Compensation for emergency and dilapidated housing to the owner in the demolition of a private house in 2023: case law on how to obtain

Claims by tenants (owners of private houses) that the decision to declare their dwellings liable to demolition are not justified are often the subject of legal proceedings; another nature of the claims is the dissatisfaction with the proposed monetary compensation for the demolition of the emergency dwelling or the violation of the owner ' s rights to an equivalent exchange in resettlement.

The legal aspects relating to the classification of residential buildings as uninhabitable or compensatory measures for tenants are reflected in articles of the Russian Housing Code and are also regulated by FL No. 185.

Which is expected of the owner in the demolition of the emergency shelter

In accordance with articles 32, 86 and 89 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a criterion has been drawn up by which accommodation is deemed to be accidental or dilapidated, and the same articles establish a list of compensatory measures, depending on the status of the owner.

download for viewing and printing:

• Federal Act No. 185-FZ of 21 July 2007 on the Foundation for the Reform of the Housing and Communal Economy
• Article 32: Ensuring the housing rights of the owner of the dwelling in the seizure of land for public or municipal purposes
• Article 86: Procedure for the provision of accommodation under a social employment contract in connection with the demolition of a house
• Article 89: Provision to citizens of other improved accommodation under a social employment contract in connection with eviction

Criteria for housing accidents

There is often confusion at the domestic level in terms of what is meant by the old dwelling as an emergency dwelling, but the conversion of the dwelling into one category or another determines a completely different relationship with the owners of the dwelling or private landlords.

A residential home is deemed unfit for living and is to be demolished according to the following criteria:

1. The actual and technical obsolescence is more than 70 per cent, with clear signs of breakage and collapse.
2. Destruction of buildings due to geo-tectonic movements (earthquakes, volcanic eruptions) and other geomorphological disasters.
3. Residential location in areas at risk: areas of possible chemical damage and toxic poisoning.
4. Deterioration of the home by noise and vibration of adjacent motorways and railway lines.
5. Location of residential buildings in the SZZ (health protection zone) of hazardous industries and heavy industry.
6. The location of a living object in the area of a man-made disaster is a clear example of a threat to the life and health of citizens as a result of the Chernobyl accident.

However, not all of these factors automatically confer emergency status; if the municipal authorities are not in a hurry to recognize the house as an emergency with all the resulting responsibilities on their part, the tenants must take the initiative themselves.

Important! There is a clear rule: living in emergency homes is life-threatening and requires early resettlement, but the old buildings include buildings that have simply become obsolete over time but are suitable for living after renovation work.

The sequence of actions taken to recognize the home as an emergency

Before a decision is made that the house is to be demolished, a procedure must be followed to declare the dwelling uninhabitable, in other words, to include it in the list of emergency buildings.

The following steps are being taken:

1. The owner of the dwelling may apply alone to the administration for a declaration of emergency at home, and an application is submitted in an arbitrary form through the reception office with compulsory registration or through the State Services portal.
2. On the basis of the application, an inter-ministerial housing commission is formed with representatives of all the services concerned, which on-site studies the degree of wear and tear and the technical condition of the house; the results of the survey result in an act.
3. If the solution is positive, the house is considered to be emergency and the owners of the dwelling are given a settlement or compensation for the demolition of the dwelling.

In order not to delay the procedure, it is important for tenants to act in a participatory manner, as the application must be accompanied by a package of documents, in particular a notarized copy of the ownership certificate from each right holder.

Guarantees for holders of privatized apartments in an emergency home

In the case of the demolition of a house deemed to be an emergency, the owners of privatized apartments can count on two options for compensation:

• Monetary compensation for the demolition of the apartment;
• Provision of new accommodation with relocation and other expenses.

Citizens living in apartments under a social employment contract could only claim resettlement and were not entitled to compensation for the demolition of the dwelling.

Purchasing rent

According to regulations in the Housing and Civil Code of the Russian Federation, compensation in a house for the demolition of property such as a privatized apartment is paid on a reimbursable basis (art. 32).

Each of the occupants of the emergency home must be notified of the eviction one year before the proposed demolition of the dwelling; the owners of the privatized dwelling are provided with a draft buyout contract, with the timing of the valuation of the property and its purchase directly dependent on the administration ' s interest in the acquisition of the vacant land.

Monetary compensation or the purchase price of an apartment is the sum of the market value and all associated costs (travel, temporary accommodation).

Further action by the owner depends on the terms of the ransom contract; ideally, the owner agrees with the price, the contract is signed, the money is transferred in cash.

But this is not always the case, as is the case in Tartarstan, where residents of emergency shelters throughout the Republic were given a single ransom price of $11,022,000.

The authorities offered to pay the missing sum by way of a social mortgage at the Republican Bank.

The wave of protests, lawsuits, appeals to the President of the Russian Federation ran through the Republic, since with such compensation no more than 7 m2 of free living space could be counted, only recently the program was quietly closed down and the inhabitants were finally able to assess their apartments more or less realistically.

In such a situation, residents who disagree with the amount of monetary compensation conduct a self-assessment of the property from an independent appraiser.In addition to the market value of the dwelling, the estimate includes:

• The value of the owner ' s share of the common property of the multi-family house;
• All losses suffered in connection with the change of residence;
• Loss of profits, if any;
• The latest innovation is to compensate the owners of privatized dwellings for the unrepaired ones.

Further, if the owner ' s steps have not taken effect, he may file a claim with the court, which may be based on disagreement with the amount of the evaluation or on the delay in the time frame for the writing of the ransom contract by the administration.

Displacement

Both the owners of privatized housing and citizens living under a social employment contract are entitled to receive compensation for the demolition of the house in the form of housing compensation.

Resident ' s rights in resettlement:

1. The right to choose - up to three times the owner may waive the options proposed.
2. The accommodation provided must be equivalent to the metre lost.
3. The new place of residence must be located in one administrative district with the old one, and only with the consent of the owner must move to another region.
4. The exchange dwelling should be equipped with engineering networks and communications.

When agreement is reached to move to an alternative dwelling, there is a bilateral agreement between the owner and the administration, and within one month of the signing of the contract, there is a move with compensation for all the losses suffered by the municipality.

If the tenant gives up three times the proposed accommodation options, the owner of the privatized dwelling is entitled to claim monetary compensation; the owner of the rental dwelling may then be offered an apartment with a smaller or larger size but with an additional payment from one party or another.

Dismantling of a private house

The grounds for liberation from private sector residential buildings are the same as for capital buildings:

• Emergency status;
• The removal of land for the needs of the municipality (city);
• to be in a dangerous area.

Alternative housing also implies the existence of a home land of equal quality and size.

The evaluation of a private home shall be conducted according to the following criteria:

• Percentage of house wear and tear and construction;
• Number of cultural gardens;
• The type of engineering communications and the availability of facilities;
• The degree of development of the infrastructure, particularly transport;
• Location in the settlement (centre, outskirts).

Owners of private houses may, if they so wish, ask for accommodation in a multi-family house to be replaced.

If a private developer likes the country's properties, the owner has the right to pay his price for the purchase of the property with the land, as is said to be the case here.

If a smaller dwelling is provided, an additional payment shall be made in agreement with the Contracting Party.

Cities are growing rapidly, housing and social infrastructure are increasingly needed, and garage cooperatives that are earlier outside the city often fall within the interests of developers.

Unfortunately, the criteria for compensation for the demolition of the garage are often blurry, because it is no secret that garage owners often fail to issue real estate certificates, much less, until recently, there was enough building to register, but it is now necessary for a full deal to have rights to land under the garage.

Interesting! A special feature of the calculation of compensation in the demolition of a private house is that the calculation of the purchase price, in addition to the house, includes the value of the land if the property is owned.

Garage-containing assessment procedure

Under the law, the owner of the garage scheduled for demolition must be notified in paper form not later than 30 days from the planned destruction.

In the event of the removal of buildings for the needs of the city, the entire cost of the work is borne by the State, and the owner is required to remove his property and prepare all necessary documents for monetary compensation for the lost property.

The purchase price generally does not cover the full cost of the garage, but may serve as seed capital for the construction or purchase of a new premises.

The amount of the buy-in price for the garage is influenced by:

• The location of the building in the residential area;
• Materials and structure of the building;
• The presence of a car pit or a cellar;
• Quality of finish materials inside the garage.

The purchase price is reimbursed to both individual garage owners and members of the SCC on the basis of the documents of ownership of the immovable property.

Documents for award of compensation

The legal instruments are:

• Certificate of membership in a garage cooperative or other association of motorists;
• A gift to the garage;
• A certificate of sale;
• A document on inherited property;
• The right to use the garage pursuant to a court decision.

Thus, the main condition for obtaining compensation is the legal right to own the garage.

The difficulty is that the 30-day data will not be sufficient to establish ownership or correct errors in the documents available. Motorists ' organizations are in some cases not encouraged to extend the lease; these circumstances entail a refusal to grant compensation.

The owners of illegally constructed garages are left with nothing, and in addition to depriving citizens of compensation, they may be subject to administrative punishment and forced to dismantle the garage by their own forces.

The timing of the purchase price for the garage is approximate and varies from case to case, but usually within 20 to 25 days.

1. Dear readers!
2. We describe the model ways of dealing with legal issues, but each case is unique and requires individual legal assistance.
3. In order to solve your problem quickly, we recommend that we turn toqualified lawyers on our website.

Recent developments

Our experts are tracking all legislative changes to provide you with reliable information.

Add the site to the bookmarks and sign up for our updates!

Look at the video on how to get compensation for the demolition of a dwelling.

Who pays for emergency homes? / Two Supreme Court cases make you wonder about the fairness of compensation.

In the past two weeks, two Supreme Court (SC) cases involving compensation in lieu of emergency housing have raised quite interesting legal questions. First, can the owner of a business property claim compensation? Second, is it possible for a person who, upon purchase, knew that he was buying a dwelling in an emergency home to claim compensation?

I.

The first case has recently been referred to the Economic Panel (case No. A50-23011/2016). In this case, two entrepreneurs who own non-residential premises in the emergency house in Berezniki claim compensation in the form of the cost of the premises.

They believe that even though the law does not explicitly state that commercial property is subject to compensation, it must be paid in the same way as real estate.

The first said that it was necessary to apply by analogy the buy-back procedure provided for in the Housing Code (HK), and the second corrected the conclusion by considering it necessary to follow the special arrangement for the exchange of premises approved for the city by the Regional Government.

And the third instance found it impossible to apply a regional housing arrangement similar to that of the non-residents (for details of the case, see Law.ru here).

It appears that the courts are discussing rather a formal point — whether the law or the special order can be applied by analogy — but the reasons why the analogy is possible are essentially not disclosed.

In this case, however, it seems to me that the aim of the authorities is to provide new housing free of charge in the event that the house is in a state of emergency, which is to guarantee everyone the right to housing.

But protection against accidental loss of housing can obviously be part of the range of measures that the State must take in order to fulfil its duty.

If you agree with this explanation, it becomes clear that there is no reason to extend this measure to entrepreneurs, who, like all owners, run the risk of accidental destruction of their property.

The right protection against this risk is insurance, as well as a careful approach to the selection of a potential investment facility.

If he's at risk, you should think about it 10 times before you take him.

By the way, there's another interesting nuance in this case: the accident was caused by the development of a salt mine in a mine under the city of Berezniki.

Of course, she may argue that the accident was caused by natural factors.

But first, would these factors arise if there were no mines, and secondly, can such work be recognized as an activity that creates an increased risk for which there is no fault?

II.

The second case is a fresh definition of the civil division (May 15, 2018, No. 32-GC18-6). This is an emergency house in Samara. Here's a picture of him from Google maps:

The local authorities declared it accidental in 1998 and in 2007 it was purchased with a mortgage, and the buyers stopped servicing the debt, probably after the house was declared to be an emergency, and in 2011 the court ordered the administration to provide them with a different accommodation, which the authorities did not comply with until 2014 by entering into a social employment contract with the former owners.

In the meantime, the bank recovered the emergency apartment in 2012, registered its ownership and resold the current owner in 2014.

The contract stated that the apartment was located in a house declared to be emergency and subject to demolition, and the new owner filed a claim for an administrative obligation to provide new accommodation in lieu of an emergency room.

The courts refused, considering that the apartment had already been replaced by another, the former owner.

The Supreme Court reversed these decisions and gave the plaintiff a chance to obtain housing, drawing attention to the administration ' s error, because it failed to comply with the procedure provided for in article 32, paragraph 10, of the former owner ' s relocation.

If so, the SC believes that the new owner of the same apartment may claim to have been bought by the administration.

If you are distracted by a mistake that the SC has drawn attention to, the question remains whether the ransom is consistent with the purpose of compensation? As noted, it must protect the owners from accidental events (such as the technological accident in Berezniks).

But if the buyer buys an apartment in a house that is already emergency, and he knows that it will be news of the state of the house?

However, the fairness of the result still raises questions.

Perhaps the ransom procedure should be reviewed and it should be established that only the owner who owned the apartment at the time the house was declared as an emergency, or his heirs, could claim the ransom.

This kind of apartment, obviously, wouldn't be bought, because it wouldn't be possible to get compensation for it, and the owner could have asked the local authorities to buy the apartment right away. Of course, it's better to change the law.

But the same result could well have been achieved by the court using a targeted interpretation of the rule.

III.

Another question is, how justified is the current system? It requires public entities to buy apartments in emergency homes, regardless of the reason why they are considered to be accidents.

If this is indeed an accidental accident, the payment of compensation can be justified by the idea of a social state, a different matter if the house has become inoperable due to the lack of care of the owners.

In part, this can be explained by the long-standing responsibility of the state, which was the owner of all the apartments in Soviet times, and later a large part of them. But what about the new houses, which are entirely owned by private individuals? Formally, they too can claim a ransom if the house becomes an emergency.

Although it would be better to start with claims against a management company that did not follow the house well, or a developer if he was responsible for poor construction.

Another defendant in such a case may be the regional capital master fund, since it is the regional capital master fund that accumulates funds that are paid monthly by the owners to maintain their home in good condition.

Compensation for relocation from emergency shelters

Citizens living in emergency housing may be evicted by law with the right to provide other housing, and the article will examine whether compensation is provided for resettlement from emergency housing, how to obtain it, and what documents are required to do so.

Procedure for recognizing housing as an emergency

Compensation for relocation from emergency shelters

A dwelling may be deemed to be an emergency if half of the premises and the houses in which it is built, on the basis of an established detention, are classified as an emergency and may endanger the lives of the persons living there.

The following are the main indicators of the accident of the supporting structures:

• Deformation and damage;
• Loss of strength;
• Changes in environmental conditions.

The emergency condition of a dwelling must be distinguished from that of a pre-accident; in the event of a breakdown of the load structure, the other structures of the house will not be affected, nor will it change the living conditions; in the case of an emergency, there is always a danger to the lives of the occupants.

The step-by-step testimonial

The house may be deemed to be an emergency at the initiative of the owner of the dwelling, which requires a procedure to be followed.

Step 1A package of documents should be collected and submitted together with the application to the local authorities; an electronic application could be made.

Step 2On the basis of the owner ' s statement, an inter-ministerial commission is established, composed of representatives of various State bodies (fire safety, health and epidemiological safety, local self-government, executive power, etc.).

Step 3.The Commission conducts the assessment of the home in accordance with the established requirements.

Step 4.The Commission shall make a decision on the basis of the evaluation carried out and shall draw up an opinion on whether the house is deemed to be in danger or not; this opinion shall be communicated to the applicant by the Commission.

Step 5If the house is deemed to be an emergency, the executive authority shall order the continued use of the premises:

• Dismantling of the emergency house;
• Major repairs or renovations.

It should be noted that this decision sets out the time frame and procedure for the resettlement of persons living there.

Read also the article "The River of Old and Emergency Shelters".

Relocation from emergency shelter: order and priority

Citizens whose homes are considered to be hazardous (inhabitable) and subject to demolition are subject to displacement; public programmes to improve housing conditions can also be used as grounds for resettlement; often these programmes are regional initiatives.

It is provided by law that resettlement takes place in order of priority from the date of admission of citizens to the register of persons in need of accommodation.However, there are certain categories of citizens who are given priority housing, including:

• Persons with disabilities;
• Families with many children;
• Those suffering from severe forms of chronic disease.

The priority for the relocation of citizens from emergency accommodation is set by the local authorities and the emergency house is included in the demolition programme, which sets out the dates for the relocation of residents.

The decision of the local authorities is the basis for the provision of new housing under a social employment contract when the house is declared to be an emergency.No later than three working days from the date of adoption, the decision must be sent to the residents of the house, under which new employment contracts must be concluded.

Read also the article "The demolition of emergency housing after 2017".

One way of settling the relocation of citizens is through the signing of a contract by a man.A prerequisite is the provision of equivalent accommodation at the place of residence of citizens who are to be relocated from emergency housing.

The following legal relations between the owner of the dwelling and the public entities are distinguished by the contract of the man:

• Equivalent exchange;
• Unequal exchange for the person to be relocated, with compensation for the difference;
• Unequal exchange for local governments, with compensation for the difference between the State.

The main task of signing the contract of mena is the legal removal of emergency housing for public and municipal needs.

The mandatory requirements of the contract of men are:

• The details of the men ' s participants;
• The objects to be exchanged, as well as their main characteristics (area, installation conditions);
• Addresses of objects;
• The conditions and duration of the mana;
• Cost criteria for real property (market value);
• The conditions for compensation in case of unequal exchange for both parties.

According to the contract, local authorities are obliged to provide a residential property in the same locality, and it is permissible to provide it in another locality with the written consent of the displaced.

The market value must be equal, otherwise compensation is provided by law.

Read also article.................................................................

Monetary compensation for relocation from emergency shelters

There are situations in which it is not possible to find an equivalent exchange facility when moving out of an emergency shelter on the basis of a contract by a man, where monetary compensation is established by law and the amount of compensation depends on the following factors:

• The market value of emergency housing;
• The market value of the housing provided;
• The cost of moving the tenants.

The following types of monetary compensation exist under the contract of the man.

Name	Description of compensation
Compensation to tenants for the difference	Local government authorities offer the owner (resident) a new dwelling, the market value of which is lower; the owner is legally entitled to claim compensation for the difference in the monetary equivalent; this compensation must be fixed in the contract of the man.
Compensation to the State	The housing stock of the region does not have the equivalent of the cost and conditions of the real estate; in return, the housing stock may offer a housing facility with a higher market value; for example, an apartment with a larger quadruple or a different area. In order to comply with the principle of equivalence when signing a contract, the owner of an emergency dwelling would have to compensate the State for the difference (the exchange fee).
Full compensation for tenants	The housing stock does not have the equivalent of the cost and conditions of the dwelling, and the properties offered in return are not suitable for the owner of the emergency dwelling for various reasons; a citizen may claim full compensation in the amount of money that will be set forth in the contract of the man; and the public authorities will be obliged to compensate for the value of his own housing, since in the future the dwelling will be forcibly confiscated for further demolition (or reconstruction).

There are situations where local governments deliberately understate the market value of emergency housing, so you can use the services of an independent expert evaluator to check the market value of emergency housing.

In the event of an underestimation, citizens have the right to challenge the matter in court.

Compensation for Emergency Housing - Question No. 15977546 of 26.06.2022

Yes, you can demand the purchase price of the property on the following grounds.

As a general rule, the housing rights of the owner of the dwelling in a house recognized in accordance with the established procedure as emergency and subject to demolition shall be ensured in accordance with the procedure laid down in article 32 of the Russian Housing Code, i.e. the right of the owner of the dwelling to be placed in a house which has been declared emergency and is subject to demolition.

In the event that the owners of the dwellings in such a house do not destroy or renovate it within the time limit granted to them, the local authority shall decide on the seizure of the land on which the emergency house is located for municipal use and, accordingly, on the removal of each dwelling in the house by ransom.

In such a case, the owner may be granted a replacement dwelling only if there is an appropriate agreement with the local self-government body and only if the value of the dwelling is set at a price (art. 32, para. 8, of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation).

Furthermore, from the provisions of article 32 of the Russian Housing Code and the explanations contained in paragraphs 20 and 22 of the decision of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of 2 July 2009.

No. 14 "On certain matters which have arisen in judicial practice in the application of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation", it follows that the owner living in a house declared to be emergency and subject to demolition may either be confiscated by ransom or, under an agreement with the owner, be provided with another dwelling with a price set aside, provided that the prior procedure is followed, both by the local government authority, to request the demolition of the emergency house or its reconstruction, and by the local government authority subsequently to decide on the removal of the land on which the emergency house is located and of each dwelling in such house, if the owners of the dwelling in the house have failed to comply with the requirement for its demolition or reconstruction.

• The purchase price of the rented dwelling is determined in accordance with the rules set out in article 32, paragraph 7, of the Russian Code of Housing and includes the market value of the dwelling, the loss caused to the owner by its removal, including loss of profits, as well as the amount of compensation for the unproduced major repairs.
• In determining the purchase price of the premises to be confiscated, consideration should be given to the value of the share of the ownership of the common property in the house to be demolished, including the share of the ownership of the land.
• As a general rule, the purchase price of the dwelling, the terms and other terms of the purchase are determined by agreement with the owner of the dwelling (art. 32, para. 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 laid down in Federal Act No. 135-FZ of 29 July 1998 "On assessment activities in the Russian Federation".

How to Get Money for Emergency Shelters

Since 2014, I have been dealing with emergency housing in Arkhangelsk, and the jurisprudence that has developed in the country today is encouraging, and there are positive developments for both owners and employers, and I would like to focus on the rights of those who own premises in multi-family emergency homes to own property.

Who is responsible for emergency housing

Your property is your problem. This statement is incorrect in the context of the issue under consideration. The owners of the old dwelling have art. 32 of the Russian Federation ' s Criminal Code. It specifies in some detail (although very confusing) their rights in the event that the premises are found to be uninhabitable.

A few years ago, the rules of the said article were considered extremely difficult by the courts, and I believe that the reasons for this will be clear from the following.

Let us consider in detail how to obtain money for emergency housing, the whole procedure is fully described in article 32 of the Russian Federation ' s LKS.

First stage: recognition of the home as an emergency

A few years ago, it was sufficient to file an application with the local administration to find the house emergency in Arkhangelsk (as well as in any other town).

An inter-ministerial commission was convened and an opinion was being drawn up and the inter-ministerial commission ' s opinion should now be based on an expert assessment.

The simplest way to call a house emergency is to order an expert opinion and hand it over to the local administration.

Second stage: requirement for demolition or reconstruction within a reasonable time

The house is deemed to be emergency - owners must be required to destroy it or to renovate it within a reasonable time; the administration may delay the process without submitting the claim; in such a case, the court must take action.

The case will be dealt with in the manner provided for by the CAS of the Russian Federation.

The requirement reads as follows: "Recognize the Administration's improper failure to perform a preliminary procedure for the removal of accommodation in a residential home located at: ___________________ recognized as an emergency and subject to demolition, and require ___ within one month of the court's entry into force of the judgement to require the demolition or reconstruction of the house within a reasonable period of time."

An example of a solution here.

Note 1: It is not necessary for all owners to appear before the court; one person is sufficient; the court requires the administration to submit a claim to it; the administration cannot submit a claim to only one owner and therefore sends it to all.

Requirement: "To declare illegal the requirement for the demolition of an emergency multi-family dwelling at the address: ___________________ in respect of the duration of its execution, and to require the Administration to amend the requirement for the demolition of an emergency multi-family dwelling at the address: _________________, addressed to the Administrative Claimant, not later than one month after the date of the entry into force of the court's decision, by setting a time limit for its execution at the latest.

An example of a solution here.

Third stage: decision on exemption

The administration takes and sends to the owner the decision to seize the land on which the emergency dwelling is located, and the land is confiscated and, consequently, the emergency house and all the separate premises within it are confiscated.

The administration is inactive – again filing an administrative claim.

Requirement: "To declare the Administration's failure to act illegal and to require the Administration to order, within one month of the date on which the court's decision enters into force, the removal for municipal purposes of the land on which the dwelling is located and, accordingly, to take a decision on the removal of the premises belonging to the right of ownership, which is located at the address: _________________________________, by determining the purchase price of the rented dwelling, the time limit and other terms of the ransom".

An example of a solution here.

Fourth stage: compensation for emergency housing

The Administration must send the owner an agreement specifying the terms and conditions of the ransom; if it does not send the agreement or the amounts indicated are not acceptable, it is possible to order an assessment and to appear before the court.

The purchase price includes the market value of the dwelling, compensation for non-produced major repairs, relocation losses and other losses, as detailed in article 32, paragraph 7, of the Russian Federation ' s Code of Criminal Procedure.

An example of a solution here.

Problems of judicial practice in emergency housing

The case law on emergency housing has not yet been settled, and the relevant issues are: who is entitled to compensation for non-produced major repairs, whether the land should be assessed separately and so on.

In Arkhangelsk, for example, in September 2018, the jurisprudence on the recovery of relocation damages changed; earlier, the courts had calculated the loss caused by the experts.

Without question, 100 to 130,000 rubles were recovered; now the courts consider that the only way to recover these losses is by cheque (real costs incurred).

Curiously, even the local administration had previously included uninhabited losses in the exclusion agreements.

On the day of writing of this article, the case law on emergency housing is consistent with what is stated above. What will happen next is not known to anyone. It can only be said with certainty that the problems of emergency housing must be resolved without delay.

The Supreme Court supported the owners of the apartments when the houses were demolished.

A very important decision was taken by the Supreme Court when it considered a case of eviction of citizens from emergency housing, which is one of the most painful sites today.

The case before the Civil Division of the Supreme Court began in Krasnodar, where the city ' s administration went to the Leninsky District Court with a claim against three tenants of the house sentenced to demolition, all three of whom were owners of the dwelling and each had one third in the apartment.

Officials asked the court to terminate citizens' ownership of their apartment because the house was to be demolished; the administration offered citizens a voluntary exchange; their rented apartment was to be replaced; the proposed apartment was municipal; but the owners refused the offer; the District Court decided in favour of the officials.

The District Court agreed with such a verdict in its entirety.

Reysud's assumption was that the people were offered housing that was considered to be well-established was the same as that they had in the city where the defendants lived, all of which was not contrary to article 89 of the Housing Code.

However, Rasuda recalled that there was an order by the city administration to seize land for public coercion, and the decree also mentioned the plot on which the house was built.

But the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation did not agree with this interpretation; he said that other articles of the Housing Code had to be applied in this case; he pointed out another article of the Code, 86.

It states, among other things, that if a house occupied under a social employment contract is to be demolished, the local authority that is evicted gives the same housing and so does the social employment contract, but in our case the housing that was destroyed was not municipal, but its own.

In such a case, the Supreme Court said, it was necessary to apply another article of the Housing Code, namely the 32nd article, which states in paragraph 1 that accommodation may be taken from the owner, but by means of a ransom "in connection with the seizure of land for public or municipal purposes".

The 10th part of the same article states that the recognition of the home as emergency and demolitionable is a ground for the authority that has decided on the demolition to make certain demands on the owner, namely that the owner must himself "within a reasonable time" at his own expense to destroy or reconstruct the emergency building.

If the owner has not done anything, the local authority may, on which the emergency house is located, remove it for municipal use, and each dwelling in the house must also be removed.

The Plenum stated that citizens ' property could be forcibly disposed of for public coercion, but only if certain conditions were met; the main condition was provisional and equal reparation.

Such measures, the Chief Court emphasized, were aimed at safeguarding the rights and interests of the owners of the dwelling.

The Supreme Court said that in our situation the conditions must be met: first, to determine whether the owners were required to destroy the house within a reasonable time at their own expense; second, to find out whether the local government had seized the land and each of their own apartments in it if the owner had not taken care of the demolition of the house.

It follows from article 32 of the Housing Code that if the owner disagrees with the decision to remove the square metres from him, unless he has been given a ransom price, then only officials can go to court and sue for the ransom.

In the decision of the "housing" Plenary, there is a strict policy: the demand of the authority that decided to remove the dwelling, the relocation of the owner to another premises cannot be satisfied if the owner objects.

Under article 32, paragraph 8, of the Code, it is only by its consent that the owner of the home may be granted a replacement.

Here is the conclusion of the Supreme Court: from the owner in such a situation, the metres may be seized either by ransom or by agreement with him, "with the return of his value to the purchase price".

The High Court emphasized that the circumstances of this procedure are essential for the proper resolution of such cases.

Specifically, in the Reddar case, the local courts were to determine the form of removal of people ' s accommodation to which they would agree.

It was necessary to determine whether citizens had expressed their consent to the provision of new housing or whether they had agreed to the payment of ransom money.

However, the Supreme Court stressed that, in violation of the law, the local courts had not established that the City had complied with the procedure for the removal of the premises and thus with the rights of the owners.

Decision of the Judicial Chamber on Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of 21 March 2017 N 45-KG16-30

Supreme Court of the Russian Federation

DEFINITION

of 21 March 2017 N 45-KG16-30

The Judicial Chamber for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation is composed of:

Chairman, Klykushin A.A.

Judges Ryzhenkov A.M. and Nazarenko T.N.

In a public trial, the civil case against Kalmetova, K.A., Tuponyova N.B. and Jermolin E.V. was heard by the administration of Yekaterinburg, on the obligation to provide housing property.

On the appeal of the representative of the administration of Yekaterinburg to the decision of the Lenin District Court of Yekaterinburg of 9 February 2016 and the appeal decision of the Court of Civil Cases of the Sverdlov Regional Court of 7 June 2016.

Having heard the report of Judge Klykushin A.A. of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, and having heard the explanations of the representative of Kalmetova, K.A., Tuponyova N.B. and Jermolin E.V. Kucherov, who objected to the arguments of the cassation appeal, the Judicial Chamber for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation

Has established:

In support of the claim, they claim to be owners of the N residences located in the apartment building down the street, the opinion of the inter-ministerial commission of 14 February 2013.

N 05/13 This multi-family home is considered to be emergency and demolitionable and is also included in the municipal programme "Removement of the City of Yekaterinburg from the Old and Emergency Housing Fund" for 2014-2016.

Since the claimants did not receive adequate compensation for the loss of their property, they believe that they are entitled to the property.

The decision of the Leninsky District Court of Yekaterinburg of 9 February 2016 granted the claim, and the administration of Yekaterinburg is responsible for providing the property of Kalmetova K.A.

, Stupid N.B. and Ermolin E.V., constructed accommodations with a total area of not less than square metres, square metres, square metres, respectively, located within g.

Ekaterinburg meeting sanitary and technical requirements.

The Court of First Instance ' s appeal decision of 7 June 2016 by the Court of Civil Cases of the Sverdlovsk Regional Court has not been amended.

The appeal in cassation by the representative of the administration of Yekaterinburg, Circle E.D., raises the issue of quashing the said judgements as illegal.

By a decision of 17 February 2017 of Judge Klykushin of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, the appeal in cassation was referred to the Judicial Chamber on Civil Matters of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation for judicial review.

• After examining the case file and discussing the arguments of the cassation appeal, the Judicial Panel on Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation finds that there are grounds for quashing the court decisions in the case.
• In accordance with article 387 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, the grounds for repealing or amending judicial decisions in cassation are fundamental violations of substantive law or procedural law, which have affected the outcome of the case and without which it is impossible to restore and protect violated rights, freedoms and legitimate interests, as well as the protection of public interests protected by law.
• Such violations of substantive and procedural law were committed in the present case by the courts of first instance and appeal.

According to the court and according to the case file, Kalmetova ' s ownership of the property belonged to a room of square metres in apartment N in the street house on the basis of a sales contract dated 22 August 2011, and ownership was registered on 10 October 2011 (arts. 13 and 14).

Stupid N.B. owned a room with a total area of square metres in apartment N in a street house on the basis of a contract of sale dated 16 August 2000 registered ownership on 28 September 2000 (L. 15 - 16).

Yermolina E.V. owned a room with a total area of square metres in an apartment in a street house on the basis of a contract for the transfer of a room in a communal apartment to citizens ' property dated 29 December 2009, and ownership was registered on 7 July 2010 (L.17-18).

On 14 February 2013, the opinion of the Interdepartmental Commission N 05/13, appointed by decision of the Head of Administration of Yekaterinburg of 20 August 2012, N 3607, referred to above, found the apartment building to be emergency and subject to demolition (L. 21).

As stated in the protocol of 4 March 2013 N1 of the general meeting of owners of the premises on the establishment of a partnership of owners of dwellings in a multi-family house:, the owners of the dwelling, including the plaintiffs, unanimously decided to destroy the house that had been damaged by fire, which was not to be restored (sect. 106 - 109).

On 8 July 2013, the authorities of the Aarhus region of Yekaterinburg, Kalmetova, Tuponyova N.B. and Ermolina E.V., as owners of dwellings in a recognized emergency and demolition apartment building on the street, requested that the house be demolished before 1 December 2013 (L. 49-51).

By decision of the Ekaterinburg administration of 2 December 2013, N 4029 approved a municipal programme entitled "The relocation of residents of a municipal entity "the city of Yekaterinburg" from the old and emergency housing stock" for 2014-2016, which includes old apartment buildings to be demolished, including a house on the street (L. 132 - 136).

According to the reports of the Yekaterinburg Municipal Uniting Company "The Bureau of Technical Inventory" dated 8 and 30 October 2015, some of the dwellings located at the city of Yekaterinburg are registered with the municipality of Yekaterinburg; as of 12 July 2013, the building had been demolished (L. 60 - 61, 137).

On January 25, 2016, the apartment building mentioned above was removed from the municipal programme by the Ekaterinburg N 124 (L. 128 - 131).

The court of first instance assumed that the multi-family house in which the plaintiffs owned the dwelling was deemed to be emergency and subject to demolition was, at the time of the suit, included in the municipal programme "Relocation of residents of the municipality of Yekaterinburg from the dilapidated and emergency housing stock" for 2014-2016, but the administration of Yekaterinburg did not fulfil its obligations to realize the rights of owners of emergency housing to safe living conditions and to provide them with accommodation in return for lost accommodation, while the court ruled against the defendant's arguments that the provisions of article 32 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation were applicable to the disputed legal relationship, stating that the inclusion of the emergency house in the targeted programme was a separate ground for granting a different dwelling to the owner of the emergency housing building when resettling from the emergency housing stock or its ransom.

The Judicial Panel on Civil Cases of the Sverdlov Regional Court agreed with the conclusions of the Court of First Instance.

The Judicial Panel on Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation finds that judicial decisions have been taken with a fundamental violation of substantive law and cannot be accepted on the following grounds.

The law relating to the relocation of citizens from the emergency housing fund is regulated by Federal Act No. 185-FZ of 21 July 2007 (23.06.2016).

) "On the Fund for Assistance in the Reform of the Housing and Communal Economy" (hereinafter referred to as the Law), which establishes the legal and organizational framework for the provision of financial support to the entities of the Russian Federation and municipal entities for the relocation of citizens.

By virtue of article 16, paragraph 1, of the Act, a regional targeted programme for the relocation of citizens from the emergency housing fund is approved by the supreme executive body of the State authority of the entity of the Russian Federation.

In accordance with article 16, part 2, paragraph 1, of the Act, the regional targeted programme for the relocation of citizens from the emergency housing fund includes only those multi-family homes that are recognized before 1 January 2012 as emergency and subject to demolition or reconstruction due to physical wear and tear during their operation in accordance with the established procedure.

If a dwelling declared to be emergency and subject to demolition is included in a regional targeted programme for the relocation of citizens from the emergency housing stock, the owner of the dwelling in such a house is entitled, by virtue of article 2, paragraph 3, article 16 of Federal Act No. 185-FZ of 21 July 2007, "On the Foundation for the Promotion of Housing and Communal Reform", to the provision of another dwelling or its purchase.

By requiring the defendant to provide the plaintiffs with accommodation, the court of first instance, invoking article 2, paragraph 3, article 16 of the Federal Act of 21 July 2007.

However, the city ' s apartment building was not included in the regional targeted programme approved by the supreme executive body of the State authority of the constituent entity of the Russian Federation, and therefore the provisions of the Act were not applicable to contentious legal relations.

The housing rights of the owner of the dwelling in a house recognized in accordance with the established procedure as emergency and subject to demolition shall be ensured in accordance with the procedure laid down in article 32 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation.

According to part 10 of this article, the recognition by the Government of the Russian Federation of a multi-family house as an emergency and subject to demolition or reconstruction procedure is the basis for the authority that has decided to declare such a house emergency and subject to demolition or reconstruction to the owners of the premises in the said house within a reasonable period of time; in the event that the owners do not destroy or reconstruct the said house within the prescribed time limit, the land on which the said house is located shall be confiscated for municipal use and, accordingly, each dwelling in the said house shall be confiscated, except in the case of dwellings belonging to the right of ownership of the municipal entity, in accordance with the procedure provided for in paragraphs 1 to 3, 5 to 9 of this article.

Under an agreement with the owner of the dwelling, he may be provided with other accommodation in return for the premises to be taken away, and his value may be set off in determining the amount of compensation for the accommodation to be taken (art. 32, para. 8, of the Russian Federation).

The purchase of a dwelling in a declared emergency and demolition dwelling or the conclusion of an agreement on the provision of another dwelling should be preceded by the preliminary procedure established in article 32, paragraph 10, of the Russian Federation Code of Housing, whereby the local self-government authority should submit to the owners of the dwelling a request for the demolition of the dwelling and the subsequent removal by the authorized authority of the land for municipal use and the removal of each dwelling in such a house, and therefore the decision to provide the owner of another dwelling without complying with the said procedure is contrary to the requirements of the housing legislation.

As explained by the Plenary of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in paragraph 20 of the Order of 2 July 2009.

"Some issues that have arisen in judicial practice in the application of the Russian Code of Housing", in order for the courts to properly resolve cases involving the removal of a dwelling for public or municipal needs (art. 32), should be borne in mind that failure to comply with the procedure for the prior removal of a dwelling from the owner's home should entail the refusal of a claim by a State authority (a body of local self-government) for the purchase of a dwelling; the requirement of a State authority or a local self-government body that the owner of the premises be removed cannot be satisfied with the removal of the owner of the premises being taken to another dwelling if the owner of the dwelling objects to that effect, since, in accordance with article 32, paragraph 8, of the Russian Federation's Housing Code, it is only by agreement between the parties that the owner of the dwelling be granted a replacement of the other dwelling; nor may the court require the said authorities to ensure that the owner of the rented dwelling is transferred to another dwelling, since the content of article 32 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation requires that the public authority or local self-government body that has decided on the removal of the dwelling is obliged only by the payment of the rent.

Since the plaintiffs, who are owners of the premises, have independently carried out the demolition of the apartment building in accordance with article 32, paragraph 10, of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, the administration of the Russian Federation has carried out the demolition of the apartment building.

There was no obligation in Yekaterinburg to provide the owners with any prior and equivalent compensation under article 32 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, which was not taken into account by the courts.

In addition, as stated in the protocol of 4 March 2013 N1 of the general meeting of owners of the premises on the establishment of a partnership of owners of dwellings in a multi-family home:, the owners of the dwelling, including the plaintiffs, unanimously decided to destroy the house that had been damaged by fire, which could not be restored (L. 106 - 109).

However, the court did not assess the plaintiffs' actions in respect of their property, whereas, according to article 209 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the owner has the right to own, use and dispose of his property, nor did it take into account that on 25 January 2016, the apartment house referred to above was excluded by a decision of the administration of Yekaterinburg N 124 from the municipal programme "The relocation of residents of a municipal entity "the city of Yekaterinburg" from the old and emergency housing stock" for 2014-2016.

In view of the above, the Judicial Panel on Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation finds that the violations of the substantive law committed by the courts of first and appellate courts are substantial, that they have affected the outcome of the case and that, without their elimination, it is not possible to restore and protect the complainant ' s violated rights and legitimate interests, so that the decision of the Leninsk District Court of Yekaterinburg of 9 February 2016 and the appeal decision of the Court of Civil Cases of the Sverdlovsk Regional Court of 7 June 2016 cannot be declared lawful, and they are subject to annulment and referral to the court of first instance.

In reviewing the case, the court should take account of what has been stated, determine the nature of the legal relationship between the parties and resolve the dispute in accordance with the circumstances and requirements of the law established in the case.

Pursuant to articles 387, 388 and 390 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, the Judicial Chamber for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation

Have determined:

The decision of the Leninsky District Court of Yekaterinburg of 9 February 2016 and the appeal decision of the Civil Division of the Sverdlovsk Regional Court of 7 June 2016 to set aside the case and refer it to the court of first instance.

——————————————————————