Sample statement of claim for recognition as having lost the right to use residential premises and deregistration. A claim for recognition of a former family member as having lost the right to use the living quarters. Example of a statement of claim

CORRESPONDENCE DECISION

In the name of the Russian Federation

presiding Rodivilova E.Oh.

alone,

under the secretary A. A. Dmitrieva,

having examined in open court the civil case No. 2-4556 / 12 at the claim of V.N. to Nazaikinskaya S.V., Nazaikinsky N.D., Nazaikinsky D.D., to third parties: the Department of the Federal Migration Service of the Oktyabrsky District of Samara, the Department of Guardianship and Guardianship of the Oktyabrsky District of the Department of Family, Guardianship and Guardianship of the Administration of the city of Samara elimination of obstacles in the exercise of property rights, recognition as having lost the right to use and deregistration,

INSTALLED:

Sergeeva V.N. applied to the court with the specified statement of claim, referring to the fact that she is the owner of apartment No. ... (as part of a residential building), area *** sq. m., *** floor, in house No. ... at the address. She acquired this apartment on the basis of a certificate of the right to inheritance under the law, as well as the decision of the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Samara from the date, Determinations of the Oktyabrskiy Court of Samara from the date She registered her ownership right in the manner prescribed by law. Also, her daughter S.V. Nazaikinskaya is registered in this apartment, as well as her two underage grandsons N. D. Nazaikinskiy. and Nazaikinsky D.D. The defendants have not lived in this apartment since 2003. and they do not need to live in it, because they live in another place, they do not pay for utilities and housing. Currently, the plaintiff needs to dispose of this residential premises in accordance with the procedure established by law, sell the apartment, however, the formal registration of the defendant in the premises belonging to the plaintiff violates her rights of the owner.

Requests to oblige the defendant to remove obstacles in the implementation of Sergeeva V.N. ownership of the apartment at: address; oblige the Office of the Federal Migration Service for the Oktyabrsky District of Samara to remove from registration S.V. Nazaikinskaya, N.D. Nazaikinsky, D.D. Nazaikinsky, registered at: address

During the consideration of the case the plaintiff Sergeeva V.N. the claim clarified, asked to oblige the defendants to remove obstacles in the implementation of V.N. ownership of the apartment (part of the house) at the address: address; recognize S.V. Nazaikinskaya, N.D. Nazaikinskiy, D.D. Nazaikinskiy have lost the right to use the apartment located at: address; oblige the Office of the Federal Migration Service for the Oktyabrsky District of Samara to remove from registration S.V. Nazaikinskaya, D.D. Nazaikinsky, N.D. Nazaikinsky, registered at: address

At the hearing the plaintiff Sergeeva V.N. and her representative Postnova N.L., acting on the basis of the order, the stated claims, taking into account the clarifications, upheld in full, asked to satisfy on the grounds set out in the claim, did not object to the decision in absentia in the case. On the merits of the case, they also pointed out that at present the grounds on which they are asking to recognize the defendants as having lost the right to use the living quarters have changed, namely V.N. Sergeeva. became the owner of the dwelling in which the defendants are registered, since 2010, family relations between the plaintiff and the defendants have actually been terminated, persistent hostile relations have developed between them, in addition, the defendants do not need a dwelling, since they own another dwelling, in which and left for permanent residence.

The representative of a third party - the Department of Guardianship and Guardianship of the Oktyabrsky District of the Department of Family, Guardianship and Guardianship of the Administration of Samara Sapegina E.A., acting on the basis of a power of attorney, objected to the satisfaction of the specified claims, since minor children were registered from birth at: address have the right to use this living space. She also pointed out that in the department of guardianship and trusteeship there is information that the defendants left for permanent residence in an apartment belonging to them by right of ownership and located at the address: address.

The representative of a third party of the Federal Migration Service of Russia for the Samara Region did not appear at the court session, was duly notified of the date and time of the court session, did not report the reason for the failure to appear, and did not provide a response to the claims.

Defendants Nazaikinskaya S.The., Acting for herself, and as a legal representative of minors Nazaikinskiy N.D., Nazaikinskiy D.D. She did not appear at the hearing, she was duly notified of the date and time of the consideration of the case at the last known place of residence, as evidenced by a registered letter with notification, she did not report the reason for her failure to appear, and did not file any requests for postponement. Earlier in the court session, she indicated that she did not recognize the claims, she asks to refuse them, explaining that the relationship between her and V.N. Sergeeva. not very good, Sergeeva V.N. prevents her and her family members from living in a controversial dwelling, has repeatedly appealed to law enforcement agencies to prosecute her husband.

By virtue of Art. 233 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, this case was considered by the court in absentia.

Having examined the materials of the case, the court considers that the stated claims are subject to satisfaction in part on the following grounds.

From the materials of the case it follows that Sergeeva V.N. is the owner of a part of a residential building, with a total area of ​​*** sq.m., located at the address: address, which is confirmed by a certificate of state registration of rights No.

According to the extract from the house (apartment) book for registration of citizens, in addition to the owner of the living quarters V.N. Sergeeva, the following are registered: S.V. Nazaikinskaya. - daughter, date registered; Nazaikinsky N.D. - grandson, registered date; Nazaikinsky D.D. - grandson, registered date

According to the message of the Office of Rosreestr for the Samara region No. ... dated the date of the request of the court, as of the date of S.V. Nazaikinskaya, N.D. Nazaikinskiy, D.D. Nazaikinskiy. on the basis of common share ownership (*** shares each) owns an apartment with an area of ​​*** sq.m., located at: address.

It was also established at the hearing that since December 2006. by date Nazaikinskaya S.V., Nazaikinskiy N.D. and Nazaikinsky D.D. lived in apartment no. ... address to the address owned by L.N. Shiryaeva. (to the sister of Sergeeva V.N.), and since the date the Nazakinskys do not live at the specified address, due to their departure from the specified dwelling, their things are not in the specified apartment, which is confirmed by the Act of inspection of the apartment located at the address: address. The defendants have not lived in the apartment address since December 2006.

It also follows from the materials of the case that V.N. Sergeeva. repeatedly applied to the internal affairs bodies about bringing to criminal responsibility Nazaikinskiy D.Yu., Nazaikinskaya S.The. for hooligan actions, threats of physical harm, however, in initiating a criminal case on the statements of V.N. Sergeeva. was refused, in view of the absence of corpus delicti, which is confirmed by numerous decisions on the refusal to initiate a criminal case, available in the case file.

Shiryaeva L.N., interrogated at the hearing as a witness. testified that she is the sister of V.N. and aunt Nazaikinskaya S.V. Relations between S.V. Nazaikinskaya and Sergeeva are bad, Nazaikinskaya does not consider Sergeeva her mother, which she has repeatedly stated. The Nazaikinsky family practically harasses her sister, in this connection, Sergeeva V.N. several times she was forced to contact the law enforcement agencies. Since she felt sorry for her sister, she let S.V. Nazaikinskaya in. and her family to live in her apartment at: address and she herself temporarily moved to V.N. to the apartment at: address. date and date The Nazaikinskys left her apartment, taking all their belongings, and did not appear there again, where they left, they did not report. She also showed that the defendants are not members of the Sergeeva family, they do not pay for utilities, they do not need the premises owned by Sergeeva, since they own another apartment.

In accordance with Article 31 of the RF LC, family members of the owner of a residential premises include his spouse living with this owner in his residential premises, as well as the children and parents of this owner. Other relatives, disabled dependents and, in exceptional cases, other citizens may be recognized as members of the owner's family if they are moved in by the owner as members of his family. Family members of the owner of a residential premises have the right to use this residential premises on an equal basis with its owner, unless otherwise provided by an agreement between the owner and members of his family. Family members of the owner of a living space are obliged to use this living space for its intended purpose, to ensure its safety. The family members of the owner of the living quarters who are legally capable and have limited legal capacity by the court shall be jointly and severally liable with the owner for the obligations arising from the use of this living quarters, unless otherwise established by an agreement between the owner and his family members.

In accordance with part 4 of article 31 of the RF ZhK, in the event of termination of family relations with the owner of a residential premises, the right to use this residential premises for a former family member of the owner of this residential premises is not retained, unless otherwise established by an agreement between the owner and a former member of his family. If the former family member of the owner of the residential premises has no grounds for acquiring or exercising the right to use another residential premises, as well as if the property status of the former family member of the owner of the residential premises and other noteworthy circumstances do not allow him to provide himself with other residential premises, the right to use the residential premises belonging to the specified owner, can be retained for a former member of his family for a specified period on the basis of a court decision. In this case, the court has the right to oblige the owner of the living quarters to provide other living quarters for the former spouse and other members of his family, in whose favor the owner fulfills the alimony obligations, at their request.

In accordance with paragraph 13 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 14 dated 02.07.2009. "On some issues that have arisen in judicial practice in the application of the RF Housing Code" within the meaning of parts 1 and 4 of Article 31 of the RF Housing Code, former family members of the owner of the residential premises include persons with whom the owner has terminated family relations. Refusal to conduct a common household of other persons with the owner of a residential premises, the absence of a common budget, common household items with the owner, failure to provide mutual support to each other, etc., as well as departure to another place of residence may indicate the termination of family relations with the owner dwelling, but must be assessed in conjunction with other evidence submitted by the parties.

It follows from the materials of the case that no agreement was concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant on the use of the disputed residential premises.

Analyzing the evidence presented to the court, the explanations of the parties, the witness, as well as the specific circumstances of the said case, the court concludes that S.V. Nazaikinskaya, N.D. Nazaikinskiy and Nazaikinsky D.D., can be recognized by the court as former family members of the owner of the dwelling - Sergeeva V.N., since in fact family ties between the plaintiff and the defendants, both between the mother and daughter, as well as the grandmother and grandchildren, are lost, between the plaintiff and the defendant S.V. Nazaikinskaya there are persistent long-term (more than 2 years) hostile relations, accompanied by the filing of statements by the plaintiff to the internal affairs bodies on bringing to criminal responsibility Nazaikinskaya S.The. for unlawful actions in relation to V.N. The fact of the presence of persistent long-term hostile relations is also confirmed by the response of the prosecutor's office of the Samara region from the date to the appeal of Sergeeva V.N. grandmother. Considering that hostile relations persist for a long time, the parents of minors and V.N. repeatedly sent to the "Family" Center to resolve the conflict situation, but refused to work with a psychologist. In the conversation Nazaikinskaya S.V. repeatedly explained that the conflict with V.N. is long-lasting and insoluble ”. Both on the part of V.N. Sergeeva, and on the part of the Nazaikinskys, there is no mutual participation of both family members in each other's life, care, participation in the upbringing of minor grandchildren.

Under such circumstances, the court concludes that the Nazaikinskys were recognized as former family members of the owner of the living quarters V.N.

As indicated above and follows from the materials of the case, the defendants in equal shares own another dwelling, located at the address: the address to which, according to the guardianship and guardianship authority, the Nazaykinsky left for permanent residence. The fact of their departure from the address in the court session was also confirmed by the witness L.N. Shiryaeva, this circumstance is also confirmed by the Act of inspection of this premises, indicated by the court above.

Thus, the defendants are former family members of the owner of the dwelling; they do not need the dwelling belonging to the plaintiff, since they own another dwelling, where they left for permanent residence.

Taking into account the established circumstances and norms of Part 1 of Art. 31 ZhK RF the court finds that the Naizaykinskys have lost the right to use the living quarters located at the address: the address owned by Sergeeva V.N., and therefore, in this part, the plaintiff's claims are subject to satisfaction.

The argument of the defendant Nazaikinskaya S.V., voiced earlier in the court session, that on the fact that the disputable dwelling was declared to have lost the right to use her and her family members, a court decision had already been made and the claim cannot be satisfied, the court cannot take into account.

Indeed, the decision of the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Samara from date in case No. ... at the claim of V.N. to Nazaikinskaya S.V., Nazaikinskiy N.D. on recognition as having lost the right to use the residential premises at the address: the address of deregistration was refused.

This decision of the court entered into force on the date based on the determination of the judicial collegium for civil cases of the Samara Regional Court.

At the same time, the grounds on which the plaintiff Sergeeva The.N. asks to recognize as having lost the right to use the defendants as disputed residential premises other than those indicated by it when filing a statement of claim earlier. In particular, at the time of consideration of civil case No. ... she was not the owner of the residential premises - address, but she only owned a share in the amount of *** for a residential building located at the address: address. In addition, at the time of the court's decision, between the plaintiff and the defendant, in fact, as follows from the court's decision, there was a relationship between a mother and a daughter, while at the present time, for more than 2 years, this relationship is actually absent. In addition, at present, the court has established that the defendants own another dwelling, while during the consideration of the case in 2009 this information was absent.

In accordance with Art. 7 of the Law of the Russian Federation "On the right of citizens of the Russian Federation to freedom of movement, choice of place of stay and residence within the Russian Federation" No. 5242-1 dated June 25, 1993, the removal of a citizen of the Russian Federation from the registration at the place of residence is carried out by the registration authority in the event of eviction from occupied residential premises or recognition as having lost the right to use residential premises - on the basis of a court decision that has entered into legal force.

Thus, the court finds the plaintiff's claim to remove the defendants Nazaikinskaya S.The., Nazaikinskiy N.D., Nazaikinskiy D.D. from the registration at the above address legal and justified, insofar as it follows from the above claim of the plaintiff to recognize the defendants as having lost the right to use the dwelling.

The plaintiff also filed a requirement to oblige the defendants to remove obstacles to the plaintiff's exercise of ownership of the apartment (part of the house) at the address: address. The court considers it necessary to refuse to satisfy the stated demand, since it follows from the materials of the case that in fact the defendants do not live in the disputed residential premises, they voluntarily left for another permanent place of residence, by this court decision the court recognized the defendants as having lost the right to use and ordered them to be removed from the registration register, and therefore, there are currently no obstacles in the plaintiff's exercise of the ownership right in relation to the disputed apartment.

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

Claims Sergeeva V.N. partially satisfy.

To recognize as having lost the right to use S.V. Nazaikinskaya, N. D. Nazaikinskiy. , Nazaikinskiy D.D. living quarters - an apartment located at: address.

To oblige the Department of the FMS of Russia for the Samara region in the Oktyabrsky district of Samara to remove S.V. Nazaikinskaya, N.D. Nazaikinsky, D.D. Nazaikinsky. from registration at the address: address.

In meeting the rest of the stated requirements of V.N. refuse.

The defendant has the right to submit to the court that made the decision in absentia, an application for cancellation of this court decision within seven days from the date of delivery of a copy of this decision to him.

The court decision in absentia may be appealed by the parties to the Samara Regional Court through the Oktyabrsky District Court of Samara on appeal within a month after the expiry of the deadline for the defendant's submission of an application for cancellation of this court decision, and if such an application is submitted, within a month from the day of the court ruling on the refusal to satisfy this application.

To Zelenogorsk District Court
St. Petersburg

Plaintiff: (name, address, phone, e-mail).
Defendants: (name, address, telephone, e-mail).

STATEMENT OF CLAIM
on recognition as having lost the right to use residential premises, eviction and
deregistration

I, ... (name of the plaintiff) owns the residential premises located at the address: __________. I acquired the ownership right to this dwelling on "____" _______ year on the basis of a sale and purchase agreement (agreement on transferring an apartment into ownership by way of privatization, a donation agreement, etc.).

On the basis of the specified contract of sale (contract for transferring an apartment into ownership by way of privatization, donation contract, etc.), I received a Certificate of State Registration of Rights issued by _______ (the body that carries out state registration of rights to real estate and transactions with him).

“____” _______ year I registered at the place of residence in my dwelling _______ (name of the person or persons inhabited).

The defendant refuses to vacate the dwelling and deregister.

Currently, at the address: ________, according to a certificate from the passport office of the DEZ (REU, Housing Department, HOA, etc.), the defendant remains registered.

Without a statement and personal presence of the defendant himself, they refused to remove him from the registration at the passport office of the DEZ (PRUE, Housing Department, HOA, etc.).

The defendant has not been a member of my family since _________, and there are no contractual obligations between us.

Registration and residence in the defendant's residential premises owned by me, significantly limits my rights to own, use and dispose of the residential premises.

Based on the foregoing and in accordance with Art. 304 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, Art. 31.34 ZhK RF, Art. 131-132 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation,

1. Recognize ________ (full name of the defendant) as having lost the right to use the living quarters located at: __________.

2. Evict the defendant ____ (full name) from my dwelling;

3. To oblige __________ (the body that registers citizens at the place of residence, deregistration of citizens) to deregister at the above address.

APPENDIX:
1. Copies of the statement of claim;
2. Copies of the contract of purchase and sale of residential premises;
3. Copies of the Certificate of state registration of law;
4. Copies of a certificate from the place of residence about the composition of the family;
5. A copy of the power of attorney (if the claim is filed not by the plaintiff himself, but by the authorized person);
6. Receipt for payment of state duty.

"_____" __________________ 20__ Plaintiff's Signature _____________

Case No. 2-964 / 2014

CORRESPONDENCE
SOLUTION

IN THE NAME OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

Judge of the Sovetskiy District Court of Tambov Ivanova ON

Under the secretary E.V. Negrova

Having examined in open court the materials of the civil case on the claim of M.A. Zaitsev. to Zaitseva E.The. on recognizing as having lost the right to use a minor Zaitseva I.A.,

Installed:

The owner of the apartment is Zaitsev M.A., the basis for the emergence of the right is the agreement on the transfer of the apartment into ownership with the condition of lifelong maintenance with dependents from 05/08/2003.

The following are registered in the apartment: the plaintiff, grandfather FS Zaitsev, brother AA Zaitsev, brother's son - IA Zaitsev. In 2008, the marriage between his brother and his wife Zaitseva E.V. was terminated, they left the apartment and currently do not live in the apartment.

Former daughter-in-law and her child Zaitsev I.A.,. since 2008, they did not appear in the apartment, did not pay utility bills, their belongings were not in the apartment. The child permanently resides at the place of permanent registration of his mother.

He, as the owner, has to pay extra money for utilities, in material terms it is difficult, because he works alone.

On a voluntary basis, the mother of the child does not want to discharge the child.

He is forced to go to court for the protection of his rights.

At the hearing, the plaintiff supports his claims in full on the grounds specified in the claim, he added in the same way that for 6 years the juvenile Zaitsev AND.A. he does not appear in the apartment, his things are not in the apartment, and his mother and father never paid at least part of the utility bills, carried out repairs in the apartment, or offered their services. Currently, the child lives with his mother with his own grandmother,. Since the payments are significant at this time, it is difficult for him to pay materially for an extra person, which creates certain obstacles for him to use this living space.

The defendant, acting in the interests of a minor child, did not appear in court for an unknown reason. The date of the hearing was duly notified, which is confirmed by a receipt.

In connection with this circumstance, the court makes a decision to consider the case by way of absentee proceedings.

The defendant agrees with the proposed option.

The representative of the guardianship and trusteeship body did not appear in court, there is a message about the consideration of the case in the absence of a representative.

The court, having heard the plaintiff, having studied the case materials: a copy of the agreement on the transfer of the apartment to the property with the condition of lifelong maintenance, l.d. 8, a copy of the certificate of state registration, l.d. 9, a copy of the divorce certificate, l.d. 10, a copy of the certificate about birth, ld 11, personal account, extract from the house book, ld 12,13, comes to the conclusion that the claims are legal, reasonable and subject to satisfaction.

According to article 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, justice in civil cases is carried out on the basis of adversariality and equality of the parties.

According to Article 56 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, each party must prove the circumstances to which it refers as the basis for its claims and objections, unless otherwise provided by federal law.

By virtue of Article 31 of the RF LC, family members of the owner of a residential premises include the spouse living together with this owner in the premises belonging to him, as well as the children and parents of this owner. According to Article 30 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, the owner of a residential premises exercises the rights of ownership, use and disposal of the residential premises belonging to him by right of ownership in accordance with its purpose and the limits of its use, which are established by this Code.

Based on the factual circumstances of the case, the owner of the residential premises has the right to grant possession and (or) use of the residential premises belonging to him on the basis of a lease agreement, a contract for gratuitous use or on other legal basis.

By virtue of Article 35 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, in the event of the termination of a citizen's right to use the living quarters on the grounds provided for by the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, other federal laws, an agreement or on the basis of a court decision, this citizen is obliged to vacate the corresponding living space.

In accordance with clause 2 of article 20 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the place of residence of minors under the age of fourteen is recognized as the place of residence of their legal representatives - parents, adoptive parents or guardians.

The court established that the child lives permanently with the mother of E.V. Zaitseva, at the place of residence.

The child's father is currently registered in the apartment, but in fact has also not lived since 2008, the plaintiff cannot accurately indicate the address of the child's father, since he generally lives outside the city of Tambov.

Thus, based on the totality of the presented and examined evidence, the court concludes that the child Zaitsev I.A., born in 2003 voluntarily left with his mother Zaitseva E.The. from the owner's dwelling, his mother did not take part in the payment of utilities, repair and maintenance of the dwelling in proper condition, he was not repaired to use this dwelling, there are no personal belongings of the child in the plaintiff's apartment, no measures were taken to move in and stay in ... Consequently, there are legal grounds for recognizing him as having lost the right to use the disputed residential premises.

The arguments of the plaintiff Zaitseva M.A. that n / l Zaitsev IA, for a long time does not live in the plaintiff's apartment found its full confirmation.

In refutation of the evidence presented by the defendant, as the legal representative of n / l Zaitseva AND.A. not presented.

Based on the foregoing and guided by Article 233-237 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, the court

Zaitseva I.A., recognize as having lost the right to use the living space in the apartment and remove it from the registration register from this living space.

The defendant has the right to submit to the court that made the decision in absentia, an application for cancellation of this decision within seven days from the date of delivery of a copy of this decision to him.

The court decision in absentia may be appealed by the parties also on appeal within a month after the expiration of the time period for the defendant to submit an application to cancel this court decision, and if such an application is submitted, within a month from the date of the court ruling on the refusal to satisfy this application ...

Judge: O.N. Ivanova

October 01, 2014 Moscow
Tagansky District Court of Moscow
composed of the presiding judge N.A. Kiseleva
under the secretary of L.A. Ababaeva,
with the participation of lawyers FULL NAME8, FULL NAME11, FULL NAME12,
having examined in open court the civil case No. 2-2438 / 14 on the claim of FULL NAME2 to FULL NAME3, FULL NAME4 on recognition of having lost the right to use the living quarters, deregistration,
and on the counterclaim FULL NAME4 to FULL NAME2 about moving in, the prohibition to fix obstacles to living in the dwelling, the obligation to hand over a copy of the keys,
INSTALLED:
The plaintiff FULL NAME2 applied to the court with this claim to FULL NAME3, acting in the interests of the minor FULL NAME4 on recognition as having lost the right to use the living quarters, deregistration. In support of the claim, it is indicated that the plaintiff is the owner of the disputed residential premises - an apartment located at:. The apartment was purchased under a sale and purchase agreement from sellers FULL NAME19 and FULL NAME9 The agreement provides for the seller's obligation FULL NAME13 to remove from the registration of his family members, including the minor FULL NAME4 However, until now the minor FULL NAME4 is registered on the disputed area, which violates the plaintiff's rights as the owner of the dwelling. Minor FULL NAME4 in 2002 was transferred under the guardianship FULL NAME10 with the consent of his father FULL NAME3, the place of residence of the ward at the time of guardianship is determined at:, but at the same time for the minor FULL NAME4 the living area is kept at the address:. FULL NAME1, in 2004 custody of the minor FULL NAME4 terminated, FULL NAME10 released from the duties of a guardian, the minor FULL NAME4 began to live with his father in s. Yuryevo-Devichye at the above address.
Based on the above, the plaintiff asks the court to recognize the minor FULL NAME4 as having lost the right to use the living quarters - apartment No. 16 located at: - with its removal from the registration at the specified address. (ld 7-10).
By a court ruling dated 17.02.2014. to participate in the case as a co-defendant attracted minor FULL NAME4 (ld.2).
By absentee decision of the Tagansky District Court dated 09.04.2014. claims FULL NAME2 satisfied (ld 152-155).
By a court ruling dated 08.07.2014. canceled the decision in absentia of the Tagansky District Court dated 09.04.2014. in a civil case, the claim FULL NAME2 to FULL NAME3, acting in the interests of the minor FULL NAME4 on recognition as having lost the right to use the living quarters, deregistration. The proceedings on the above case were resumed (case file 172).
Opposing the plaintiff's claims, the defendant FULL NAME4 filed a counterclaim against FULL NAME2 about moving into the dwelling - No. located at the address:, the prohibition to obstruct living in the said dwelling, the obligation to hand over a copy of the keys, arguing that he (FULL NAME4 , 21.09.1996) was introduced into the owner of the apartment as a family member - nephew on 27.03.2003. and has not since been evicted on any legal basis. Acquiring an apartment with registered tenants on her area, FULL NAME2 knew about it and did not mind. At the same time, the obligations assumed by the sellers of the apartment have nothing to do with the minor FULL NAME4. FULL NAME2 has the right to demand from the sellers the fulfillment of contractual obligations. There was such a situation when the previous, and the new owners of the said apartment hinder the residence FULL NAME4 in the apartment in which he was moved legally. In addition, the information provided to the court FULL NAME2 in his statement of claim does not correspond to reality. In particular, after the termination of custody, he (FULL NAME4) did not live with his father for a single day. The apartment in the village of Yuryevo-Devichye referred to in the statement of claim FULL NAME2 is not a comfortable living quarters and does not meet the requirements stipulated by the Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation of No. 47 “On the approval of the Regulations on the recognition of a premise as a dwelling, a dwelling unsuitable for living and an apartment building as emergency and subject to demolition or reconstruction ”(as amended on 08/04/2013). Father FULL NAME4 - FULL NAME3 is not a co-owner of the specified apartment. In addition, FULL NAME4 received a serious, trauma and cannot serve himself independently, especially in the conditions of year-round living in rural areas (in the absence of running water and toilet). He is also a senior full-time student at a Moscow college.
The plaintiff in the main claim FULL NAME2 did not appear at the hearing, was duly notified, sent to the court its representatives - lawyers FULL NAME11 and FULL NAME8, who supported the claim FULL NAME2, on the grounds set out in the statement of claim, objected to the satisfaction of counter claims FULL NAME4
Defendants FULL NAME3 and FULL NAME4 at the hearing did not appear, duly notified.
Representative FULL NAME4 lawyer FULL NAME12 in this hearing objected to the main claim FULL NAME2, supported counterclaim FULL NAME4
Representatives of 3 persons of the Administration of the Konakovsky District of the Tver Region, the Department of the Federal Migration Service of Russia in Moscow for the Tagansky District, the Department of Guardianship, Guardianship and Patronage of the Office of the SZN of the Tagansky District of the Moscow Central Administrative District did not appear at the hearing, were duly notified.
The court, after hearing the explanations of the representatives of the parties, having examined the written materials of the case, comes to the conclusion that the claims FULL NAME2 are subject to satisfaction, and the counterclaims FULL NAME4 - are subject to rejection on the following grounds.
In accordance with Part 1 of Article 27 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, everyone who is legally on the territory of the Russian Federation has the right to move freely, choose a place of stay and residence.
Based on Part 1 of Art. 40 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, everyone has the right to housing. No one can be arbitrarily deprived of their home.
According to paragraph 1 of Art. 20 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the place of residence is the place where a citizen permanently or predominantly resides.
By virtue of Art. 1 of the Law of the Russian Federation "On the right of citizens of the Russian Federation to freedom of movement, choice of place of stay and residence within the Russian Federation", every citizen of Russia has the right to freedom of movement, choice of place of stay and residence within the Russian Federation.
In accordance with Art. 2 of the said Law, the place of residence is a residential building, an apartment, an office dwelling, specialized houses (a hostel, a hotel - a shelter, a maneuvering fund house, a special home for lonely elderly, a boarding house for disabled people, veterans and others), as well as other living quarters , in which a citizen permanently or predominantly resides as an owner, under a lease (sublease) agreement, a lease agreement or on other grounds stipulated by the legislation of the Russian Federation.
By virtue of Part 4 of Art. 3 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, no one can be evicted from the home or restricted in the right to use the home, including the right to receive utilities, except on the grounds and in the manner provided for by this Code and other federal laws.
In accordance with Part 1 and Part 4 of Art. 17 ZhK RF residential premises are intended for citizens. The use of residential premises is carried out taking into account the observance of the rights and legitimate interests of citizens living in this residential area ...
According to part 1 of article 11 of the RF Housing Code, the protection of violated housing rights is carried out by the court.

According to Part 1 of Art. 288 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the owner exercises the rights of ownership, use and disposal of the residential premises belonging to him by right of ownership in accordance with his purpose.
By virtue of Art. 304 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the owner can demand the elimination of any violations of his rights, even if these violations were not connected with the deprivation of ownership.
During the court session, it was established that the disputed living space is a separate two-room apartment with a total area of ​​62.3 square meters, a living area of ​​39.4 square meters, located at:.
This apartment belongs by right of ownership to the plaintiff FULL NAME2 on the basis of the sale and purchase agreement of 17.07.2013, concluded between FULL NAME2 (the buyer) and the sellers FULL NAME19 and FULL NAME13, as well as a certificate of state registration of rights dated 07.29.2013, issued by the Office of Rosreestr in Moscow on form No.
According to clause 8 of the sale and purchase agreement, FULL NAME13 undertakes to deregister and ensure the deregistration of a minor FULL NAME14 12.07.1998g.r., FULL NAME10, year of birth, minor FULL NAME4, year of birth.
According to the archival extract from the house book, on the disputed area were registered FULL NAME15 - from 01.01.1967g. (discharged due to death), FULL NAME16 - from 26.03.2005. (issued on 30.08.2012 at another address), FULL NAME17 - s (issued on 30.08.2012 at another address), FULL NAME18 - s (issued on 30.08.2012 at another address), FULL NAME5 D.S. - from (discharged on August 15, 2013 at the application to the address: Moscow,), FULL NAME5 S. P. - from 12/14/1983. (issued at the request to the address: Moscow,), FULL NAME19 - from 13.09.1978. (written out on 20.12.1989 at the address :), FULL NAME10 issued on 15.08.2013. according to the application to the address: Moscow,).
Currently on the disputed area registered defendant - FULL NAME4 - from 27.03.2003g. (user of the former owners) (l.d. 61).
The court found that by the resolution of the head of the Konakovsky district of the Tver region dated 06.12.2002. №939 FULL NAME10 appointed guardian of the minor FULL NAME4, 21.09.1996g.r. (ld 18).
By the said decree of the head of the Konakovskiy district of the Tver region, the living space at the address:. The place of residence of the guardian at the place of residence of the guardian has been determined at the address:.
By order of the head of the Tagansky district of Moscow from No. 2544 ward FULL NAME4, b. registered with the guardianship and trusteeship authorities of the Tagansky District Administration of Moscow (ld 12).
Further, by the order of the head of the municipality "Tagansky" from No. 265 custody of the minor FULL NAME4, year of birth, terminated, FULL NAME10 released from the duties of the guardian of the minor FULL NAME4 Minor FULL NAME4, year of birth, transferred to the upbringing of the father - FULL NAME3 (ld 53 ).
By letter dated June 25, 2013. No. 4212 The Department of Social Protection of the Population of the Tagansky District of Moscow informed the Department of the Federal Migration Service of Russia in Moscow for the Tagansky District that the Guardianship and Trusteeship of the Department of Social Protection of the Population of the Tagansky District of Moscow does not object to the removal of FULL NAME4, b. registration at the address: (ld 17).
According to the extract from the Unified State Register, the ownership of FULL NAME20, FULL NAME3 and FULL NAME4 is an apartment at the address:, s / p Yuryevo-Devichye, (1/3 of each share).
These circumstances are confirmed by the materials of the case, not contested or refuted.
According to Art. Art. 56, 57 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, each party must prove the circumstances to which it refers as the basis for its claims and objections. Evidence is presented by the parties and other persons involved in the case.
Representatives of the plaintiff FULL NAME2 lawyers FULL NAME11 and FULL NAME8, who claim FULL NAME2 objecting to the satisfaction of counterclaims FULL NAME4 to FULL NAME2 about moving in, prohibition to obstruct living in the dwelling, the obligation to hand over a copy of the keys for reasons, indicated that FULL NAME4 lost the right to use the apartment at the place of his registration after the termination of custody of him in 2004, retained the right to use housing at the address: in accordance with the Resolution of the Head of the Konakovsky District of the Tver Region. dated 06.12.2002 Consequently, there are no legal grounds provided for by the current legislation to preserve the right to use FULL NAME4 apartment No. 16, located at:, d., Is not available.
Representative FULL NAME4- lawyer FULL NAME12 in the course of the trial explained that the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant FULL NAME4 was instilled on the guardian's area as a ward is unsubstantiated, since FULL NAME4 was instilled on the living space on which he is currently registered by the owner on a full legal basis as a family member without any restrictions by the period (term) or condition of having guardianship or the condition of reaching any particular age. In fact, he actually lived in the specified area until the owner decided to rent this apartment and began to obstruct the defendant's residence at the place of registration. Renting out an apartment in which a minor child was registered and actually lived, the owner gladly enjoyed the benefits of an orphan - a disabled child to pay for utilities. After the child's disability was removed, the owner of the apartment began to prevent him from living in the living space at the place of registration. Also FULL NAME2 did not provide the court with any evidence of bad faith (guilt) of the defendant, who lived on the living space belonging to the plaintiff, which, according to the law, could be the basis for eviction from the area on which the defendant was legally introduced as a family member and whose residence the owner in lately I have been making obstacles. FULL NAME2 knew that she was acquiring an apartment in which a family member lived, who had no grounds for acquiring the right to use another living space. removed from registration at this address. The claimant received this compensation. All conditions of the Purchase Agreement have been fulfilled. In addition, he noted that the law does not provide for the "preservation of the right" to live in any apartment for a citizen in cases when he is moved in and registered on a permanent basis in another living space. The apartment referred to by the plaintiff is unfit for living. The residential building was built 35 years ago and has never been overhauled. The apartment has no plumbing and sewerage, stove heating. Even if the owners agree to move the defendant to such an area, the defendant has no opportunity to purchase firewood, bottled gas and, at its own expense, maintain, repair and operate such housing. The owners of the apartment in which the plaintiff proposes to relocate the defendant have full legal grounds to object to the move in of an adult citizen. In addition to confirming their arguments, the plaintiff was invited by the party, and the witness was questioned by the court FULL NAME21
Witness FULL NAME21, questioned at this hearing, showed that she is an employee of ZAO "Kutuzovskiy Prospect" and accompanied the transaction FULL NAME2 for the purchase of an apartment by her, located at:. On the merits of the case, the witness testified that, according to the application FULL NAME2, they picked up the disputed apartment (the apartment was in a state of disrepair, since the tenants lived in it), then they began to collect documents. On the part of the sellers were mother and son FULL NAME24 explained that FULL NAME4 is her nephew, whom they will write out to the newly acquired apartment. FULL NAME1 said that FULL NAME3 does not want to write out the child. FULL NAME21 tried to convince FULL NAME3 write out son, he refused, referring to the fact that FULL NAME5 owes him money. Discounts for maintaining the registration of a minor on the disputed area was not provided by the agreement of the parties to the transaction, the witness knows about this, since she was present at the signing of the contract FULL NAME2 and FULL NAME25.
The court trusts the testimony of the witness FULL NAME21, since her testimony is consistent, logical, not refuted. Before interrogation, the witness was warned about criminal liability for knowingly giving false testimony.
The court established and the defendants did not refute that the defendant FULL NAME4 does not live in the disputed apartment, does not use it, does not store things. A family member of the plaintiff FULL NAME2 FULL NAME4 is not and was not, guardianship over the minor FULL NAME4 guardian FULL NAME26 terminated in 2004. The agreement with the plaintiff on the preservation of the minor FULL NAME4 of the right to use the disputed apartment was not concluded.
In accordance with part 1 of article 209 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and part 1 of article 30 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, the owner has the rights to own, use and dispose of his property.
The provisions of Part 2 of Article 292 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation establish that the transfer of ownership of an apartment to another person is the basis for the termination of the right to use the living space by family members of the previous owner, unless otherwise provided by law.
In accordance with Part 1 of Article 35 of the RF LC, in the event of the termination of a citizen's right to use a dwelling on the grounds provided for by this Code, other federal laws, an agreement, or on the basis of a court decision, this citizen is obliged to vacate the corresponding dwelling (stop using it) ... If this citizen does not vacate the said residential premises within the time period established by the owner of the corresponding residential premises, he is subject to eviction at the request of the owner on the basis of a court decision.
By virtue of Article 304 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the owner can demand the elimination of any violations of his rights, even if these violations were not connected with the deprivation of ownership.
Thus, evaluating the evidence collected in the case in their totality and in conjunction with the given norms of the current legislation, the court finds the claims of FULL NAME2 justified and subject to satisfaction in full, since there are no legal grounds for preserving the right to use the disputable housing for FULL NAME4, in connection with with what the court finds no legal basis to satisfy counterclaims FULL NAME4 to FULL NAME2 about the move, the prohibition to obstruct living in the dwelling, the obligation to transfer a copy of the keys.
The arguments of the representative FULL NAME4 on the application of Part 4 of Art. 31 ZhK RF the court rejects as insolvent. Since this rule of law in this case is not applicable, since FULL NAME4 is not a former family member of the owner of the disputed housing.
The arguments of the representative FULL NAME4 about the latter's absence of another dwelling, about his need for a disputable housing, given that FULL NAME4 is studying at a Moscow college, about the impossibility of staying FULL NAME4 at the previous place of residence of independent legal significance for the resolution of this dispute do not have and as such were rejected by the court.
Based on the foregoing, guided by Art. 12, 56, 57, 67, 167, 194-199, Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, court
DECIDED:
Terminate the right to use FULL NAME4 residential premises - apartment No. 16 located at:, - with its removal from the registration at the specified address.
In meeting the counterclaims FULL NAME4 to FULL NAME2 about the move, the prohibition to fix obstacles to living in the dwelling, the obligation to hand over a copy of the keys - to refuse.
The decision can be appealed to the Moscow City Court through the Tagansky District Court of Moscow within 1

Case No. 2-1064 / 2013 DECISION

in the name of the Russian Federation

Judge of the Kuznetsk District Court of Novokuznetsk, Kemerovo Region Shmakova E.S.,

under the secretary of O.N. Efimenko,

having examined in open court a civil case at the suit of M.Yew Petukhov. to Petukhov A.M. , The Administration of the city of Novokuznetsk on invalidating the contract of privatization of residential premises, termination of ownership, application of the consequences of the invalidity of the transaction,

INSTALLED:

Petukhov M.Yu. filed a lawsuit against A.M. Petukhov, the Administration of Novokuznetsk, in which he asks to invalidate the agreement on transferring housing into the ownership of citizens, concluded between A.M. Petukhov. and the Office for the registration and privatization of residential premises of the Administration of Novokuznetsk from –. – .—-. , terminate the property right Petukhova A.M. for an apartment<****>, apply the consequences of the invalidity of the transaction and return the apartment to the municipal ownership of the Novokuznetsk administration.

The claim was motivated by the fact that –. – .—-. he was registered in the apartment by<****>as the husband of the tenant of the residential premises P1. , was a member of the employer's family and had equal rights and obligations with it arising from the social employment contract. Decision<данные изъяты>district court<****>from –. – .—-. he was recognized as having lost the right to use the dwelling by<****>... The case was considered in his absence, since the plaintiff deliberately misled the court by not giving the address of the defendant. IN -.-.--. g. he was removed from the registration register in the said dwelling. About this, as well as about the decision that took place, he became aware of –. – .—-. , after which they filed an appeal against the court's decision. By the definition of the Kemerovo Regional Court from –. – .—-. the decision of the court from –. – .—-. was canceled with a new decision - in satisfaction of the claim Petukhov A.M. to Petukhov M.Yu. to refuse to declare that they have lost the right to use the living quarters. IN -.-.--. g. the defendant Petukhov A.M. represented by the representative S., by proxy, applied to the Office for Accounting and Privatization of Residential Premises of the Administration<****>with a statement on the transfer of ownership of the residential premises on<****>... –. – .—-. on the basis of contract No. the above apartment was transferred from the municipal property to the personal property of AM Petukhov. Since at the time of the privatization of the residential premises it was removed from the registration register, the privatization took place without his participation. He is currently re-registered in the controversial apartment. The fact that the disputable apartment was privatized by AM Petukhov became known to him in –. – .–-. city, as he was informed by an employee of the administration of the Kuznetsk district of Novokuznetsk when deciding on the provision of documents for the demolition of the house on<****>... The privatization agreement of the disputed apartment must be declared invalid, since the privatization took place without his participation. He did not give his consent to participate in the privatization of the disputed residential premises, as well as refusal to participate.

At the hearing the plaintiff Petukhov M.Yew. He supported his claims, on the merits of the claim explained that the defendant was his son, an apartment on<****>was provided to him at the place of work, to him, his wife P1. , their children Petukhova A.M. and P2. in -.-.--. Mr. he was registered in the said apartment as a family member of the tenant P1. - her husband. The social lease agreement for residential premises at the specified address was concluded with his consent with his wife P1. IN -.-.--. Mr. his wife died. Decision<данные изъяты>District Court of Novokuznetsk from –. – .—-. at the claim of A.M. Petukhov to him, he was recognized as having lost the right to use the dwelling according to<****>, on the basis of this decision, with a note of entry into force, in –. – .—-. g. he was removed from the registration register in the said dwelling. When the court was considering this case, he was not present, t.to. I did not receive summons, did not live at the place of registration, and the defendant did not inform him about it. IN -.-.--. g. the defendant Petukhov A.M. through representative S., he privatized the disputed apartment into his personal property, having received a refusal from his sister P2. to participate in the privatization, and besides Petukhov A.M., no one else was registered in the dwelling. The fact that a court decision was made on recognizing him as having lost the right to use the living quarters, he learned in –. – .–-. g., therefore he filed an appeal against this decision. By the definition of the court of appeal from –. – .—-. solution<данные изъяты>of the district court from –. – .—-. was canceled, a decision was made to refuse to satisfy the claims of Petukhov A.M. to him on recognition as having lost the right to use the dwelling. He is currently registered in the controversial apartment. Considers the privatization agreement No. from –. – .—-. , concluded between Petukhov A.M. and the Office for the registration and privatization of residential premises of the Administration of the city of Novokuznetsk, invalid, since he had the right to participate in the privatization of residential premises on<****>, was recognized as having lost the right to use the dwelling and was unlawfully deregistered, his refusal to participate in the privatization or consent was not obtained. Therefore, he asks to recognize the privatization agreement of the disputed residential premises from –. – .—-. invalid, terminate the defendant's ownership of the given dwelling, apply the consequences of the invalidity of transactions and return the dwelling to municipal ownership. If the defendant had not been discharged from the dwelling, then he did not give permission for privatization, he does not want to privatize the apartment.

Defendant Petukhov A.M. he admitted the claim partially, on the merits of the claim he explained that the dwelling on<****>, was given to his mother P1. in -.-.--. d. Parents divorced in –. – .—-. G., the father was serving a prison term. A social employment contract was concluded with his mother, and he and his sister P2. are members of her family. He and his father Petukhov M.Yu. hostile relations developed at that time, the father did not live in the controversial apartment, so he decided to write him out of the controversial apartment in order to then privatize it into his own property. To do this, he went to court. Decision<данные изъяты>of the district court from –. – .—-. his father was found to have lost the right to use the living quarters, and then removed from the registration register in the apartment. When the court decision came into legal force, he privatized the disputed apartment into his own property, he did not inform his father about it. Sister P2. wrote a refusal to participate in privatization. Appellate ruling from –. – .—-. the decision of the court from –. – .—-. was canceled, with a new decision to refuse to satisfy his claims, since it was not his father's residence in the disputed apartment that was forced, due to the existing conflict between them. In this connection, he does not object to the claim to invalidate the privatization agreement, but he does not agree to the transfer of housing to municipal ownership.

The representative of the defendant - Administration of Novokuznetsk Shorokhova MV, acting on the basis of power of attorney № from –. – .—-. issued for a period up to –. – .—-. , did not appear at the hearing, sent a response to the claim to the court, in which she asked to consider the case in her absence, on the basis of the evidence obtained and in accordance with the current legislation. According to the submitted review, the apartment is<****>was transferred by way of privatization into the ownership of A.M. Petukhov. on the basis of an agreement on the transfer of residential premises into the ownership of citizens No. from –. – .—-. , concluded between the administration of the city of Novokuznetsk represented by the Office of Accounting and Privatization of Residential Premises and the said citizen. The technical execution of the documents was carried out by the department of privatization of the small town of Novokuznetsk "Municipal Housing Center". The interests of A.M. Petukhov represented by notarial power of attorney S. from the submitted social tenancy agreement it followed that initially the tenant of the dwelling was P1. Petukhov M.Yu., –. – .—- were indicated as permanently residing with the employer of family members in the annex to the contract. b., Petukhov A.M., –. – .—-. b. As follows from the copy of the apartment card, at the time of privatization in the apartment, only A.M. Petukhov was registered. Based on the court decision Petukhov M.Yew. was deregistered at this address. P1. was listed as deregistered from –. – .—-. in connection with death. P2. was listed as deregistered in an apartment with –. – .—-. ... On her behalf, a notarized consent was provided for the privatization of residential premises without her participation and inclusion in the number of owners. The only person entitled to participate in the privatization of residential premises at the time of filing the application was A.M. Petukhov. Subject to a legally enforceable decision<данные изъяты>District Court from –. – .—-. and agreement P2. for privatization with Petukhov A.M. an agreement was concluded for the privatization of an apartment for<****>, from –. – .—-. (ld 37).

The representative of the third person - the Office of the Federal Service for State Registration, Cadastre and Cartography NN Klimova, acting on the basis of a power of attorney No. from –. – .—-. for a period of –. – .—-. , did not appear at the hearing, sent to the court a response to the claim, in which she asked to consider the case in her absence (ld 35).

The court considers it possible, with the consent of the parties, to consider the case at this appearance in accordance with Art. 167 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation.

The court, having listened to the appearing parties, having examined the materials of the case, finds the claims Petukhov M.Yew. reasonable, subject to satisfaction. In this case, the court proceeds from the following:

In accordance with Art. 11 of the RF LC, protection of housing rights is carried out by the court.

By virtue of Art. 2 of the Law of the Russian Federation of July 4, 1991 N 1541-1 (as amended on June 11, 2008) "On the privatization of the housing stock in the Russian Federation" citizens of the Russian Federation occupying residential premises in the state and municipal housing stock, including the housing stock under economic jurisdiction enterprises or operational management of institutions (departmental fund), under the terms of social employment, has the right, with the consent of all adult family members living together, as well as minors aged 14 to 18 years, to acquire these premises in ownership under the conditions provided for by this Law, other regulatory acts Of the Russian Federation and the constituent entities of the Russian Federation. Residential premises are transferred to common ownership or to the ownership of one of the cohabitants, including minors.

Thus, within the meaning of the law, the consent of all persons retaining the right to use the residential premises is a prerequisite for its privatization.

Based on Art. 7 of this law, the transfer of residential premises into the ownership of citizens is formalized by a transfer agreement concluded by state authorities or local self-government bodies of settlements, an enterprise, an institution with a citizen who receives a residential premises into ownership in the manner prescribed by law. In this case, the notarization of the transfer agreement is not required and the state fee is not charged.

The ownership right to the acquired residential premises arises from the moment of state registration of the right in the Unified State Register of Rights to Real Estate and Transactions with It.

In accordance with Article 8 of this Law, in case of violation of the rights of a citizen when deciding on the privatization of residential premises, he has the right to go to court.

In accordance with Art. 11 of the said Law, every citizen has the right to acquire ownership free of charge, through privatization, of housing in the state and municipal housing stock for social use once.

In accordance with Part 1 of Art. 69 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, family members of the tenant of the residential premises under the lease agreement include his spouse living with him, as well as the children and parents of this tenant. Other relatives, disabled dependents are recognized as family members of the tenant of the dwelling if they are moved in by the tenant as members of his family and are in common with him.

In accordance with Article 61 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, the circumstances established by a court decision that entered into legal force on a previously considered case are binding on the court. These circumstances are not proven again and are not subject to challenge when considering another case in which the same persons are involved.

The court found that the apartment on<****>in -.-.--. were moved in and lived: P1. as an employer, her children A.M. Petukhov and P2. , as well as in –. – .—-. the plaintiff Petukhov M.Yew was moved and registered. as a spouse of the employer (l.d. 4, 44).

P1. under a social contract of employment from –. – .—-. an apartment was provided for<****>(l.d. 40-41). According to the list of persons permanently residing with the employer, the husband Petukhov M.Yu., son Petukhov A.M. are indicated. (l.d. 43 vol.). P2. withdrew from registration in the indicated apartment –. – .—-. ...

Marriage P1. and Petukhova M.Yu. was terminated in –. – .—-. g., in –. – .—-. city ​​P1. died.

Petukhov M.Yu. was registered in the disputed apartment during the period from –. – .—-. on -.-.--. , with -.-.--. was re-registered in this apartment.

According to Art. 54 of the Housing Code of the RSFSR, in force at the time the plaintiff moved into the disputed apartment, the tenant has the right, in the prescribed manner, to move his spouse, children, parents, other relatives, disabled families.

Citizens moved in by the tenant in accordance with the rules of this article acquire the right to use the dwelling, equal with the tenant and the rest of his family, if these citizens are or are recognized as members of his family (Article 53) and if, upon settling in between these citizens, the tenant and living with his family members did not have any other agreement on the procedure for using the living quarters.

Considering the above, taking into account the provisions of Art. 54 of the Housing Code of the RSFSR, in force at the time of the arrival of Petukhov M.Yu. to the disputed apartment, the court concludes that the latter acquired the right to use the above-mentioned living quarters, equal to that of the tenant.

As follows from the solution<данные изъяты>district court<****>from –. – .—-. , appeal determination of the Kemerovo Regional Court from –. – .—-. (ld 6-9, 10-13), explanations of the parties, hostile relations developed between the plaintiff and the defendant, as a result of which their joint residence in the disputed apartment was impossible, after the death of his wife Petukhov M.Yew. left for another place of residence, therefore Petukhov A.M. filed a lawsuit against M.Yu. Petukhov. on recognition as having lost the right to use a residential premises, deregistration in a residential area according to<****> .

Decision<данные изъяты>district court<****>from –. – .—-. Petukhov M.Yu. recognized as having lost the right to use the living quarters located at:<****>(l.d. 10-13).

Based on the specified court decision, with a note of its entry into legal force –. – .—-. , the plaintiff Petukhov M.Yew. was removed from the registration register in the indicated apartment –. – .—-. (ld 44).

Based on the application (ld 39), under the contract No. from –. – .—-. , concluded between Petukhov A.M. represented by a representative under a notarized power of attorney S. and the Office for the registration and privatization of residential premises of the Administration of Novokuznetsk, Petukhov A.M. transferred to the ownership of the apartment<****>(l.d. 5, 53).

The defendant's ownership of this dwelling is registered –. – .—-. (ld 14).

As follows from the explanations of the representative of the defendant - the administration of Novokuznetsk Shorokhova M.The., Written materials of the case, in the apartment card presented by Petukhov A.M. along with the application for the transfer of the apartment into ownership, only one applicant was listed on the registration register, other persons were removed from the registration register: P1. - –. – .—-. in connection with death, P2. - –. – .—-. voluntarily, Petukhov M.Yu. - –. – .—-. by a court decision from –. – .—-. ... Since the temporary absence of a tenant of a dwelling under a social tenancy agreement, one of his family members living with him or all of these citizens does not entail a change in their rights and obligations under a social tenancy agreement (Article 71 of the RF LC), then when checking of documents for privatization by the employees of the MP “Municipal Housing Center” it was established whether the members of the tenant's family who had left the dwelling had acquired another permanent place of residence. Instead of supporting documents, the consent of the retired citizens may be provided for the privatization of this residential premises without their participation, written in the presence of employees who receive documents, or certified in the prescribed manner. On behalf of P2. , who previously lived in the disputed dwelling, was given notarial consent to privatize the dwelling by<****>, without her participation and without being included in the number of owners (ld 49).

Thus, as follows from the recall of the representative of the defendant Shorokhova M.V., the only person who had the right to participate in the privatization of the disputed residential premises, as of the date of filing the application, was Petukhov A.M., with whom an agreement was concluded on the transfer of residential premises to property of citizens № from –. – .—-. (ld 37).

From the explanations of the plaintiff Petukhova M.Yew. the court found that on the court's decision taken from –. – .—-. about recognizing him as having lost the right to use the living quarters and that he was removed from the registration register in the disputable apartment, he became aware only in –. – .–-. g., in connection with which he filed an appeal against the said court decision.

The appeal ruling of the Kemerovo Regional Court from –. – .—-. solution<данные изъяты>district court<****>from –. – .—-. was canceled, with the issuance of a new decision in the case to dismiss the claims to A.M. Petukhov. on the recognition of M.Yu. who have lost the right to use the living quarters (case sheets 6-9).

As follows from the appellate ruling, the court found that Petukhov M.Yew. did not live in a controversial apartment with –. – .—-. forcedly, due to the existing conflict relations with his son Petukhov A.M., he did not refuse the rights to this apartment, did not acquire the right to use or the right of ownership to another living space, often visited the controversial apartment and had the keys to it, and he was hindered in the disputed apartment at the time of the court's consideration of the case by unauthorized persons who lived in it on the basis of the right to lease.

After an appeal ruling the plaintiff Petukhov M.Yew. was re-registered in the controversial apartment.

Considering that the plaintiff did not live in the disputable apartment during the period from –. – .—-. g. forcedly, due to conflicting relations with the defendant, but retained the right to live in it as a member of the employer's family, the court believes that he, by virtue of Art. 69 ZhK RF had equal rights with the tenant to the given dwelling.

In accordance with Part 3 of Art. 69 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, family members of the tenant of the dwelling under the social tenancy agreement must be indicated in the social tenancy agreement of the dwelling.

By virtue of Art. 71 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, the temporary absence of a tenant of a dwelling under a social contract, any of his family members living with him or all of these citizens does not entail a change in their rights and obligations under a social contract.

Considering that Petukhov M.Yew. at the time of the privatization of the apartment, he occupied the disputed residential premises under a social tenancy agreement, therefore, he had the right to privatize it, and the disputed apartment could be privatized only with his consent. The plaintiff did not give the defendant Petukhov A.M. consent to the acquisition of the disputed apartment into ownership under the conditions stipulated by the Law of the Russian Federation of July 4, 1991 N 1541-1 “On the privatization of the housing stock in the Russian Federation”.

Having established that the contract for the transfer of residential premises to the ownership of the defendant was concluded after the entry into force of the court decision recognizing M.Yew Petukhov. lost the right to use the living quarters, which was later canceled by the appeal instance with a new decision to dismiss the claims Petukhov A.M., the court considers that the privatization of the apartment without taking into account the rights of Petukhov M.Yew. contradicts the requirements of the RF Law of July 4, 1991 N 1541-1 “On the privatization of the housing stock in the Russian Federation”.

In accordance with Art. 168 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, a transaction that does not meet the requirements of the law or other legal acts is void if the law does not establish that such a transaction is disputable.

The Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in clause 6 of the resolution of August 24, 1993 N 8 (as amended on 07/02/2009) "On some issues of the application by the courts of the Law of the Russian Federation" On the privatization of the housing stock in the Russian Federation " as well as a certificate of ownership, at the request of interested parties, may be recognized by a court as invalid on the grounds established by civil law for recognizing a transaction as invalid.

On the basis of h. H. 1, 2, Art. 167 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, an invalid transaction does not entail legal consequences, with the exception of those related to its invalidity, and is invalid from the moment of its completion.

If the transaction is invalid, each of the parties is obliged to return to the other everything received under the transaction, and if it is impossible to return what was received in kind (including when the received is expressed in the use of property, work performed or service provided), reimburse its value in money - if other consequences invalidity of the transaction is not provided for by law.

Clause 32 of the Resolution of the Plenums of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated 01.07.1996 No. 6/8 "On some issues related to the application of part one of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation" states that a void transaction is invalid regardless of whether it is recognized as such court (paragraph 1 of Article 166 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). Considering that the aforementioned Code does not exclude the possibility of filing claims for invalidating a void transaction, disputes over such claims are subject to resolution by a court in a general manner at the request of any interested person.

This transaction is null and void, it was concluded in violation of the RF Law of 04.07.1991 “On the privatization of the housing stock in the RF”, since it was concluded without the consent of M.Yu. apartment. The privatization of residential premises is possible only with the obligatory consent to the privatization of all adult family members of the tenant, including the former family members of the tenant. This rule of law does not establish any exceptions for members of his family living together with the tenant, including for those who previously lived and were registered in this dwelling.

The court disagrees with the argument of the defendant Petukhov A.M. that the plaintiff did not acquire the rights in relation to the disputed apartment, since the issue of recognizing a citizen as having lost or terminated the right to housing could only be resolved by the court if there was a corresponding appeal from the interested person. Since the solution<данные изъяты>district court<****>from –. – .—-. on the recognition of M.Yu. Petukhov. lost the right to use the disputed apartment was canceled, with the issuance of a new decision to dismiss the claims Petukhov A.M., it is considered that, in the manner prescribed by law, Petukhov M.Yew. was not recognized as having lost the right in relation to the apartment over which the dispute arose.

Thus, by virtue of Art. 168 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the court recognizes the contract for the transfer of residential premises into the ownership of citizens No. from –. – .—-. (ld 53) invalid (void), as not complying with the requirements of the law. In this connection, the property right Petukhov A.M. for living quarters by<****>is subject to termination, about which an entry must be made in the Unified State Register of Real Estate and transactions with it, and the disputed apartment must be returned to the municipal property of Novokuznetsk.

Based on the foregoing and guided by Art. 11, 12, 194-199 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, court

Claims Petukhova M.Yew. to Petukhov A.M. , Administration of Novokuznetsk - to satisfy.

Recognize as invalid the contract No. of transfer of housing to the ownership of citizens, concluded by –. – .—-. between Petukhov A.M. represented by a representative S., acting on the basis of a notarized power of attorney No. from –. – .—-. , and the Administration<****>, represented by the Office for the Registration and Privatization of Residential Premises, in relation to the apartment located at:<****> .

Terminate the property right Petukhova A.M. , –. – .—-. year of birth, for an apartment located at:<****>, as well as terminate the entry from –. – .–- in the Unified State Register of Rights to Real Estate and Transactions with It. under number number about the right of ownership Petukhova A.M. for an apartment located at:<****> .

Return the apartment located at:<****>, in the municipal property of Novokuznetsk.

According to Part 3 of Art. 144 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation adopted by court ruling from –. – .—-. measures to secure a claim in the form of seizure of an apartment located at:<****>remain valid until the execution of the court decision.

The motivated decision was made on 10/28/2013.

The decision can be appealed to the appellate instance of the Kemerovo Regional Court within one month from the date of the final decision of the first instance court.

Judge E.S. Shmakova

IN THE NAME OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

On June 17, 2013, the Gagarinsky District Court of Moscow, composed of the presiding judge O. I. Babenko, with the secretary Yu.A. Deshuk, with the participation of lawyer A. I. Martynov, having considered civil case No. 2-1696 / 2013 on the lawsuit of Elena Nikolaevna Fedotova against Vladislav Yuryevich Fedotov, represented by the legal representative A.V. Grishina, A.V. Grishina, regarding the termination of the right to use the residential premises, deregistration, the obligation to register a minor child at his place of residence,

INSTALLED:

Fedotova E.N. filed a lawsuit with Fedotov Vladislav Yuryevich, represented by her legal representative Anna Viktorovna Grishina, Anna Viktorovna Grishina, to terminate the right to use the residential premises at:<адрес>, deregistration, the obligation to register a minor child at his place of residence.

In support of the stated requirements indicates that she is the owner of the above apartment on the basis of the transfer agreement No.-М27720 from DD.MM.YYYY and the donation agreement? share of the apartment from DD.MM.YYYY

DD.MM.YYYY between her son Fedotov Yew.A. and Grishina A.The. a marriage was registered from which there is a minor child Fedotov V.Yu., DD.MM.YYYY born, who was registered at the place of residence of the father. DD.MM.YYYY the marriage between them was dissolved, Fedotov V.Yu. in the controversial apartment, he has never actually lived and does not live, lives with his mother Grishina A.The. By the decision of the Gagarinsky District Court<адрес>from DD.MM.YYYY Fedotov YU.A. was deprived of parental rights in relation to a minor son. The plaintiff is not a family member of the minor V.Yu. Fedotov, in connection with which the right to use the disputed apartment should be terminated.

Plaintiff Fedotova E.G. and her representative by proxy Papura A.The. appeared at the hearing, supported the stated requirements in full, asked to satisfy the claim.

Defendant Grishina A.The. and her representative by proxy Martynov A.AND. appeared at the hearing, objected to the satisfaction of the requirements on the arguments set out in the written objections.

Representative of the 3rd person of the OUFMS of the Gagarinsky district<адрес>at the hearing did not appear, duly notified.

The representative of the PLOiP of the Municipality of WMO "Gagarinskoye" in the city of Moscow did not appear at the court session, he was duly notified.

The court, having heard the participants in the process who appeared, having examined the written materials of the case, considers the claims of the plaintiff subject to partial satisfaction.

According to Art. 30 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, the owner of the residential premises exercises the rights of ownership, use and disposal of the residential premises belonging to him on the right of ownership in accordance with its purpose and the limits of its use, the owner of the residential premises has the right to grant ownership and (or) for use the residential premises belonging to him by right of ownership. premises to a citizen on the basis of a lease agreement, a free use agreement or on any other legal basis, as well as to a legal entity on the basis of a lease agreement or on any other legal basis, taking into account the requirements.

In accordance with part 4 of article 31 of the RF LC, in the event of termination of family relations with the owner of a residential premises, the right to use this residential premises for a former family member of the owner of this residential premises is not retained, unless otherwise established by an agreement between the owner and a former member of his family.

As established by the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of 02.07.2009 N 14 "On some issues that have arisen in judicial practice in the application of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation" p.13. As a general rule, in accordance with part 4 of Article 31 of the LC RF, in the event of termination of family relations with the owner of a residential premises, the right to use this residential premises for a former family member of the owner of this residential premises is not retained, unless otherwise established by an agreement between the owner and the former member of his family. This means that the former family members of the owner lose the right to use the dwelling and must vacate it (Part 1 of Article 35 of the RF LC). Otherwise, the owner of the dwelling has the right to demand their eviction in court without providing another dwelling.

Within the meaning of parts 1 and 4 of Article 31 of the LC RF, former family members of the owner of a residential premises include persons with whom the owner has terminated family relations. The termination of family relations between spouses should be understood as the dissolution of marriage in the civil registry offices, in court, and the recognition of marriage as invalid. Refusal to conduct a common household of other persons with the owner of a residential premises, the absence of a common budget, common household items with the owner, failure to provide mutual support to each other, etc., as well as departure to another place of residence may indicate the termination of family relations with the owner dwelling, but must be assessed in conjunction with other evidence submitted by the parties.

The issue of recognizing a person as a former family member of the owner of a residential premises in the event of a dispute is decided by the court, taking into account the specific circumstances of each case.

At the hearing it was established that the plaintiff Fedotova E.G. is the owner of the apartment located at:<адрес>on the basis of transfer No. g. according to which she and her son Fedotov Yew.A. was the specified apartment transferred to? share to each, and a donation contract? share of the apartment from 22.10.2009, concluded between her and her son Fedotov Y.A., which is confirmed by a certificate of state registration of rights.

From the presented extract from the house book for the apartment, it follows that Fedotova E.N., Fedotov A.I., Fedotov Yu.A., Fedotov V.Yu., born on 06.12.2008 are permanently registered in the apartment.

June 27, 2008 between her son Fedotov Yu.A. and Grishina A.The. the marriage was registered, which was dissolved on February 11, 2010. From marriage there is a minor child Fedotov V.Yu., born on 06.12.2008, who was registered at the place of registration of his father Fedotov Yu.A.

The decision of the Gagarinsky District Court of Moscow dated May 27, 2011, which entered into force on June 7, 2011, satisfied the claims of A.V. Grishina. to Fedotov Yu.A. on the deprivation of parental rights in relation to the minor son Fedotov V.Yu., born on 06.12.2008.

As explained at the hearing the plaintiff, a minor Fedotov V.Yew. is not a member of her family within the meaning of housing legal relations, was registered in the apartment without her consent, in fact, the child lived in the apartment when he was born, the mother of the minor child does not bear the burden of maintaining the dwelling, the plaintiff pays for utilities herself, at present she intends to sell apartment.

The defendant, objecting to the claims brought against him, explained that the minor Fedotov V.Yew. is the plaintiff's grandson, i.e. a member of the plaintiff's family, in this connection, did not lose the right to use the living quarters, the agreement of donating a share of the apartment is an imaginary transaction aimed at recognizing V.Yu. who have terminated the right to use the living quarters.

In accordance with the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of July 2, 2009 N 14 "ON SOME ISSUES ARISED IN JUDICIAL PRACTICE WHEN APPLYING THE HOUSING CODE OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION", other relatives may be recognized as family members of the owner of a residential premises, regardless of the degree of relationship , grandfathers, brothers, sisters, uncles, aunts, nephews, nieces and others) and disabled dependents of both the owner himself and his family members, and in exceptional cases other citizens (for example, a person living together with the owner without marriage registration), if they are moved in by the owner of the dwelling as members of their family. To recognize the listed persons as members of the family of the owner of a dwelling, it is required not only to establish the legal fact of the owner's move into the dwelling, but also to clarify the content of the owner's expression of the will of the owner to move in, namely, whether a person has moved in to live in the dwelling as a member of his family or as a dwelling. the premises were provided for living on other grounds (for example, for free use, under a lease agreement). The content of the owner's expression of will in the event of a dispute is determined by the court on the basis of explanations of the parties, third parties, testimony of witnesses, written documents (for example, an agreement on moving into a dwelling) and other evidence (Article 55 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation).

It should be borne in mind that family relations are characterized, in particular, by mutual respect and mutual concern of family members, their personal non-property and property rights and obligations, common interests, responsibility to each other, and common household management.

Thus, the arguments of the defendant cannot be accepted by the court, since the plaintiff does not communicate with his grandson, he was moved into the disputed apartment without her consent at the place of registration of the father, that is, he is not a member of the plaintiff's family.

As seen from the act of inspection of the living conditions of the apartment at the address:<адрес>, in the apartment there are no personal belongings of the minor Fedotov V.Yu.

From the report of the examination of the living conditions of the apartment at the address:<адрес>, it follows that S.S. Grishina are registered and live in this apartment. - grandmother of a minor Fedotov V.Yu., Grishin V.N. - grandfather of a minor Fedotov V.Yu., his mother Grishina A.V., and a minor Fedotov V.Yu. In an isolated room with an area of ​​14 sq.m. occupied by a minor V.Yu. Fedotov. and Grishina A.The. there is a sofa, a children's sofa, a wardrobe, a chest of drawers, a laptop, a computer chair, a TV, a bookshelf, a children's toy cabinet, children's toys, a children's table, two highchairs, air conditioning.

Under such circumstances, since Fedotov V.Yu., ceased to be a member of the family of the owner of the dwelling, any agreements on the preservation of the right to use the dwelling between him and the legal representative of Fedorov V.Yu. was not concluded, claims in terms of termination of the right to use the minor Fedorov V.Yew. living quarters - an apartment at the address:<адрес>are subject to satisfaction.

In accordance with Part 2 of Art. 20 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the place of residence of minors under the age of fourteen, or G. under guardianship, is recognized as the place of residence of their legal representatives - parents, adoptive parents or guardians.

In this connection, the court does not need to oblige the defendant to register the minor child at his place of residence.

According to clause 31 of the REGULATIONS FOR REGISTRATION AND REMOVAL OF CITIZENS OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION from the REGISTRATION ACCOUNT AT THE PLACE OF RESIDENCE AND AT THE PLACE OF RESIDENCE IN THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION AND LIST OF OFFICIALS REGISTRED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION from July 7, 1995, REGULATED BY THE REGISTRATION OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION, dated July 7, 1995, registration at the place of residence is carried out by the registration authorities in the event of eviction from the occupied dwelling or recognition as having lost the right to use the dwelling - on the basis of a court decision that has entered into legal force.

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

Terminate the right to use Vladislav Yuryevich Fedotov's apartment at:<адрес>, Vavilova<адрес>.

The court's decision is the basis for the removal of Vladislav Yuryevich Fedotov from the registration U. in the residential premises at the address:<адрес>, Vavilova<адрес>.

Dismiss the rest of the claim.

The decision can be appealed on appeal to the Moscow City Court through the Gagarinsky District Court of Moscow within a month from the date of the decision in its final form.

Federal judge O. I. Babenko

June 13, 2012
Solntsevsky District Court of Moscow, composed of
presiding judge Misyura S.L.,
with the secretary of the court session Naryshkina N.A.,
with the participation of the prosecutor A.A. Bogatyrev,
having examined in open court the civil case No. 2-613 / 12 on the claim
Grigoriev N.S., N. Yu., M.N. to Grigorieva M.N., minors FULL NAME3, T.R.
DECIDED:
Recognize M.N. Grigoriev and minor FULL NAME2 who have lost the right to use the living quarters located at:, evict them from the said living quarters.
To oblige the Department for the Novoperedelkino district of Moscow to remove Grigoriev MN and the minor FULL NAME2 from the registration at the place of residence from the apartment indicated in the court decision.
In satisfying claims against FULL NAME3 DD.MM.YYYY b. refuse.
The decision can be appealed on appeal in the Moscow City Court of Moscow through the district court within a month of days from the date of its final form.
Judge Misyura S.L.
SOLUTION
In the name of the Russian Federation
Moscow 04 July 2011
Solntsevsky District Court of Moscow, composed of the presiding judge M.V. Olyunina, with the secretary M.N. Yushchenko,
with the participation of the plaintiff Faleeva C.The.,
representative of the plaintiff (lawyer) Azarova T.A. (l.d. 7, 56),
Having examined in open court the civil case No. 2-1271 / 11
on the claim FULL NAME4 to FULL NAME5, minor FULL NAME6, FMS of Russia in Moscow on termination of the right to use the residential premises, with deregistration,
INSTALLED:
The plaintiff went to court with a claim against FULL NAME5, the minor FULL NAME 23, the Federal Migration Service of Russia in Moscow for the termination of the right to use the residential premises, with deregistration, in which he asked to terminate the rights to use the defendants of the apartment located at:, with their removal from the registration accounting (ld 5-6).
The plaintiff and his representative (lawyer) Azarova T.A. (ld 7, 56) appeared at the hearing, the claim was upheld. The plaintiff explained that the defendant Faleeva D.The. is his sister, and her son is a nephew, who do not live in a controversial apartment with DD.MM.YYYY, but a nephew from birth. In addition to the defendant in the disputed apartment registered he, his mother and minor niece FULL NAME15, which is the daughter of the defendant FULL NAME5 The daughter of the defendant brings up his mother. The defendant does not live, does not pay for utilities, does not use the apartment for its intended purpose. Lives with a cohabitant - the father of the minor defendant. The defendant approximately once lived for two days in the disputed apartment for the period from DD.MM.YYYY year to DD.MM.YYYY year. The defendant has no keys to the disputable apartment. I tried to break down the door, calling the Ministry of Emergency Situations, but he was at that moment at home. The minor defendant did not move into the disputed apartment, did not live, his registration was formal.
Defendant Faleeva D.V., acting in her own interests and in the interests of minor children of a third party FULL NAME15, defendant FULL NAME19 (ld 40-41) did not appear at the hearing, was duly notified of the time and place of the hearing, evidence of respectfulness of absence did not submit, did not ask to consider the case in her absence, previously did not recognize the claims (ld 34-35), tried to file a counterclaim (ld 46).
The defendant of the FMS of Russia in Moscow did not send a representative to the court session, was notified of the time and place of the court session properly (ld 53), submitted a review in which he asked to consider the case in the absence of their representative, left the requirements to the discretion of the court ( ld 30).
Third person FULL NAME16 at the hearing did not appear, notified of the time and place of the hearing properly (ld 54), submitted a statement in which she asked to consider the case in her absence (ld 55).
Thus, the court considers it possible to consider the case in the absence of the defendant, acting in his own interests and in the interests of minor children of a third party FULL NAME15, defendant FULL NAME19, did not appear third parties, given the provision of Article 167 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation.
After listening to the explanations of the parties who appeared, having studied the case materials, examining the written evidence, the court considers the claims not subject to satisfaction on the following grounds.
At the hearing it was established that earlier the owners of the disputed apartment, located at:, were the parents FULL NAME17, FULL NAME16 and their children FULL NAME4 and FULL NAME5? shares have the right to common shared ownership, on the basis of the concluded agreement on the transfer of the apartment into ownership by way of privatization from DD.MM.YYYY (ld 58-60).
Defendant FULL NAME5 participated in privatization being a minor (14 years old).
Subsequently DD.MM.YYYY defendant FULL NAME5 presented? share in the right of common shared property to his brother the plaintiff Faleevu C.The. (l.d. 12-13).
DD.MM.YYYY third person FULL NAME16 presented? share in the right of common shared property to his son the plaintiff Faleevu C.The. (ld 10-11).
FULL NAME17 died DD.MM.YYYY (ld 33). After his death, an inheritance in the form of? share entitled to common shared ownership took the plaintiff Faleev C.The., in connection with the refusal in his favor from the inheritance FULL NAME5 and FULL NAME16 (ld 33).
The plaintiff FULL NAME4 with DD.MM.YYYY is the owner of the disputed apartment (ld.14, 32).
Currently in the disputed apartment registered parties claimant FULL NAME18, his mother FULL NAME16, his sister FULL NAME5, and her two minor children FULL NAME15, DD.MM.YYYY year of birth, (whose father is not indicated in the birth certificate) and FULL NAME19, DD. MM.YYYY year of birth (ld 8-9).
Defendant Faleeva D.The. not married.
In November 2010 the defendant Faleeva D.The. appealed to the Solntsevo interdistrict prosecutor's office in Moscow with a statement that her brother asked her to give him a share in the right in the controversial apartment and refuse to accept the inheritance after her father's death, and in return promised to give her a two-room apartment, which he did not. In the same statement, the defendant indicated that she had no keys to the disputable apartment; the plaintiff had changed the locks of the front door (ld 42-43).
In the case file there are decisions to refuse to initiate a criminal case at the request of the defendant Faleeva D.The. on the recognition of the donation agreement as invalid (ld 44-45).
The underage defendant FULL NAME24 DD.MM.YYYY year of birth, was registered in the disputed apartment at the address: at the place of residence of his mother - FULL NAME7 FULL NAME5
Defendant FULL NAME19 in the disputed apartment did not live, because he lived with his parents.
According to Part 2 of Article 38 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, taking care of children, their upbringing is not only a right, but also a duty of parents. Everyone has the right to housing, which cannot be deprived arbitrarily (part 1 of Article 40 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation).
By virtue of Article 65 of the Family Code of the Russian Federation, ensuring the interests of children should be the main concern of their parents.
In accordance with Article 30 of the RF LC, the owner of a residential premises exercises the rights of ownership, use and disposal of the residential premises belonging to him by right of ownership. The owner of a residential premises has the right to grant possession and (or) for use of the residential premises belonging to him by right of ownership to a citizen on the basis of a lease agreement, an agreement for free use or on any other legal basis.
According to part 2, 3, 4 of Article 292 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the transfer of ownership of a residential house or apartment to another person is the basis for the termination of the right to use the residential premises by family members of the previous owner, unless otherwise provided by law. Family members of the owner of a dwelling may demand the elimination of violations of their rights to a dwelling from any person, including the owner of the premises. Alienation of a dwelling in which the family members of the owner of the dwelling who are under guardianship or guardianship live, or the minor members of the owner's family left without parental care (which is known to the guardianship and guardianship authority), if this affects the rights or legally protected interests of these persons, is allowed with the consent of the guardianship and guardianship authority.
Clause 4 of Article 292 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation by the Decree of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of 06/08/2010 N 13-P was recognized as inconsistent with the Constitution of the Russian Federation, in the part that determines the procedure for the alienation of residential premises in which minor family members of the owner of this residential premises live, if at the same time their rights or legally protected interests are affected, to the extent that the regulation contained in it - in the sense given to it by the established law enforcement practice - does not allow, when resolving specific cases related to the alienation of residential premises in which minors live, to ensure an effective state , including judicial, protection of the rights of those of them who are not formally assigned to those under guardianship or guardianship or to those who remain (according to the guardianship and guardianship authority at the time of the transaction) without parental care, but either actually deprived of it at the time of the transaction on the alienation of residential premises, or is considered to be located in the care of parents, despite the fact that such a transaction - contrary to the obligations of the parents established by law - violates the rights and interests of the minor protected by law.
Minor children acquire the right to the living space that is determined by their parents' agreement as their place of residence. Such an agreement is a prerequisite for the child's moving into a specific living space. At the same time, the law does not establish any period after which a person can be recognized as a universe.
Thus, the residence of the child and one of the parents with whom he lives in another dwelling cannot serve as a basis for terminating his right to use the disputed apartment, in which one of his parents has the right to the dwelling space. In this case, the actual settling of the child into the disputed living space is not required (Determination of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of 09/01/2009 N 5-B09-105).
The plaintiff's arguments that the minor defendant did not live in the disputed apartment for a single day is not a reason to terminate his right to use the disputed apartment, since his parents chose the disputed apartment at the place of residence of his mother as his place of residence.

However, the minor defendant has not reached the age of 14, is a minor child, therefore he cannot live separately from one of the parents.
Considering that the minor defendant acquired the right to use the disputed apartment, given that he is a minor child and cannot live separately from his parents, given that the minor defendant's non-residence in the disputed apartment cannot in itself be grounds for terminating his right to use the disputable apartment, since the non-residence of the minor defendant in the disputable apartment was associated with living with the parents who chose a different place of residence, as well as the lack of proper conditions for living in the apartment, which should have been created for the child by his parents, the court considers it possible to satisfy the claim for the termination of the right use of the living quarters by the underage defendant, with deregistration - to refuse.
As for the requirements for termination of the right to use for the defendant Faleeva D.The. residential premises, with removal from registration according to the court considers it possible to refuse on the following grounds.
The plaintiff's arguments that the defendant does not voluntarily live in the disputable apartment were carefully checked by the court, however, they cannot be taken into account, since the defendant applied to the Department of Internal Affairs for the Solntsevo district of Moscow and the Solntsevo interdistrict prosecutor's office of Moscow with a statement that, that she has no keys to the disputable apartment, the locks of the front door were changed by the plaintiff.
The plaintiff testified at the hearing that the defendant had lived approximately 6 times for two days in the disputed apartment for the period from DD.MM.YYYY year to DD.MM.YYYY year. The defendant has no keys to the disputable apartment. I tried to break down the door, calling the Ministry of Emergency Situations, but he was at that moment at home.
According to Part 2 of Article 68 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, the recognition by a party of the circumstances on which the other party bases its claims or objections frees the latter from the need to further prove these circumstances.
Consequently, the plaintiff interfered with the use of the disputed apartment for the defendant.
In addition, the defendant gave the plaintiff only a share of the disputable apartment, which means he did not lose the right to use the entire disputable apartment, since on the day of privatization he had the right to use the entire disputable apartment as a member of the tenant's family.
Under such circumstances, the provisions of Article 292, part 2 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, as the plaintiff insists, in this case cannot be applied.
The plaintiff did not provide evidence proving the defendant's refusal of his rights to the disputed residential premises, as evidenced by the appeals of the defendant to the Department of Internal Affairs for the Solntsevo district of Moscow and to the Solntsevo interdistrict prosecutor's office of Moscow with a statement that it is not, the locks of the front door were changed by the plaintiff.
Temporary non-residence of the defendants in the disputable apartment is caused by the plaintiff's unwillingness to live with the defendants.
Actual place of residence FULL NAME19 as a minor was determined by his parents.
Within the meaning of Articles 26, 30 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, minors between the ages of fourteen and eighteen have not achieved full legal capacity, but they have the right to exercise a number of their rights.
However the minor children of the defendant Faleeva D.The. - third person FULL NAME15, defendant FULL NAME19 have not reached the age of 14 years, so they can not live separately from the mother (father FULL NAME15 in the birth certificate is not specified).
By virtue of Articles 10, 11, 69 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, Articles 20, 36 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, given that the minors are a third person FULL NAME15, the defendant FULL NAME19 acquired the right to use the disputable apartment, given that their mothers were prevented from using the disputable apartment , and also considering that children cannot live in a disputed apartment without a mother, the court considers it possible to satisfy claims against FULL NAME5 and a minor FULL NAME25 to terminate the right to use the dwelling, with deregistration - to refuse.
Based on the foregoing and guided by Articles 194-198 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, the court
DECIDED:
In meeting the claims FULL NAME4 to FULL NAME5, nesove

from 31/01/2020

If you are registered in a municipal apartment or room with a person who has not lived there for a long time, then recognition as having lost the right to use municipal housing will help to take a number of measures. Legal grounds for termination of the right to use are provided for by Article 83 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation. And this way to deregister a person is the most common when it comes to municipal housing.

In addition, after the deregistration of citizens who do not live in the apartment, it is possible to privatize residential premises into their own property without "dead souls".

Example of a statement of claim

To the Perovskiy District Court of the city of Moscow

building 32, apt. 621

05.11.1972, place of birth: Moscow,

permanent residence address,

one of the identifiers is not known to the plaintiff,
registration address: Moscow, st. Perovskaya, house 822, building 32, apt. 621

property of Moscow,
address: 115054, Moscow,

Bakhrushina street, 20

Office for Migration

Main Directorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia for Moscow
Address: 115035, Moscow,

B. Ordynka street,

house 16/4, building 4

Statement of claim for recognition as having lost the right to use municipal housing

The plaintiff and the defendant are registered in residential premises - municipal apartment No. 621, located at Moscow, st. Perovskaya, 822, with a total area of ​​53.7 square meters, a living area of ​​32.20 square meters (a single housing document is attached).

The defendant was moved into the disputed residential premises by the plaintiff on February 6, 2009 as a family member of the tenant of the residential premises (a copy of the agreement with an additional agreement is attached)

On November 12, 2018, the marriage was terminated, about which entry No. 679 of January 27, 2018 was made in the registration book of acts of divorce of the Perovsky Department of the Civil Registry Office of the city of Moscow (a copy of the divorce certificate is attached).

In 2018, after the dissolution of the marriage, the defendant left the disputable dwelling for another permanent place of residence in order to get married and create a new family.

At the moment, 2 people are permanently registered in the apartment: the plaintiff, Tatyana Vasilievna Petrova, who is the tenant of the dwelling, and the former husband of the tenant, Igor Vyacheslavovich Petrov, who is the defendant in the case.

At the same time, the plaintiff is forced to pay for utilities, current repairs in the apartment and rent for it throughout this period. This fact is confirmed by receipts for payment for housing and communal services.

There are no obstacles for the ex-husband to live in a controversial apartment. Conflicting relations with him are absent. This fact is confirmed by the testimony of the housemates.

Thus, the defendant in 2018, by his implicit actions, voluntarily renounced his obligations and the exercise of his rights under the social employment contract. Thus, the defendant unilaterally terminated the social contract with respect to himself.

Until now, Petrov I.V., has not withdrawn from the registration register at the location of the disputed apartment. Thus, he abuses the fact of his registration and violates the housing rights of the tenant and family members of the tenant of the dwelling.

Given the voluntary nature of leaving for another permanent place of residence, prolonged non-residence in the disputed housing, the absence of attempts to move in, the unilateral refusal to fulfill the obligations under the social contract, the right to use the disputed residential premises is subject to loss.

Recognition as having lost the right to use the municipal housing of the defendant is necessary for me for the subsequent privatization of the apartment.

Based on the above and guided by clause 1. Part 1 of Art. 10, paragraph 1 of Article 20 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, Part 3 of Art. 83 of the LC RF, by the ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the RF dated March 4, 2008 N 5-B07-165, by the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the RF dated 02.07.2009 N 14, by the ruling of the Supreme Court of the RF dated 16.09.2008 N 5-B08 -98, by the definition of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of May 29, 2003. No. 209-O,

1. Recognize Igor Vyacheslavovich Petrov, born on November 05, 1972, as having lost the right to use municipal housing located at the address: Moscow, Perovskaya Street, 822, Building 32, Apartment 621.
2. Remove the defendant from registration from the disputed residential premises.

Application:

1. Original receipt of payment of state duty;
2. Copies of the power of attorney for the representative;
3. Divorce certificate;
4. A copy of the rental agreement and supplementary agreement;
5. Certificate of registration at the place of residence;
6. Financial personal account;
7. Copies of receipts for payment of housing and communal services.
8. Notice of sending documents to the defendant at the last place of residence

Recognition as having lost the right to use municipal housing - grounds

On the basis of the Rules for the registration and deregistration of citizens, deregistration is carried out by the registration authorities only upon a personal application of a citizen or by a court decision. Thus, without consent, a person can be discharged only by a court decision.

But in order for the recognition to have lost the right to use municipal housing in court to occur, three grounds must be present simultaneously:

• a citizen does not voluntarily live in a municipal apartment for a long time (2 years or more);
• a citizen does not voluntarily pay for housing and communal services, even partially;
• there are no documented conflict relations with this citizen (statements to the police, lawsuits in court, correspondence)

If in your case all the grounds are present at once, then you can safely draw up a statement of claim and submit it to the court.

How to file a statement of claim

Housing disputes, including the recognition as having lost the right to use municipal housing, are considered in the district (city) court of first instance. At the location of the real estate object or the place of residence of the plaintiff.

In order to find a suitable court, it is enough to go to the court's website on the Internet and in the "jurisdiction" section write the name of the street where the disputed dwelling is located.

A statement of claim for recognition as having lost the right to use municipal housing can be presented as the tenant of the dwelling. So it is with any citizen registered in this room. The rest of the registered citizens, except for the defendant, must be indicated as “third parties”.

In the text of the statement of claim, it is imperative to indicate the date from which the defendant stopped living in the apartment and ceased. Indicate why it is necessary to recognize as having lost the right to use municipal housing.

Recognition as having lost the right in court

During the trial, the following circumstances will be established:

• the date of departure of the defendant from the disputed residential premises;
• the nature of the departure - forced (family conflict, divorce), permanent (moving, new marriage) or voluntary;
• fulfillment by the defendant of obligations to pay utility bills;
• availability of the right to use other housing.

The court must establish the fact of voluntary departure for another permanent place of residence. And then he will most likely satisfy the claim.

To confirm the above circumstances, the court, at the request of the plaintiff, or the lawyer, with the help of lawyer inquiries, requests from the competent authorities and organizations the following information about the defendant:

• whether he applied for medical help at the district polyclinic and / or called a doctor at home;
• whether he applied to law enforcement agencies with a statement about the presence of obstacles in residence;
• whether he received registered registered mail;
• Has applied to the management company with any statements regarding the disputed housing;
• an act of inspection of a dwelling from a management company, etc.

Obviously, each housing situation is unique, so if you have any difficulties, you can turn to highly specialized lawyers. Or use the help of a lawyer on the site when drawing up a statement of claim to declare that the right to use municipal housing has been lost.

Clarifying questions on the topic

Tatyana

• Nikita Alexandrovich

Plaintiff 1 (LTG) and Plaintiff 2 (LFE) are the owners of apartment No. ** located at the address: Moscow, Karamyshevskaya embankment, **, bldg. ** (hereinafter “apartment”), which is confirmed by certificates of state registration rights (Appendix No. 1). Each of the plaintiffs owns ½ of the said apartment.

In addition to the plaintiffs, this apartment is registered at the place of residence:

- adult children of LFF and LEF plaintiffs (third parties);

- ex-wife of LEF - LAI (defendant);

- minor children LEF and LAI-EE (born 200 *) and CE (born 200 *).

The defendant was registered in this apartment at the place of residence as the wife of the plaintiffs' son on 13.03.2007. This circumstance is confirmed by a copy of the personal account (Appendix No. 2) and an extract from the house book (Appendix No. 3).

06/03/2011 the marriage of LEF and LAI was terminated by the decision of the magistrate of the court district No. 150 of the Shchukino district of Moscow, which is confirmed by the certificate of divorce (Appendix No. 4). Currently, the defendant is not a member of the plaintiffs' family.

In accordance with paragraph 4 of Art. 31 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation in the event of termination of family relations with the owner of a residential premises, the right to use this residential premises for a former family member of the owner of this residential premises is not retained, unless otherwise established by an agreement between the owner and a former member of his family. There were no agreements on the use of residential premises after the dissolution of the marriage between the plaintiffs and the defendant.

In accordance with paragraph 1 of Art. 35 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation in case of termination of the citizen's right to use the dwelling on the grounds provided for by the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, other federal laws, an agreement, or on the basis of a court decision, this citizen is obliged to vacate the corresponding dwelling (stop using it). If this citizen does not vacate the said residential premises within the time period established by the owner of the corresponding residential premises, he is subject to eviction at the request of the owner on the basis of a court decision.

After the divorce, the plaintiffs demanded that the defendant leave the said apartment and deregistered, i.e. properly formalize the termination of the right to use the apartment. Contrary to the requirements presented, the defendant has not been removed from registration.

The described situation negatively affects the property status of the plaintiffs, who are forced to pay utility bills in an amount that takes into account the registration of another person in the apartment. These costs are direct losses to the plaintiffs. The need to pay for utilities in a larger amount, caused by the unlawful inaction of the defendant, infringes on the rights of the plaintiffs, which, in accordance with Art. 304 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation allows the owner to demand in court the termination of the violation of rights and the elimination of the consequences of such violation from any person who violates his rights as an owner, even if such violations are not connected with deprivation of ownership.

Based on the foregoing and in accordance with Art. Art. 31, 35 LC RF, art. 304 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, Art. Art. 131, 132 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation

1. To recognize the defendant as having lost the right to use apartment No. **, located at the address: Moscow, Karamyshevskaya embankment, d. **, bldg. **.
2. Remove the defendant from registration at the address: Moscow, Karamyshevskaya embankment, d. **, building 1, apt. **.

Application:

1. Copy of certificates of ownership N 77 AB ******** dated **. 07.2003 and N 77 AB ****** dated **. 07.2003 on 2 sheets;
2. A copy of the personal account No. *** dated **. 04.2014 on the 1st sheet;
3. Extract from the house register No. b / n dated **. 04.2014 on the 1st sheet;
4. A copy of the divorce certificate III-МЮ № ******** dated 06/15/2011 on the 1st sheet;
5. Receipt for payment of the state duty on the 1st sheet;
6. A copy of the statement of claim and documents attached to it for the defendant and 3 persons - 4 copies;
7. Copy of the representative's power of attorney from **. 05.2014 N 77 aa *****

Correspondence Decision

In the name of the Russian Federation

Samara District Court of Samara, composed of Judge E.V. Antonova, with the secretary M.N.Breenkova,

with:

the representative of the plaintiff B. - Malafeev V.A., acting on the basis of a power of attorney,

Having considered in an open court session civil case No. on the claim of B. to S. for recognition as having lost the right to use the living quarters and deregistration,

Installed:

B. applied to the court with a claim against S. for deregistration, stating that with DD.MM.YYYY, on the basis of a sale and purchase agreement, she is the owner of a two-room apartment located at:<адрес>... In the controversial apartment at the time of signing the contract of sale were registered: FULL NAME5, S. C.V., FULL NAME6, FULL NAME7 According to the terms of the contract for the sale of the apartment before DD.MM.YYYY these persons are obliged to deregister. Defendant C. C.The. until now has not been deregistered from the apartment at:<адрес>... S. does not live in the disputable apartment, her things are not in the apartment, lives at a different address, is not a member of the plaintiff's family, the plaintiff's place of actual residence is unknown. Formal registration of the defendant in the disputed apartment prevents the plaintiff from fully exercising ownership.

On the grounds set out, the plaintiff asked to remove S. from the registration at the address:<адрес>.

At the hearing, the plaintiff's representative clarified the claim, asked to recognize S. as having lost the right to use the apartment located at:<адрес>, remove S. from registration in the indicated apartment.

Defendant S. did not appear at the hearing, she was duly notified of the time and place of the trial at the registration address; the court notice was returned to the court due to the expiration of the storage period. The risk of the consequences of not receiving a court notice at the place of registration shall be borne by the defendant.

Representative of a third party of the Federal Migration Service of Russia<адрес>at the hearing did not appear, asked to consider the case in his absence.

Taking into account the opinion of the plaintiff's representative, the court decided to consider the case in absentia.

Having heard the explanations of the plaintiff's representative, having examined the evidence presented, the court considers the claim to be justified and subject to satisfaction on the following grounds.

In accordance with Art. 56 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, each party must prove the circumstances to which it refers as the basis for its claims and objections, unless otherwise provided by federal law.

By virtue of Part 1 of Art. 209 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the owner owns the rights to own, use and dispose of his property.

According to Part 1.Article. 288 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the owner exercises the rights of ownership, use and disposal of the residential premises belonging to him in accordance with his purpose.

Article 304 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation grants the owner of a dwelling the right to demand the elimination of any violations of his rights, even if these violations were not combined with deprivation of ownership.

According to Part 1 of Art. 30 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, the owner of the residential premises exercises the rights of ownership, use and disposal of the residential premises belonging to him by right of ownership in accordance with its purpose and the limits of its use, which are established by this Code. The owner of a residential premises has the right to provide possession and (or) for use of the residential premises belonging to him on the basis of a lease agreement, a contract of gratuitous use or on other legal basis, as well as to a legal entity on the basis of a lease agreement or on other legal basis, taking into account the requirements established by civil law, this Code (part 2 of article 30 of the LC RF).

In accordance with Part 1 of Art. 31 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, family members of the owner of a residential premises include his spouse living with this owner in his residential premises, as well as the children and parents of this owner. Other relatives, disabled dependents and, in exceptional cases, other citizens may be recognized as members of the owner's family if they are moved in by the owner as members of his family.

According to Part 2 of Art. 31 of the RF LC, family members of the owner of a dwelling have the right to use this dwelling on an equal basis with its owner, unless otherwise established by an agreement between the owner and his family members. Family members of the owner of a living space are obliged to use this living space for its intended purpose, to ensure its safety.

The court established that the plaintiff B. on the right of ownership owns a two-room apartment with a total area of ​​29.06 sq.m., located at:<адрес>.

The plaintiff's ownership of the apartment arose on the basis of a sale and purchase agreement from DD.MM.YYYY, which is confirmed by the agreement itself, a certificate of state registration of rights from DD.MM.YYYY (ld 6-8).

At the time of signing the sales contract from DD.MM.YYYY in the disputed apartment were registered: FULL NAME5, S.V., FULL NAME6 and FULL NAME7

According to clause 4 of the contract of purchase and sale from DD.MM.YYYY, these persons undertook to deregister at the address:<адрес>.

According to the certificate of the MP g.about. Samara "Unified information and settlement center" from DD.MM.YYYY in the disputed apartment at the present time except for the plaintiff B., her daughter FULL NAME8 registered defendant S., who is not a relative of the owner of the apartment B. T.The. (ld 5).

Thus, the defendant S. is not and has never been a member of the plaintiff's family, does not live in the disputed apartment, does not bear the cost of its maintenance; S.'s registration in the disputed apartment is of a formal nature and prevents the plaintiff from fully exercising the right of ownership.

In accordance with article 3 of the Law of the Russian Federation from DD.MM.YYYY No. "On the right of citizens of the Russian Federation to freedom of movement, choice of place of stay and residence within the Russian Federation", the purpose of registration of citizens of the Russian Federation at the place of stay and at the place of residence within The Russian Federation is to ensure the necessary conditions for a citizen of the Russian Federation to exercise his rights and freedoms, as well as to fulfill his obligations to other citizens, the state and society.

In accordance with paragraph 2 of the Decree of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation from DD.MM.YYYY No.-P, the fact of registration or lack thereof does not in itself give rise to any rights and obligations for a citizen and, in accordance with part two of Article 3 of the Law of the Russian Federation "On the Right citizens of the Russian Federation to freedom of movement, choice of place of stay and residence within the Russian Federation ”, cannot serve as a basis for limiting or a condition for the exercise of the rights and freedoms of citizens provided for by the Constitution of the Russian Federation, federal laws and legislative acts of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation.

According to Art. 7 of the Law of the Russian Federation from DD.MM.YYYY No. "On the right of citizens of the Russian Federation to freedom of movement, choice of place of stay and residence within the Russian Federation", the removal of citizens of the Russian Federation from the registration at the place of residence is carried out by the registration authority in case of loss of the right to use living quarters.

In view of the above, the defendant S. lost the right to use the disputed residential premises and are subject to deregistration in this residential area.

Guided by Art. 194-199, 233-235 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, court

DECIDED:

B.'s claim to S. for the recognition of having lost the right to use the living quarters and deregistration to satisfy.

To recognize S. as having lost the right to use the apartment located at:<адрес>.

Remove S. from registration at the address:<адрес>.

The decision is the basis for removing S. from the registration at the specified address in the bodies of the Federal Migration Service of Russia for<адрес>.

The defendant has the right to submit to the court that made the decision in absentia, an application for cancellation of this court decision within seven days from the date of delivery of a copy of this decision to him.

The decision in absentia can be appealed by the parties also on appeal to the Samara Regional Court through the Samara District Court<адрес>within a month after the expiration of the deadline for the defendant's submission of an application for cancellation of this court decision, and if such an application is filed, within a month from the date of the court ruling on the refusal to satisfy this application.

The final decision was made by DD.MM.YYYY.

Judge E. V. Antonova

You can see another practice of attorney Anatoly Antonov in the public domain