The purchase price of emergency housing, as the jurisprudence shows, is one way to protect housing rights.
But the owners of flats in dilapidated homes often disagree with the amount spoken by the local authorities and are willing to challenge it in court, seeking to increase, sometimes significantly.
Consider how the purchase price of emergency housing should be determined in accordance with the regulations in force.
Methods of reimbursement in the settlement of emergency shelters
The interdepartmental commission ' s recognition of the house as emergency, i.e. unsuitable and dangerous to its longest residence, leads to the settlement of all residents and further demolition of the building.
In fact, it involves the removal of housing from owners and employers for the needs of local self-governments.
In such cases, the law requires owners to compensate for the cost of their square metres and employers to provide similar accommodation in another house owned by the city.
The purchase price of emergency housing is determined by the administration on the basis of market prices in a given region, and the owner of the dwelling is entitled to accept the proposed amount and, upon receiving the money, to leave the apartment voluntarily. If the assessment of the dwelling is not accepted, the matter is decided by the court; sometimes forced eviction follows.
Instead of the purchase price, the local administration can offer emergency and safe accommodation, but the principle of equivalence must be respected, so that the proposed apartment must have the same space and level of improvement. You cannot offer separate apartments in dormitories and communes.
Judicial practice in determining the purchase value of emergency apartments
All aspects relating to the amount of the purchase price, the terms of payment and the manner of payment are resolved only by agreement with the owner; most of the claims from the owners of the flats to the local authorities concern not so much the unwillingness to pay the purchase price as the amount of compensation offered; many owners of the emergency dwelling consider the ransom to be too small to be sufficient to purchase a new apartment; in some cases, the court approves such claims.
In making the decision, the courts are guided by the provisions of article 32 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which specifies the sum of the purchase price of emergency housing:
- The market value of the dwelling;
- Losses incurred by the owners in respect of the removal of the dwelling;
- Compensation for relocation and accommodation costs;
- The cost of a real estate agent for the selection of a new apartment and the processing of a sales transaction;
- Compensation for major repairs carried out.
The amount that the city is willing to pay to the owners of flats in dilapidated houses is determined in full compliance with the Act on Valuation Activities.
In other words, an independent evaluator is invited to determine how much each apartment from a dispersed house is worth in the secondary housing market, and special methods are used to assess the many factors involved.
This is intended to prevent abuse of the right by municipal authorities.
However, the owners of the apartments have the right to disagree with such an assessment and, at their own expense, to carry out an additional assessment by selecting the perpetrator themselves; the report of the evaluator will serve as evidence in the court proceedings; but it must be borne in mind that if the court considers the price of the previous purchase price to be fair, the eviction from the emergency home will be forced to pay the market value.
Position of the Supreme Court
In order to eliminate inconsistencies in the provisions of the law and to bring about uniformity in law enforcement, the Supreme Court made a number of important statements concerning the award of a ransom price in 2014, once again summarizing the jurisprudence on housing disputes.
In particular, the market value of the dwelling must take into account not only the housing area but also the share in the common property of the house, as well as the right to the land directly below the house; its market value must also be included in the amount offered to the owner in proportion to its share.
The Supreme Court also found the courts ' position to be correct and justified in denying the city administration the right to forcibly relocate the residents of the emergency home to other apartments, not even insofar as such accommodation was generally located far from the place of current residence, but in the case of the owner ' s right to choose the means of redress himself.
[smartcontrol_youtube_shortcode key=\\cnt=\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\shls=\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\}]]
Is it possible to claim an apartment in exchange for an emergency dwelling?
The owners of apartments in emergency homes are often brought before the courts, demanding that they be provided with an apartment in return for the lost, without waiting for the purchase price to be offered, but the court cannot order the local authorities to do so, since the law gives priority to the monetary compensation to which each former owner decides to purchase a new dwelling on his own.
[smartcontrol_youtube_shortcode key=\\\swap price of emergency housing\cnt=\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\shls=\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\}]]
The exception will be cases in which the occupants of the emergency home are members of the regional old settlement programme.
In this case, the municipal authorities are obliged, at the request of the owner, to provide him with an apartment in the new house, and if the dwelling is larger than the old one, the owner will have to pay more.
By contrast, the provision of smaller accommodation places an obligation on the administration to compensate for the difference.
It is lawful to outrage the residents of the emergency home and, when they are forcibly evicted to other apartments, to choose whether to take the money offered to them and to buy the dwelling themselves or to enter into a contract with the city with a man who has already completed a dwelling; coercion would be an offence.
Purchasing the cost of emergency housing: case law
The emergency property is recognized by a decision of a special inter-ministerial commission, which is appointed by the public authorities and which determines the fate of the facility and is normally subject to demolition or reconstruction.
The provision of housing for the relocation of owners is provided for in articles 32, 86, 87 and 89 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. There are special programmes working in certain regions for the settlement of emergency housing units.
In each case, the conditions and duration of resettlement are determined on a case-by-case basis.
Value-for-money features
The acceptance of monetary compensation by the owner of the dwelling is the basis for the calculation of the purchase price and the valuation of the real estate is carried out and the calculation of the purchase price is carried out on the basis of a number of different factors.
They are presented in article 32, paragraph 7, of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The owner of an emergency dwelling may be offered this option if there is no other dwelling that meets all the necessary requirements; the final amount of compensation, the payment period and other conditions must be agreed upon by the owner.
Important! If a citizen ' s residence in an emergency home is confirmed by a social employment contract, then the only option is to move to a new apartment equivalent to space and improvement.
Once all the nuances relating to the purchase price have been agreed with the owner of the dwelling, the compensation shall be paid within the specified time-limits.
A citizen who has the right to own premises may file an application in order to be able to use the dwelling for a period of up to six months.
Such a request shall be granted if there is no other place of residence in the property of the citizen.
Purchasing the purchase price
As the purchase price of the emergency building is formed, the judicial practice is not clear; today, citizens are very often sued on the matter; residents are sued by the authorities because of the general misappropriation of the calculations; it must be understood that the determination of the purchase price in the courts is a rather lengthy process.
The purchase price of the dwelling in the house is calculated on the basis of many factors; all questions relating to the calculation of the reimbursement are agreed with the owner of the premises.
First of all, measures should be taken to determine the market value of housing.
If disputes arise between the authorities and the owner, the FL of 29 July 1998 No. 135, which provides detailed explanations of the matter, must be carefully examined before resorting to the courts.
Other major losses, which are accounted for as follows:
- Financial losses associated with a forced change of residence: If a citizen buys a new apartment, the calculation should include the cost of renting other dwellings until the new property is converted into ownership.
- The financial costs of finding new housing and moving are also included in the costs of obtaining ownership of new housing.
- Monetary expenses upon termination of the owner ' s own obligations to third parties.
Judicial practice
According to statistics, a large number of meetings are devoted to the determination of the purchase price in the courts, when the owner refuses to sign the agreement for any reason and begins to assert his rights in court.
It should be known that the law provides for the possibility of compulsory removal of an emergency dwelling, which may be ordered by a court if the owner has previously been provided with an equivalent accommodation.
When calculating the purchase value of real property that is in an emergency state, the judiciary strictly adheres to the provisions of the legislation in force, and compensation for outstanding major repairs must be included in the purchase price of emergency housing.
Few people know that the employer is obliged under the legislation in force to carry out major repairs to the house in accordance with the approved schedules; if no planned major repairs were carried out prior to the privatization of the dwelling, this could reduce the reliability of the multi-family dwelling.
In such cases, a certain amount of compensation must necessarily be provided for in the purchase price of emergency housing.
The following services are budgeted for in individual locations:
- The transport company,
- Realtor organization,
- Notary office.
Some other nuances
There is currently no uniform approach to the definition of the purchase price of real property, which is considered to be an emergency, and very often there are contentious issues in court proceedings; this is confirmed by a review of case law.
The calculation does not always take into account:
- Share of common property.
- Part of the joint ownership of the land.
Judges rarely take sides in the decision-making process with the owner of the emergency room; sometimes they do not agree that the cost of the house ' s common property should be taken into account in the calculation of the purchase price; and it is often overlooked that the land on which the house is built is also the property of citizens living in privatized apartments.
Because of the complexity of the issue, it is very difficult to form a document that is acceptable to all parties, and the situations in dispute are mainly about the cost of land and common property, which means that legal proceedings are sometimes prolonged for long periods of time and should always be attended by experienced lawyers.
In addition, the owner should be aware that, in any event, the purchase price of emergency housing, even in the light of all the factors involved, cannot be high, i.e., the financial compensation received is unlikely to achieve good housing.
The Supreme Court called the purchase price of the old dwelling
As our permanent readers may have noticed, under this heading we turn not only to legislative innovations, but also to the analysis of documents issued by the highest courts, which are both very important specific verdicts and reviews of jurisprudence in particular categories of cases.
1″, «wrapAround»: true, «fullscreen»: true, «imagesLoaded»: true, «lazyLoad»: true }>
Roman Savichev
Legislative interest
An extremely important document was published in May by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, which summarized judicial practice in cases generally referred to as "the safeguarding of citizens' housing rights", but this is exclusively the case of the difficult situations faced by people whose homes are considered emergency and subject to demolition or reconstruction.
The judges have made a number of clear recommendations for the resolution of disputes, which often involve inaction and improper performance by local authorities of their housing responsibilities, stressing the importance of a new judicial review by the leader of the "Juridical Agency" Roman Savichev, known in the south of Russia.
Given the many publications in the regional and federal press, it is clear that the State has invested huge amounts of money to solve the problem of the old housing stock – simply to eliminate the barracks and to resettle their inhabitants with dignity.
But despite the fact that the pattern of "dropping out old housing – making a new one" looks quite simple, and many procedures are detailed in legal documents, the process is often delayed. As is often the case, it simply works on paper," notes R. Savichev.
As a result, many citizens do not agree with the proposals of the officials and go on to defend their interests through the Femida.
The Supreme Court has collected and analysed a large number of such cases: challenges to decisions, actions or omissions of local government officials and representatives of inter-ministerial commissions on issues relating to the recognition of housing as inadequate and to the duration of resettlement; and questions about emergency housing, eviction and others are raised in the courts, so many recommendations will be of interest not only to lawyers but also to ordinary citizens.
In particular, the Supreme Court stated that the price of square metres purchased by the State was often at the centre of the dispute, in cases where local courts dealt with the rights of owners whose homes were being taken away and how much it would cost.
In such disputes, the Supreme Court stated, local courts are obliged to take into account the value of the share of ownership of common property in the house when determining the purchase price of the premises being confiscated.
In other words, in buildings under demolition, a citizen ' s share of ownership of the land must also be included in the value.
As a general rule, the Supreme Court reminded the Supreme Court of the purchase price of the dwelling, the terms and conditions of the ransom are determined by an agreement with the owner of the dwelling, as stated in article 32 of the Russian Housing Code.
In the event of a dispute over the amount of the purchase price, the market value of the dwelling must be established in accordance with the rules set out in Act No. 135-FZ of 29 July 1998 "On assessment activities in the Russian Federation".
But jurisprudence has shown that there is not yet a single approach to determining the purchase price in the country ' s courts.
The fact is that not everyone takes into account that the owners of the premises in the multi-family house are entitled to common share ownership of the common property in their home.
Also, citizens may own a piece of land if it is placed on the State cadastral register, all of which are contained in the Housing Code.
The Supreme Court stressed that the provisions of the Housing and Civil Codes of the Russian Federation established an indissoluble relationship between the right of ownership of housing and the land under it; the value of the share in the ownership of the plot under the apartment should be included in the market value of the dwelling.
They cannot be defined separately.
In view of these points, the Supreme Court considers that it is appropriate to recognize the practice of those courts which, in determining the purchase price of the premises being confiscated, take into account the value of the share in the common property of the multi-family dwelling, including the land.
The solution to the problem of dilapidated housing involves another scenario where the municipality provides the owners with other dwellings.
Aware of this, some have abandoned the money offered for the barracks and have rushed to court to claim that the administration is obliged to provide them with other suitable accommodation.
For their part, the courts refuse such claims, which, in the view of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, is correct.
The review explains that if a multi-family house declared to be emergency and subject to demolition is not included in the regional programme for the relocation of citizens from the emergency housing stock, the court is not entitled to oblige the public authorities or local authorities to provide the owner of the rented dwelling with other accommodation, which is because they are obliged only to pay the purchase price of the rented dwelling.
On the other hand, if a residential home prepared for demolition is included in a regional targeted resettlement programme, its tenants may not be denied other housing, and the owners have the right to claim either money or other property of their choice.
In fact, even when the issue of resettlement from emergency shelters has already been resolved, the rights and interests of residents continue to be violated by many administrations.
For example, people are forced to enter into contracts with men in their accommodations or to be forcibly evicted to other apartments.
At the same time, a number of courts consider it possible to grant claims for the forced relocation of owners of dwellings in emergency multi-family homes to the housing offered by municipalities on the grounds of equality and improvement.
Other courts, however, assume that the provision of another dwelling on property rights is possible only if an agreement has been reached with it, i.e., to forcibly relocate tenants, even from an uninhabitable premises, the administration is not entitled to do so; this position of the Supreme Court of Justice is correct and justified.
I would add that the review also specifies situations in which there is a formal approach to the case of the very inter-ministerial commissions, which, in fact, decide whether a major renovation of the house or structure should be demolished as an emergency.
Unfortunately, officials do not always bother with actual checks and surveys.
For example, instead of carrying out construction and sanitary tests, measurements, removing micro-climat parameters, surveying structures, inspection of heating engineering systems and electrical power, the commission conducts an exclusively visual inspection of the premises.
If such inaction is found, the commission ' s opinion and, consequently, the local authorities ' decision to destroy the premises or, on the contrary, the suitability of the premises to live loses legal force.
However, it is also clear about the efforts of those citizens who attempt to make their housing an emergency, as is said, in circumvention of the established procedure.
In particular, some people apply to the court for recognition of their apartment as unfit for living and as not eligible for rehabilitation through reconstruction and repair.
However, a summary of the Supreme Court ' s decision was not possible: the legislation in force placed it under the exclusive jurisdiction of an inter-ministerial commission, excluding the powers of the judiciary.
Julia PLANTONOVA
How do we determine the cost of a house to be demolished?
The primitive scheme: "the demolition of an old one — the creation of a new one" seems to be simple — a house that is uninhabitable is demolished and citizens are given either new housing or money so that a person can buy for his or her family what he or she likes if he or she does not like it. You can buy an apartment only if it is privatized.
But it's just that it's all on paper, and in reality, a part of the population disagrees with the government's proposals and goes to the courts to defend their interests.
The Supreme Court collected and analysed a large number of such civil cases, which involved challenging decisions, actions or omissions of local government officials, officials from inter-ministerial commissions on issues related to the inadmissibility of housing.
Citizens also challenged the duration of the settlement of multi-family dwellings deemed to be emergency and subject to demolition, and asked the judges about the emergency provision of housing, the eviction, the housing rights of the owner of the dwelling in relation to the removal of the land and the dwelling in the event that the apartment was deemed to be emergency and subject to demolition and other disputes.
As a result of the study of judicial practice, the highest court has made important comments that will be of interest to citizens.
In particular, the Supreme Court stated that there were many cases involving the price of square metres purchased, in which local courts dealt with the rights of owners whose homes were being taken away and how much it would cost.
In such disputes, the Supreme Court stated, local courts are obliged to take into account one important point, and the value of the share of ownership of common property in the house must be taken into account when determining the purchase price of the premises being confiscated.
In buildings under demolition, a citizen ' s share of land ownership should also be included in the value.
As a general rule, the Supreme Court reminded the Supreme Court of the purchase price of the dwelling, the terms and conditions of the ransom are determined by an agreement with the owner of the dwelling, as stipulated in article 32, paragraph 6, of the Russian Housing Code.
In the event of a dispute over the amount of the purchase price, the market value of the dwelling must be established in accordance with the rules set out in Act No. 135-FZ of 29 July 1998 on assessment activities in the Russian Federation.
Judicial practice has shown a curious point — there is currently no single approach to determining the purchase price in the country's courts.
The fact is that not all courts take into account that common property is owned by the owners of the premises in the multi-family house in the right to common share ownership in their home, and that citizens may own a piece of land if it is placed on the State cadastral register, all of which are contained in the Housing Code.
The Supreme Court stressed that, since articles 36 to 38 of the Housing Code and article 290 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation established an indissoluble relationship between the right of ownership of premises in a multi-family house and the right of joint ownership of common property in such a house (including land), the value of the share of ownership of such property should be included in the market value of the dwelling in the house, and it could not be set separately from the market value of the dwelling.
In view of these points, the Supreme Court considers that it is appropriate to recognize the practice of those courts which, in determining the purchase price of the premises being confiscated, take into account the value of the share in the common property of the multi-family dwelling, including the land.
The purchase price of the emergency shelter, how do we calculate it?
If the dwelling is declared as an emergency, it is necessarily to be destroyed: how is the purchase price of the emergency dwelling formed and what to do if the owner disagrees with the proposed price? This is the subject of this article.
Which apartment is considered emergency?
According to the methodological recommendations for the protection of the rights of participants in the reconstruction of housing units of various forms of ownership approved by the Order of 10 November 1998 of the State Assembly of Russia.
№ 8, Emergency condition of the building– The condition of the building, in which its continued operation must be stopped immediately due to the inability to ensure the safe stay of the people.
Read also the article ♪ Registration in Emergency Shelters ♪
The recognition of housing as unfit for residence is based on the Regulation on the Recognition of an apartment, a dwelling and a multi-family house as emergency and subject to demolition or reconstruction of the MDZ 13-21.2007, approved by Government Decision No. 47 of 28 January 2006, which requires the following algorithm to be performed in order for the dwelling to be considered as emergency and uninhabitable:
| No. | Phase | Commentary |
| 1 | Consideration of the application or opinion of the State supervisory (control) authorities and supporting documents | Application by the owner of the premises, the federal executive authority exercising the authority of the owner in respect of the property being assessed, the right holder or the citizen (employer) |
| 2 | Establishment of an inter-ministerial commission | The Commission evaluates and inspects the premises in order to make them suitable (unsuitable) for citizens ' residence, as well as for a multi-family house to be considered as emergency and subject to demolition or renovation. |
| 3 | Room survey | The Interdepartmental Commission carries out a survey of the premises:
|
| 4 | Conclusion of the commission | As a result, the commission takes one of the following decisions to assess the conformity of premises and multi-family buildings:
|
| 5 | Decision of the relevant federal executive body, the executive branch of the entity of the Russian Federation and the local self-government body on the outcome of the commission ' s work | Accommodations located in full-size, brick and stone houses, as well as in wooden houses and houses made of local materials with deformation:
|
| 6 | Transfer of one copy of the decision to the claimant and the owner of the dwelling | The third copy remains in the commission ' s case. |
Purchasing cost of emergency shelter
The Russian Federation ' s housing legislation, namely article 32 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, provides for the possibility of paying monetary compensation to the owner of the emergency dwelling and the so-called purchase price.
In order to determine the amount of the purchase price, it is necessary to calculate a number of factors that will be discussed in the section entitled "How is the purchase price of emergency housing formed?" of this article.
The owner of an emergency dwelling may be offered a different dwelling instead of payment, but one that will meet all the accommodation requirements.
It should be borne in mind that, in the event that emergency accommodation is recognized as an emergency, the right of residents to live in a social employment contract will be granted exclusively to the tenants. The new dwelling will meet the requirements for accommodation and equal to the square. No payment will be made in this case.
Read the same article ♪ Move out of the emergency shelter ♪
How is the purchase price of emergency housing generated?
Under article 32 of the Russian Housing Code, when determining the purchase price of emergency housing, it includes:
| What is included in the ransom price? | Commentary |
| Market value of the dwelling | |
| Market value of common property in a multi-family house | Taking into account the share of the owner in the joint ownership of such property |
| Losses caused to the owner of the dwelling by his removal | Including losses incurred by him in respect of:
|
Thus, the following formula can be used to determine the purchase price of emergency housing:
WC = RSW + RIS + W
- WC -Buy-back price
- CDC– Market value of the dwelling
- RDF– Market value of common property in a multi-family house
- Uh-huh.- loss to the owner of the dwelling caused by his removal
After the calculation, the amount of the purchase price of the emergency dwelling, the time when the payment will be made, must be in accordance with the owner of the dwelling.
What if the owner disagrees with the ransom price?
In the event that the owner of the emergency home disagrees with the amount of the purchase price, he is fully entitled to claim his rights in court.
In determining the purchase price of emergency housing, the owner needs to consider whether the following points have been taken into account in the payment:
- The share of the owner of the emergency dwelling on the land on which the multi-family house designated as the emergency house is located;
- Notarization costs;
- Transport costs;
- Costs to be incurred for the services of real estate selection specialists;
- Compensation for non-maintenance repairs in the living quarters.
Read the same article ♪ Emergency housing area ♪
In the event that the employer of the emergency accommodation has been offered an improved dwelling comparable to that already available and the employer has refused to move, there is a possibility of forced eviction of citizens from the emergency housing.
Questions and answers
- Our house is classified as an emergency and we've been offered a smaller apartment, which we're quite comfortable with.
Should we be paid some kind of monetary compensation in this case?
Answer: If you are offered smaller accommodation and agree to accept this offer, you must be required to pay monetary compensation for the difference in space that you have.
- We'd like to get a bigger apartment after we've found our house as an emergency, because we've got a bigger family and within the square meters we have now, we're tight. Is that possible?
Answer: You can count on a larger apartment, but in this case it is important to take into account the fact that the difference will have to be supplemented by its own resources.
Loading...
