Refusal to privatize. Analysis of legal disputes

Privatization was denied - a “horrible dream” of a person who decided to transfer his home from municipal to private ownership (you can find out what privatization is here). But should you give up and be content with refusal? Lawyers assure: in most cases, the authorities’ decision is not justified and can be challenged. How? Let's find out in this article.

1. Grounds for refusal to privatize an apartment (other real estate)
2. Can privatization of housing of a certain status be refused?
3. Can privatization be refused due to incorrect documents?
4. Can privatization of an apartment be refused due to the identity of the participants?
5. Unlawful reasons for refusal to privatize
6. What to do if privatization is refused
7. The judicial procedure for appealing a refusal to privatize

Grounds for refusal to privatize an apartment (other real estate)

Taking into account the current requirements of the regulations, state and municipal authorities do not have the right to issue an unmotivated refusal in response to citizens’ appeals. The refusal to privatize an apartment must also be justified, otherwise it is not valid. Therefore, officials, willy-nilly, have to choose valid grounds for refusal, provided for by law.

Most often, apartment privatization is justifiably refused on the following grounds:

• the status of the housing does not correspond to those permitted for privatization;
• the submitted package of documents is not complete, or the information in the documentation is erroneous or unreadable;
• violation of legal requirements for the composition of privatization participants.

These are valid reasons, but with some reservations. Therefore, it is worth considering them in a little more detail.

Privatization and registration at the place of residence

Opportunity to participate in the privatization of a subtenant’s apartment

My brother lives with me, who is registered in my apartment temporarily. Can I privatize an apartment without his participation, or should I wait until his registration expires?

Privatization of an apartment. How to discharge a relative?

Three years ago I registered a relative with me. Omsk registration, as he explained to me, he needed in order to get a job in our city. Now I want to privatize the apartment. Is it possible to discharge a relative and how to do this, since he did not even live in my apartment for a day?

They refuse to privatize the apartment - I have to prove that I moved in as a family member

A year ago my grandmother registered me at my place of residence; she recently died. They refuse to privatize this apartment, citing the fact that I need to prove that I moved in there as a member of my grandmother’s family. Is the refusal legal?

They require a written refusal to privatize from a family member who has moved to another place of residence

We want to privatize the apartment. Is it legal for the municipality to provide a written refusal to privatize a family member who a month ago moved to another place of residence and was deregistered?

Can privatization of housing of a certain status be refused?

The legislation provides an exhaustive list of real estate objects that are not subject to privatization. There are 4 types of residential premises in total.

1. Service apartments, houses, rooms. Many enterprises during the USSR created housing stock for their employees at their own expense. With the collapse of the Union, it so happened that the housing became the property of the enterprise. Therefore, without the expressed will of the owner of the “square meters”, the transfer of ownership of housing is impossible.
2. The property is located in a closed town, or other locality (district), with the appropriate status. Even despite the lifting of restrictions (opening of the city), Rosreestr may not have information about this fact, which entails a refusal to privatize.
3. Emergency housing. Property in disrepair cannot be privatized. But the decision only applies if the corresponding status has already been assigned to the house. If a resolution is not issued, the authorities’ refusal cannot be considered legal.
4. State hostel. Even today there are still dormitories that are not listed on the balance sheet of individual owners or municipalities. Until the municipal authorities accept the construction on their books, privatization will be blocked.

As can be seen from the above, there is absolutely no way to privatize housing in options 1 and 3. If privatization is refused, but the specified grounds are partially or completely violated, it is worth consulting with a privatization lawyer. You can read about his help here.

Reasons why privatization may be refused

Law of July 4, 1991 Federal Law-1541-1 “On the privatization of the housing stock...” defines the procedure for transferring municipal residential premises into the personal ownership of citizens of the state, and also establishes the reasons for refusing to carry out denationalization.

They can be divided into several groups:

Inconsistency in the position of the immovable object

The following real estate is not subject to privatization:

• A room in a dormitory building, if it is the property of federal government authorities. Only residential properties belonging to municipalities can be registered as personal ownership. In a situation where the hostel previously belonged to a specific enterprise, but was later transferred to the management of the local administration, then it belongs to ordinary apartment buildings and its residents can get rooms for free without difficulty;
• Living area of ​​military camps. Currently, such settlements are excluded from the list of closed ones, but the privatization of apartments in them is a very complex process, since in most cases information about such premises is not available in the Unified State Register of Real Estate and the BTI;
• Living space in houses that have the status of dilapidated or unsafe. This is only possible when such status is documented. Such a decision can be appealed in court if the decision has not yet been made.

Attention! The refusal to transfer ownership of apartments in dilapidated buildings is not based on legality, since there is no direct prohibition on the privatization of such objects by law.

Apartments owned by a company

Service housing can be transferred into the personal possession of residents only with the consent of its owner, on whose balance sheet it is located. Difficulties may arise when an enterprise needs to obtain permission to carry out the procedure from the Property Management Agency.

Residential premises subjected to illegal redevelopment

If permission from the authorities was not obtained during construction work, then the refusal will be unequivocal. In addition, you will have to pay a fine and return the apartment to its original condition. There is a possibility that after all requirements are met, the privatization procedure will be completed.

Reasons arising from the personalities of the participants

The law establishes the possibility of participating in the procedure only once in a lifetime and voluntarily. All residents registered in social housing must give their consent to register their ownership. Minors from 14 to 18 years of age express their consent under the guardianship of legal representatives, and the interests of minor citizens are represented by their parents.

Before signing the contract, authorized employees monitor compliance with the privatization conditions. If evidence of the participation of any of the applicants earlier is revealed, a decision will be made to refuse. If one of the registered persons has already participated in the privatization process, then he will need to submit an application for the procedure to be carried out without him. In the absence of such a document, the transaction will not be possible.

They can also refuse due to a break in registration. A prolonged absence of registration for privatized housing may serve as a reason for making a negative decision. Administrative authorities motivate by the fact that by living in another living space, a person could privatize it. Controlling services verify the implementation of such a procedure at the applicant’s former place of residence.

If there is no information about the privatized property, then the refusal due to a long absence will be unlawful.

A negative decision may be made due to the lack of approval from any of the registered residents for the privatization of the entire premises. If at least one of the registered persons does not approve of the privatization of living space, then it will be impossible to carry out the procedure. This mainly applies to rooms in communal living space, because such an object constitutes a single room.

Sometimes situations arise when the employer submitted an application for privatization, but did not have time to complete the procedure due to his death. The refusal of the municipality in this case will be unlawful, since the residential property is included in the inheritance estate and its privatization must be completed. In this case, you will need to contact the judicial authorities, where you will need to document the right to inheritance.

Errors in documents

A refusal may also be received due to a lack of documents, their inconsistency, or the presence of errors in them. Problems may arise when:

• The participants in the procedure do not have documents that are the basis for living in the apartment. They will need to be restored in the organizations that provided the facility for hire;
• The house is not transferred to the balance sheet of a specific enterprise;
• The building does not have an owner, whose rights have not been formalized in the prescribed manner. The privatization process can only be carried out in court;
• There are errors in the documentation or there are suspicions that it has been falsified. The issue is resolved only after an examination and the necessary corrections have been made;
• Having debts to pay for utilities. Such a decision is unlawful, since the debt must be collected by the owner in court.

We remind you that even if you thoroughly study all the data that is in the public domain, this will not replace the experience of professional lawyers! To get a detailed free consultation and resolve your issue as reliably as possible, you can contact specialists through the online form .

Can privatization be refused due to incorrect documents?

Many people do not attach importance to the fact that officials are obliged to act strictly according to regulations. And therefore, you cannot neglect collecting the papers specified during the consultation. But if the absence of a document can almost always be solved, then problems with the quality of documents can be much more difficult to resolve.

Refusal due to incorrect documents is most often associated with one of 2 options:

• errors, inaccuracies, and discrepancies were identified in the documents;
• the applicant (the persons he represents) is suspected of falsification.

To eliminate the refusal, you will either have to re-collect documents and supporting certificates, or require an examination.

Why they may refuse to privatize an apartment: reasons, grounds

All reasons for refusal can be divided into 2 categories: justified and unjustified. The first, as the name suggests, are a consequence of the legislation not being properly understood by the applicant. They are absolutely legal and it will not be possible to bypass the privatization of real estate - first you will have to eliminate the reasons.

Unreasonable reasons for refusal are not specifically indicated anywhere and, in fact, such a list cannot exist in principle. According to general rules, this includes any grounds that are contrary to current legislation. Some of them can be corrected “on the spot,” but the easiest way is to immediately go to court and thus protect your own rights.

Justified reasons for refusal

Justified reasons for refusal to privatize, in turn, can be divided into external (those that do not directly depend on the applicant, most often related to the characteristics of housing) and internal. The latter are already connected directly with the person himself, his superficial approach to the procedure or the desire to “bypass the system.”

External reasons for refusal to privatize

This category includes reasons related to the ban on the privatization of certain objects, which automatically implies a refusal to privatize such real estate. It is impossible to privatize:

Internal reasons for refusal

The second group of justified reasons for refusal of privatization is directly related to the applicant. These include:

• Absence of all or part of the required documents.
• Errors in documents.
• Forgery of documents (besides, this is also a criminal offense).
• Illegal redevelopment of housing.
• Absence of a concluded social tenancy agreement.
• Refusal to participate in privatization is not certified by a notary.
• An attempt to re-privatize (this is only possible once in a lifetime).

Among other things, this also includes fundamental disagreement with privatization on the part of one of the residents. Without the consent of all (or obtaining notarized refusals to participate in the procedure) people registered in the housing, it is impossible to carry out the procedure.

The only way to cope with this problem is to convince the dissenter in any way of the need for these actions. As an alternative, the option of discharging a person from housing can be considered, but this only works in individual cases when all the factors coincide.

Unreasonable reasons

It is logical that any other reasons can be considered unfounded. The most common example is having debts on rent for housing. Formally, if you follow the letter of the law, this cannot be a reason for refusal, since nothing like that is said anywhere.

But in fact, such a debt automatically passes to the municipality, with which it categorically disagrees. As a result, even when trying to solve the problem through the court, a person is still usually obliged to first pay all debts (or, at a minimum, transfer them to himself personally) and only then repeat the attempt at privatization.

Unlawful reasons for refusal to privatize

In addition to completely legal grounds for refusal to transfer ownership of housing, there are also a number of reasons that are literally “far-fetched”, but nevertheless, they are often used.

• The presence of debt for housing and communal services is not a basis for refusal. However, the responsible tenant may be subject to measures up to and including forced eviction from the apartment.
• A long break in registration in a privatized apartment also cannot be considered as a legal reason for refusal. If officials doubt whether a citizen participated in privatization at another address, they are obliged to make appropriate inquiries.
• The death of the applicant before completion of privatization is not a legal basis for refusal. If the applicant dies before the contract is concluded, officials are required to complete the re-registration of the property. The deceased's share is included in the estate.

Participation in the privatization of housing for minors

How many times can a minor participate in the privatization of housing?

Once “before” coming of age and once “after” or...?

Can a child participate in the privatization of his father’s apartment?

I divorced my husband. Can our common minor son participate in the privatization of residential premises, the tenant of which is his father, if in fact the son lives with me (the child’s place of residence is determined by the court), but is registered at his place of residence in his father’s apartment?

What to do if privatization is refused

Having received a reasoned decision in hand, the citizen should carefully read why the officials considered it impossible to transfer the apartment into his ownership. But bureaucracy in the municipality's decision can mislead the applicant. Therefore, it is recommended to consult with a lawyer.

If the reason for the refusal is clear, but does not correspond to the requirements of the law, or the true state of affairs, the municipality’s decision should be appealed. This can be done by filing a complaint with the prosecutor's office. But most often you have to go to court.

Is the right of residence permanent?

Under current law, a tenant may lose their right to occupancy. For example, if a citizen uses the living space of a relative with whom he has lost family ties. This applies to ex-spouses.

This is important to know: Grounds and formalities for transferring ownership of real estate

For example, if a wife divorces her husband, and at the same time she is the sole owner of the property, he must leave the premises. When he does not do this voluntarily, the spouse has the right to go to court.

In addition, you can evict a tenant from a municipal apartment who has not shown interest in the property for a long time. Eviction takes place in court, where all circumstances will be considered.

However, these rules apply only indirectly to the situation under consideration. Regulatory legal acts establish that a person who refuses privatization has the right to lifelong residence in an apartment.

This interpretation should be taken literally. In other words, a tenant who refuses privatization can use the apartment until he dies.

It is important to understand that the right of lifelong residence is not inherited. If the parents lived in the apartment on the basis of an indefinite right of use, the children will not be able to use it.

Dear readers! We cover standard methods for solving legal problems, but your case may be unique. We will help you find a solution to your problem for free

— simply call our legal consultant at:

It's fast and free ! You can also quickly get an answer through the consultant form on the website.

Until a person is deregistered, no one can evict him. This point significantly complicates the process of selling an apartment. Buyers rarely agree to purchase real estate with such an encumbrance, since after the transfer of ownership the “eternal tenant” will not lose the right of lifelong residence.

The judicial procedure for appealing a refusal to privatize

When going to court, a statement of claim is drawn up. The jurisdiction of the case is the district court where the apartment is located. We wrote about how to properly file a claim in this material. And here we indicate the main nuances:

• the statement of claim indicates on what basis the plaintiff has the right to count on a decision in his favor;
• it also indicates why privatization was refused and the illegality of the decision made (also with references to the law);
• The list of requirements must include the privatization of the apartment.

Based on the results of the consideration of the case, the court will make a decision. As a rule, claims are satisfied in full. But if for any reason the judge does not agree with the position of the plaintiff, then he may refuse to satisfy the claim. In this case, the applicant has the opportunity to appeal the decision.

Due to frequent updates to legislation and the legal uniqueness of each situation, we recommend obtaining a free telephone consultation with a lawyer. You can ask your question by calling the hotline number 8 (800) 555-40-36 or write it in the form below.

Refusal to privatize. Analysis of legal disputes

The practice of refusing residents the privatization of residential premises provided under social tenancy agreements has now become widespread. In such a situation, to recognize the ownership of residential premises, residents have no choice but to go to court (Article 8 of the Law of the Russian Federation “On the privatization of housing stock in the Russian Federation”).

In accordance with Art. 2 of the Law of the Russian Federation dated 04.07.1991 No. 1541-1 “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 and constituent entities of the Russian Federation . Residential premises are transferred into common ownership or into the ownership of one person, including a minor.

The Review of Legislation and Judicial Practice of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation for the second quarter of 2005, approved by the Resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated August 10, 2005, states that if a citizen, for reasons beyond his control, cannot exercise his right to privatize what he owns under a social contract rental of residential premises, he has the right to apply to the court with a claim for recognition of ownership rights in court.

The main reasons for refusal of privatization are the special status of the premises:

• Dormitories (you need to clarify the status of the premises, namely, which fund it belongs to: municipal or federal property. If we are talking about municipal property, then when the ownership rights are transferred, the status of the premises changes automatically. This type of premises can be privatized without any restrictions) ;
• premises belonging to the category of official housing (official housing can be subjected to the privatization procedure in situations where the consent of the owner of the premises to this action has been obtained);
• emergency housing (when citizens are faced with a refusal to privatize housing belonging to the emergency fund, the grounds for refusal to privatize are more serious. Most often, a resolution recognizing an apartment building as emergency housing cannot be invalidated by filing a lawsuit. If the house is considered emergency, but this fact is not documented, then the refusal to transfer the apartment into private ownership can be appealed in court);
• apartments located on the territory of military camps;
• housing stock under the jurisdiction of social protection institutions.

There are also other grounds for refusing privatization:

• fact of illegal redevelopment;
• unpaid services;
• detection of documentation that has lost legal force;
• identification of document forgeries;
• lack of legal rights to property objects from the administration of a city or other locality.

Free privatization of an apartment can only happen once.

Let us analyze the judicial practice of considering disputes arising from the refusal to privatize residential premises.

As practice shows, the highest court, when considering supervisory complaints against decisions of lower courts on termination of the right to use residential premises, deregistration of persons who agreed to the privatization of residential premises and refused a share in the occupied residential premises, makes decisions in favor of the defendants, then There are users of residential premises who have not acquired ownership rights to privatized housing. Thus, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, in ruling No. 5-B08-78 of August 26, 2008, recognized the right of permanent, unlimited use of residential premises - the room of the defendant, who had an equal right to privatize residential premises with a member of her family, but refused to exercise this right in favor of the latter, who subsequently donated the privatized residential premises to the plaintiff.

In the Review of Legislation and Judicial Practice of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation for the first quarter of 2008, approved by the Resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated May 28, 2008, it is explained that, based on the content of Article 2 of the Law on Housing Privatization, the transfer of residential premises into the ownership of citizens is possible only if mandatory consent to privatization of all adult members of the employer’s family, including former members of the employer’s family (Part 4 of Article 69 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation).

As stated in the Appeal ruling of the Moscow Regional Court dated May 22, 2013 in case No. 33-11158/2013, citizens appealed to the court to recognize the ownership of residential premises through privatization. They motivated their demands by the fact that the specified part was provided to the family in 1976, as an employee of the Seredinsky state farm. This part belonged to the Seredinsky state farm, and after the reorganization of the state farm, the apartment was transferred to the balance of JSC Sereda. On 04/06/2011, the plaintiff approached the defendant with an application for privatization of the disputed residential premises, but it was refused due to the lack of a warrant for the residential premises. However, the plaintiff’s family has no other housing and has not previously participated in the privatization of housing. By the decision of the Shakhovsky District Court of the Moscow Region dated March 18, 2013, the claims were satisfied. In its appeal, AOZT Sereda asks the court's decision to be overturned, citing its illegality and groundlessness. The judicial panel, having considered the defendant's appeal, believes that the claims for recognition of ownership of residential premises in the manner of privatization were satisfied legally, since the plaintiff and his family members were moved into the disputed residential premises before the privatization of the state farm and acquired the right to use it under the terms of a social contract hiring, and therefore there are no grounds for refusing privatization to the plaintiffs. The factual circumstances established in the case do not contradict the current legislation.

The Judicial Collegium of the Moscow City Court found that A.S. and O.I., acting in the interests of minor A.A., filed a claim against the Federal Unitary Enterprise “Main Production and Commercial Directorate for Servicing the Diplomatic Corps under the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation”, the Department of Housing Policy and Housing Fund of Moscow, TU FAUGI ( Rosimushchestvo) in Moscow for recognition of ownership of residential premises through privatization, motivating their demands by the fact that on January 13, 1992 A.S. in the order of resettlement, an apartment was received on the basis of a warrant issued by the executive committee of the Oktyabrsky District Council of People's Deputies of Moscow. The occupied apartment is the only housing; the plaintiffs did not participate in the privatization. Having applied for privatization of the apartment to GlavUpDK under the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia, the Housing and Property Department for Moscow, and the Federal Property Management Agency for Moscow, the plaintiffs were refused. The court of first instance, satisfying the claims, proceeded from the fact that the apartment that the plaintiffs are asking to transfer into ownership through privatization is not in disrepair, is not a residential premises in a dormitory, and is not a service residential premises. Based on the above, the Moscow City Court, by appeal ruling dated September 20, 2013 in case No. 11-28749, the decision of the Kuntsevsky District Court of Moscow dated May 15, 2013, was left unchanged, and the appeal was not satisfied.

Appeal ruling of the Moscow City Court dated September 4, 2013 in case No. 11-28434/2013. The claim for recognition of the right of ownership of residential premises through privatization was legally satisfied, since the disputed residential premises is the plaintiff’s only and permanent place of residence, the plaintiff uses the residential premises legally and properly fulfills the obligations under the social tenancy agreement. The panel of judges found that P.V. filed a lawsuit against the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, the Department of Housing of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, the Department of Housing Policy and Housing Fund of Moscow for recognition of ownership rights to a separate apartment through privatization and the obligation of the Federal Registration Service for the city of Moscow to register ownership of the specified residential property premises in accordance with the procedure established by law. In support of the claims, the plaintiff indicated that the apartment was provided under a social rental agreement, and P.V. appealed to the KECH of the region of the Russian Ministry of Defense, as well as to the Housing Department and Housing Fund of the city of Moscow represented by the Department of Housing and Housing of the South-Eastern Administrative District with an application for the privatization of the specified apartment, but was refused due to the lack of necessary documents. When considering a dispute, the court correctly determined the circumstances that are important for its resolution, and correctly applied the rules of substantive and procedural law.

By the appeal ruling of the Moscow City Court dated October 14, 2013 in case No. 11-31868/13, the demands for recognition of the right of ownership of residential premises through privatization were rightfully refused, since at the time the plaintiff was registered as needing improved housing conditions for each member of his family the size of the living space exceeded the established accounting norm.

The Supreme Court of the Republic of Bashkortostan, having considered in a court session on May 12, 2011, a civil case on a cassation appeal by the administration of the city of Ufa against the decision of the Ordzhonikidze District Court of the city of Ufa, Republic of Belarus dated April 7, 2011, which decided to recognize the plaintiffs’ right of ownership of an unauthorized construction in equal shares , determined the decision to cancel. Make a new decision and refuse to satisfy the plaintiffs’ claim for recognition of their ownership rights in the manner of privatization for the apartment and for the unauthorized construction, for the extension to this house. The Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Belarus believes that the conclusions of the trial court are based on incorrect interpretation and application of substantive law to the relations of the parties.

In accordance with Art. 222 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, an unauthorized construction is a residential building, other building, structure or other real estate created on a land plot that is not allocated for these purposes in the manner established by law and other legal acts, or created without obtaining the necessary permits or with a significant violation urban planning and building codes and regulations. A person who has carried out an unauthorized construction does not acquire ownership rights to it. It does not have the right to dispose of the construction - sell, donate, lease, or make other transactions.

The right of ownership of an unauthorized construction may be recognized by the court, and in cases provided for by law in another manner established by law, for the person who owns, has lifetime inheritable possession, and whose permanent (perpetual) use is the land plot where the construction was carried out. The land attached to the house is state property. The court found that the owner of the land plot next to the house (the administration of the city of Ufa) objected to the recognition of the right to unauthorized construction, both in the court of first instance and in the cassation appeal.

The addition to the apartment occupied by the plaintiffs under a social tenancy agreement could not be legalized also because not only the land attached to the house is state property, but also the disputed apartment is the property of the city of Ufa.

It has been established and not disputed that the plaintiffs in this civil case did not apply to the Interdepartmental Commission regarding the preservation of the apartment they occupied in a redesigned state.

Under these circumstances, the appealed decision of the court of first instance cannot be recognized as legal in terms of preserving the apartment occupied by the plaintiffs in a redesigned state. Since the disputed apartment in the state in which the plaintiffs have the right to use it under a social tenancy agreement and have the right to privatize it has not been preserved due to its unauthorized redevelopment, and the redevelopment of the apartment has not been legalized, then in satisfying the applicants’ demands for recognition of their ownership of the apartment in the privatization order should be rejected.

Thus, the court of first instance, when considering this case, committed a significant violation of the above rules of substantive law. In such circumstances, the decision of the trial court is subject to cancellation.

Ruling of the Leningrad Regional Court dated November 21, 2013 in case No. 33-5304/2013. The request to be obliged to conclude a social tenancy agreement and to recognize the right to privatize residential premises was refused, since the rooms occupied by a citizen in a communal apartment are official, and therefore are not subject to privatization.

Appeal ruling of the Voronezh Regional Court dated August 13, 2013 in case No. 33-4212/2013. The claims for recognition of ownership of part of the apartment in the manner of privatization and recognition of the right to use common premises were satisfied legally, since it was established that the plaintiff lives in the apartment and occupies a separate living space under the terms of a social tenancy agreement, and has not previously used the right of privatization.

Appeal ruling of the Orenburg Regional Court dated October 29, 2013 in case No. 33-6858/2013. The claims for recognition of ownership of a residential building through privatization were rejected, since the object of a privatization agreement can only be residential premises in state or municipal ownership, occupied under the terms of a social tenancy agreement.

Appeal ruling of the Tula Regional Court dated November 14, 2013 in case No. 33-2856/2013. The claim for recognition of ownership of an apartment through privatization was legally satisfied, since the transition of a state enterprise to another form of ownership does not affect the housing rights of citizens, including the right to free privatization.

Appeal ruling of the Tula Regional Court dated November 7, 2013 in case No. 33-2686/2013. Appeal proceedings on the appeal in the case of challenging the refusal to privatize an apartment and recognition of ownership of the apartment in the manner of privatization; the challenge of the administration's decision and the social tenancy agreement and the eviction from the occupied residential premises was terminated due to the applicant's refusal to appeal.

Appeal ruling of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Tyva dated June 5, 2013 in case No. 33-2856/2013. The application to invalidate the refusal to privatize the apartment was rightfully refused, since the disputed apartment under the privatization agreement had already been transferred into the ownership of the applicant’s deceased spouse. Amendments to the privatization agreement, as well as the re-conclusion of the privatization agreement in the event of the death of the main employer, are not provided for by law.

Appeal ruling of the Novosibirsk Regional Court dated November 26, 2013 in case No. 33-9291/2013. In satisfying the claims for declaring illegal the refusal to privatize a residential premises, recognizing the ownership of an apartment, they were satisfied legally, since the plaintiff lives and is registered in the disputed apartment, and has not previously used the right to privatize the residential premises.

Having analyzed judicial practice, we can conclude that in order to go to court, persons who are denied privatization need the following documents:

1. certificate that they did not participate in the privatization of residential premises;
2. a document confirming the refusal to privatize;
3. a certificate from the Rosreestr Office confirming the absence of residential premises owned by right of ownership.