privatization agreement will need to be signed. The last stage is registration of property rights in Rosreestr. To do this, you will need the same package of documents, permission from the owner and a privatization agreement.

Privatization of official housing: myth or reality?

lead Counsel

Source: Housing Law magazine

Real estate prices in our country are very high, and not everyone can afford to own a living space. Many are trying to get out of the situation and take out loans, some are joining the mortgage program, but the majority of the population does not have enough money even for the entrance fee. Budgetary organizations meet the needs of the population halfway and provide their employees with office apartments.

Official housing is apartments that belong to a specific organization or government agency and are provided to employees for temporary residence. The employee enters into a contract for the rental of office premises, which cannot exceed the employee’s service period specified in the contract or employment agreement. Thus, departmental housing is a temporary solution to the problem and does not provide confidence that tomorrow the employee will not be fired and asked to vacate the premises. Moreover, office apartments tie an employee to a workplace in a specific organization in a specific region and make the person completely dependent on the employer. Thus, the privatization of official real estate is one of the most pressing and pressing problems, since it is almost impossible to obtain ownership of it.

The Housing Code of the Russian Federation does not provide for a procedure for the privatization of service housing, and Part 1 of Article 4 of the Law of the Russian Federation “On the privatization of housing stock in the Russian Federation” stipulates that service apartments are included in the list of objects not subject to privatization. However, despite the general rule prohibiting the privatization of official housing, the legislation of the Russian Federation still allows for a certain freedom of action in this area.

1. There is a loophole in the Law of the Russian Federation “On the privatization of the housing stock in the Russian Federation,” namely: in accordance with paragraph 2 of Article 4, 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 or operational management , with the consent of the owners, can decide on privatization on their own initiative. According to the Resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated March 30, 2012 No. 9-P, the above norm is recognized as not contradicting the Constitution of the Russian Federation, and accordingly, gives the right to the owner of a municipal housing stock, when exercising his right, on the grounds, on the terms and in the manner established by federal legislation, to issue regulatory legal acts relating to decision-making on the privatization of individual office residential premises. But provided that such decisions are made as an exception and allow the preservation of an array of office residential premises in an amount corresponding to their intended purpose.

Thus, one of the options for solving the problem of privatization of service housing is the publication by the owner of the municipal housing stock of a regulatory legal act regarding decision-making on the privatization of individual service residential premises. The basis for issuing such a legal act is the application of the tenant of the service residential premises or the initiative of the owner of the municipal housing stock.

However, a positive decision on privatization is a right, not an obligation, of premises owners, and is the exception rather than the rule.

2. It is possible to privatize office residential premises that were voluntarily transferred to local government bodies by a state or municipal enterprise or institution, for example, in connection with the liquidation or reorganization of a municipal unitary enterprise, state unitary enterprise, or due to the inability to bear the costs of maintaining the premises. In this case, the residential premises lose their “official” status and are subject to privatization as housing provided under a social tenancy agreement. The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation adheres to a similar position: in the Review of Legislation and Judicial Practice of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation for the first quarter of 2006, the fact of making a decision on the transfer of office residential premises that were in state ownership and were assigned to state enterprises or institutions with the right of economic management or operational management into municipal ownership, involves a change in the status of the residential premises.

But even with such clear regulation, local government bodies do not always meet citizens halfway, and the matter has to be resolved in court. Judicial practice in this case is on the side of citizens.

Determination of the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated May 14, 2013 No. 5-KG13-18.

From the case materials: N.V.I., N.E.V., N.A.V. filed a lawsuit against the Department of Housing Policy and Housing Fund of the city of Moscow and the territorial administration of the Federal Agency for State Property Management for recognition of ownership of residential premises through privatization.

In support of the claim it was stated that N.V.I. in connection with his work in the housing and communal services department of the city of Moscow, which is under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, on the basis of a service order, a three-room apartment was provided to a family of four. Currently, the activities of the commandant's office have been discontinued. In accordance with the resolution of the Moscow Government dated July 19, 2005 No. 536-PP, the house in which the residential premises occupied by the plaintiffs is located was transferred from the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation to the ownership of the city of Moscow. The plaintiffs cannot exercise their right to privatize residential premises due to the fact that the Department of Housing Policy and Housing Fund of the City of Moscow, in response to their appeal on the issue of privatization, informed that the apartment occupied by the plaintiffs is a service apartment and is not subject to privatization, the decision to exclude it from the number of office residential premises was not adopted by the executive authority.

Having checked the case materials and discussed the validity of the arguments in the cassation appeal, the Judicial Panel finds the complaint to be satisfied.

In accordance with the Decree of the Moscow Government dated July 19, 2005 No. 536-PP “On the acceptance of departmental housing stock and engineering and communal facilities of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation into the ownership of the city of Moscow in 2005-2006,” the residential apartment building in which the disputed residential premises are located was transferred owned by the city of Moscow.

Article 2 of the Law of the Russian Federation dated July 4, 1991 No. 1541-1 “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 ), acquire ownership of these premises on social rental terms.

Based on the provisions of Article 7 of Federal Law No. 189-FZ dated December 29, 2004 “On the implementation of the RF Housing Code”, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in the 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 7 and June 14, 2006 (issue 21), clarified the following.

The fact of making a decision to transfer office residential premises, which were in state ownership and were assigned to state enterprises or institutions with the right of economic management or operational management, to municipal ownership implies a change in the status of the residential premises.

Consequently, when transferred to municipal ownership, such residential premises lose their official status, and the legal regime established by Article 2 of the Law of the Russian Federation “On the privatization of housing stock in the Russian Federation” is applied to them.

Consequently, the disputed residential premises, after being transferred to the ownership of the city of Moscow, lost their official status, therefore the legal regime established for residential premises provided under social tenancy agreements is applied to it.

The plaintiffs, who lived in the disputed residential premises at the time of its transfer from federal ownership to the ownership of the city of Moscow, acquired the right to use it under the terms of a social tenancy agreement and have the right to acquire ownership of it, in connection with which their claim should be recognized as justified and subject to satisfaction.

It should be noted: if a state unitary enterprise or municipal unitary enterprise was corporatized or otherwise reorganized into a commercial company, but for some reason did not transfer its housing stock to the municipality, or local governments did not accept it on their balance sheet, residents of such premises have the right to demand a contract with them social rental agreement and further participation in privatization.

By the way, the transfer of office housing into municipal ownership can be carried out in agreement with the enterprise that owns the office premises, as a result of which the owner submits a petition to the municipal authorities with a request to take the housing on the balance sheet of the local administration. This practice is used mainly with housing stock owned by the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the Ministry of Defense, the Ministry of Emergency Situations and other law enforcement agencies.

3. Even if service housing is not transferred to municipal ownership, one should not lose hope. It is necessary to check the legality of assigning the status of official housing, since the presence of a stamp in the order does not mean that the apartment is official, and there are a number of conditions under which the assignment of the status of official housing will be considered legal.

Decision of the Oktyabrsky District Court of the city of Omsk dated December 3, 2007.

From the case materials: N.D., A.V., also acting in the interests of their daughters A.A., P.A. filed a lawsuit, asking to recognize their right of shared ownership and the right to privatize the apartment.

Having examined the evidence presented, the court finds the claims to be satisfied.

The disputed apartment was provided to A.V. for a family of four, including wife N.D., daughters A.A., P.A. in connection with labor relations with PA "SPS" as official housing under a warrant. The order has a corresponding stamp.

The employer is A.V., who was in an employment relationship with the SPS PA, and was dismissed on 09/01/1997 at his own request. After his dismissal, the enterprise did not make any demands to evict the plaintiffs from the said residential premises.

On the basis of an agreement on the gratuitous alienation of state property in the Omsk region into municipal ownership dated November 1, 2001, the disputed apartment was transferred to municipal ownership.

The plaintiffs wish to privatize the residential premises they occupy into common shared ownership of ¼ for each of them. The administration believes that the specified residential premises are official, the plaintiffs are denied its privatization. The city administration has not provided a document by which the specified residential premises, in the prescribed manner and by the authorized body, are classified as a specialized housing stock. If we assume that there is no such decision, then, regardless of the presence of a warrant with the “official” stamp, it should be assumed that the plaintiffs occupy the specified residential premises on the terms of social housing rental, and there are no obstacles to acquiring it into ownership through privatization under the wishes of the plaintiffs.

In accordance with Article 7 of the Federal Law of the Russian Federation “On the implementation of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation”, as a result of the transfer of the residential building in which the disputed apartment is located into municipal ownership, the specified apartment, as an integral part of this house, also became municipal property. Thus, from the moment the house was transferred to municipal ownership, the plaintiffs’ apartment, which is located in this house, lost its official status; the legal regime established for residential premises provided under a social tenancy agreement is applied to it. Decisions of municipal authorities to remove the status of official housing from the specified apartment (excluding residential premises from the specialized housing stock) are not required for its privatization.

Thus, the plaintiffs have all the rights and obligations arising from the legal relationship of social housing rental of an apartment, including the right to privatize the said residential premises.

Based on the above, we will determine the conditions that are necessary to assign the premises the status of “official”.

The decision to include an apartment in the number of service apartments must be made by authorized bodies managing the state and municipal housing stock, in compliance with established requirements and in the manner established by the Government of the Russian Federation (clause 2 of Article 92 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation). The decision to classify an apartment as a service apartment can be made only before the apartment is provided to residents.

Decision of the Aleisky City Court of the Altai Territory.

From the case materials: A.N.V. applied to the court to invalidate the decision of the housing and maintenance department of the Siberian Military District (KEU), pointing out that in June 2006 her husband (A.S.A.) as a military serviceman was provided with an apartment.

In 2009, she learned that the apartment in which she lived was classified as a service apartment. It turned out that there was an extract from the KEU decision “On inclusion in a specialized housing stock,” according to which her apartment was included in this housing stock.

She believes that the decision of the Economic Commission should be canceled, since this apartment was occupied by her and her family members before the inclusion of the residential premises in the service housing.

Having examined the case materials, the court comes to the following conclusion.

In accordance with paragraph 2 of Article 92 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, the use of residential premises as specialized residential premises is permitted only after such premises are classified as a specialized housing stock.

From the content of paragraph 3 of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 42 “On approval of the Rules for classifying residential premises as a specialized housing stock and standard rental agreements for specialized residential premises” it follows that the classification of residential premises as a specialized housing stock is not allowed if the residential premises are occupied under social tenancy agreements.

As established at the court hearing, the living quarters of the family of A.S.A. was provided for residence before being assigned “official” status.

This circumstance indicates the illegality of the CEU’s decision “On inclusion in a specialized housing stock” regarding the inclusion of the disputed apartment in the service housing.

The fact that with A.S.A. an agreement for the lease of office residential premises was concluded cannot serve as a basis for recognizing the subject of the agreement - the apartment - as official, since at the time of the conclusion of the agreement the disputed apartment was not official.

Based on the foregoing, the court decides to satisfy the requirements stated by A.N.V.

After a decision is made to assign the status of “office” to a residential premises, this housing must be registered as official in the prescribed manner with the state real estate registration authorities.

The necessary information about assigning the status of official housing can be obtained from the archives. If such information is not found in the archive, it should be assumed that the residential premises were provided under a social tenancy agreement, therefore, it can be privatized.

If it is not possible to privatize official housing, you can refer to the provisions of Article 103 2 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, which sets out the list of persons who cannot be evicted from official residential premises and dormitories without the provision of other residential premises. Provided that these persons are not tenants of residential premises under social tenancy agreements or family members of the tenant of residential premises under a social tenancy agreement, or owners of residential premises or family members of the owner of residential premises and registered as those in need of residential premises:

1) family members of military personnel, officials, employees of internal affairs bodies, federal security service bodies, customs bodies of the Russian Federation, state fire service bodies, bodies for control of the circulation of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, institutions and bodies of the penal system, deceased ( deceased) or missing in action while performing military service or official duties;

2) old age pensioners;

3) family members of an employee who was provided with official living quarters or living quarters in a dormitory and who died;

4) disabled people of groups I or II, whose disability occurred as a result of a work injury due to the fault of the employer, disabled people of groups I or II, whose disability occurred as a result of an occupational disease in connection with the performance of work duties, disabled military personnel who became disabled of groups I or II due to injury , concussion or injury received during the performance of military service duties or as a result of an illness associated with the performance of military service duties.

These citizens are provided with other residential premises, which must be located within the boundaries of the relevant locality.

Appeal ruling of the Rostov Regional Court in case No. 33–6459/2013 dated May 27, 2013.

From the case materials: FSBEI HPE “TSPI named after A.P. Chekhov” filed a lawsuit against D.N.I., D.B.A. about eviction from the hostel.

The substantiation of the claim states that the FSBEI HPE “Tashkent State Pedagogical Institute named after A.P. Chekhov" owns the hostel building with the right of operational management. The defendants live in room No. 115 of the said dormitory. D.N.I. in the period from April 1983 to August 1992, she was an employee of the institute, but on August 29, 1992 she terminated her employment relationship, resigning of her own free will.

There was no rental agreement between the plaintiff and the defendants. The plaintiff believes that since the defendants are not currently students of the institute and are not in an employment relationship with the institute, there are no grounds for them to live in the disputed residential premises.

The decision of the court of first instance rejected the claims.

Having studied the case materials, the judicial panel finds no grounds to overturn the court's decision.

In accordance with paragraph 2 of Article 103 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, old-age pensioners cannot be evicted without the provision of other residential premises.

The court found that the defendant has been an old-age pensioner since September 1, 1995.

Also, the trial court came to a reasonable conclusion that D.N.I. belongs to the category of persons in need of residential premises provided under a social tenancy agreement, and has the right to be registered as such (Part 1 of Article 51 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation).

Article 13 of the Federal Law of the Russian Federation “On the entry into force of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation” establishes that citizens who live in office residential premises and residential premises in dormitories provided to them before the entry into force of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation are, in accordance with paragraph 1 of part 1 Article 51 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, registered as those in need of residential premises, cannot be evicted without the provision of other residential premises, if their eviction was not allowed by law before the Housing Code of the Russian Federation came into force (clause 6 of Article 108 of the Housing Code of the RSFSR).

Thus, Article 13 of the above law supplements the list of persons defined by Part 2 of Article 103 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation who cannot be evicted without providing them with other residential premises.

Thus, the court of first instance reasonably concluded that the defendants could not be evicted from the hostel without the provision of other living quarters.

It is important to note that there are unconditional prohibitions on the privatization of official housing. For example, houses in disrepair are not subject to privatization, or if one of the residents of a service apartment objects to privatization. Also, privatization will be denied to persons who have previously participated in privatization. According to Article 11 of RF Law No. 1541-1 “On the privatization of housing stock in the Russian Federation,” re-privatization of an apartment is impossible.

Conclusion: The privatization of a service apartment, despite the prohibitions established by law, is still real. And in court, as a rule, it is possible to achieve the right to privatize housing, unless it is proven that the residential premises were provided to the tenant specifically as a service property, and not under a social tenancy agreement.

Required documents

To ensure that your privatization application is not rejected, you need to prepare the following package of documents:

• Passports of all residents.
• Power of attorney for a representative (if required).
• Birth certificate of minors (if they live in the premises and do not yet have a passport).
• Permission from the guardianship authorities for privatization (subject to the residence of persons under the age of majority in a service apartment).
• Consent of all residents, including children aged 14 years and older.
• Permission for privatization from the owner of the apartment.
• BTI technical passport.
• Certificate stating that persons have not previously participated in privatization.
• Refusal to participate in privatization (if required).
• An account statement stating that there is no debt on the apartment.

Since the privatization of official residential premises is still not a standard and widespread procedure, in some cases additional documents may be required. It is recommended to clarify this point in advance, before submitting your application.

New law on the privatization of departmental housing

Office premises are residential premises provided to employees of organizations on the basis of employment contracts.

There are two types of housing:

• which belongs directly to the enterprise;
• which belongs to the state, and the enterprise only manages it (departmental).

In the first case, the decision on the possibility or impossibility of privatization is made by the management of the enterprise alone, in the second, the employer will only be an intermediary between you and the actual owner, so it will be much more difficult to obtain consent.

According to current legislation, upon termination of the contract, tenants must voluntarily leave the premises.

Expert opinion

Stanislav Evseev

Lawyer. Experience 12 years. Specialization: civil, family, inheritance law.

The exceptions are:

• close relatives of deceased or missing employees of the Ministry of Emergency Situations, the Ministry of Internal Affairs and other law enforcement agencies;
• close relatives of employees who died while performing work duties on the employer’s premises;
• citizens who retired due to old age while working at the enterprise that provided the apartment;
• disabled people of the first and second groups who lost their ability to work due to the fault of the employer;
• the poor.

These categories cannot be evicted from departmental housing, even forcibly, although they cannot privatize it without the consent of the owner.

Reasons for going to court

If the employer refuses to give permission for privatization, theoretically, you can file an application against him in court demanding permission, or change the status of the apartment from service to municipal. Almost always, such statements yield nothing, since permission for privatization must be voluntary. It is legally impossible to force someone to transfer their own property to other persons. The only exceptions are those situations where the right to privatization was agreed upon between the employee and the company management in advance and written down in the employment contract.

Arbitrage practice

Example No. 1 : A man worked at the enterprise for more than 17 years. As a result of an accident that was not his fault, he became a group 2 disabled person. He has no other housing, no opportunity to purchase one, and working with a disability is too difficult. The man submitted an application to the management of the enterprise with a request to transfer the housing to the municipal fund for the purpose of subsequent privatization, but was refused. Then he went to court and indicated the current situation. Taking into account the length of service, disability and absence of debts for the apartment, the court ordered permission for privatization.

Example No. 2 : A man worked in the police for 8 years, during which he lived in a service apartment. After this, he turned to management with a request to give permission for privatization. There was a refusal. After this, he filed a lawsuit. There was also a refusal, since the service life is only 8 years and there is no consent from management.

One should especially take into account the fact that rare decisions in favor of the plaintiffs only confirm the general rule - it is pointless to demand from the owner permission to privatize an apartment without compelling reasons supported by documents.

Privatization of official housing can be a rather complicated procedure, even taking into account the fact that usually no documents are required. Experienced lawyers will clarify the main points during a free consultation, and subsequently they can act as representatives both in the privatization process and when going to court.

FREE CONSULTATIONS are available for you! If you want to solve exactly your problem, then

:

• describe your situation to a lawyer in an online chat;
• write a question in the form below;
• call Moscow and Moscow region
• call St. Petersburg and region

Save or share the link on social networks

Author of the article

Natalya Fomicheva

Website expert lawyer. 10 years of experience. Inheritance matters. Family disputes. Housing and land law.

Ask a question Author's rating

Articles written

513

- FREE for a lawyer!

Write your question, our lawyer will prepare an answer for FREE and call you back in 5 minutes.

By submitting data you agree to the Consent to PD processing, PD Processing Policy and User Agreement

Useful information on the topic

4

Eviction from official residential premises

A certain (considerable) category of citizens of the Russian Federation lives in official housing. At…

4

Can they be evicted from an apartment if there is no other housing?

Forced eviction from a residential premises is an unpleasant phenomenon, one might say...

1

Privatization of land

What is land privatization? This is the actual purchase or receipt of land...

Privatization of land in SNT using a membership book

SNT is a gardening non-profit partnership, within which the main…

Privatization of land under a private house

Despite the fact that the right to privatize land already exists...

How many times can you participate in privatization?

Privatization is a free procedure for obtaining home ownership. How many…

Nuances and pitfalls

If you go through court

If it is not possible to obtain the right to ownership of departmental housing in a simple way, then you should contact the city or district court. The claim form does not have specific standards, but it must comply with Articles 130 and 131 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation.

All documents collected for privatization must be attached to the application . Judicial practice shows that quite often the justice authorities are on the side of the plaintiff and allow privatization.

It is important that the plaintiff does not use the free privatization service until this moment. Also, when filing a claim, you need to pay a state fee of 200 rubles. The processing time for such cases usually takes 2-3 months.

Other difficulties

In some cases, even the court cannot help with the privatization of official housing, namely:

1. If illegal actions were identified during the privatization procedure.
2. If the administration does not have the authority to carry out this procedure regarding specific housing.
3. If the housing belongs to a category that is prohibited from privatization, for example, emergency buildings.
4. If the remaining residents of the apartment have not given their consent to such a procedure, all persons over 14 years of age are taken into account.

Despite all the difficulties that may be encountered during privatization, this procedure is very beneficial for the future owner . Therefore, if an organization agrees to transfer the rights to real estate to an employee, then it is necessary to collect all documents and submit an application to the municipality.