D.V. Karpukhin, Ph.D., Associate Professor of the Department of Civil Law Disciplines, Moscow Institute of Economics and Legal Management

PERMANENT (LIPELESS) USE OF RESIDENTIAL PREMISES

The Housing Code of the Russian Federation, which came into force in 2005, significantly expanded the list of grounds for eviction of citizens from residential premises. In this regard, the most common question in law enforcement practice has become the possibility of preserving the right to use residential premises for persons who are not its owners. An analysis of the current housing legislation shows that persons who renounced ownership of a share in residential premises as a result of its privatization, recipients of rent under a lifelong maintenance agreement with dependents, and finally, users of residential premises-legatees under a testamentary refusal retain the right to permanent (indefinite) use of residential premises in the event of loss of ownership rights to it.

The current Civil Code of the Russian Federation, along with the real right of ownership, characterized by a universal triad of powers of “possession”, “use” and “disposal” granted to the owner, in paragraph 1 of Article 216 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation contains a list of other real rights, the holders of which are limited in the possibilities of using property and determining his future legal fate.

These include:

the right to lifelong inheritable ownership of a land plot;

the right to permanent (indefinite) use of a land plot;

easements;

the right to manage property;

the right to operational property management.

Despite the differences in the scope of powers of use and disposal granted to their owners, the science of civil law identifies a general legal feature of these real rights, which is expressed in their absolute nature. So, E.A. Sukhanov notes that “the legal specificity of property law is its absolute nature. After all, it determines the connections of the authorized person with all other (third) parties, and not with a specific obligated person (which is typical for obligatory rights, which are therefore relative in their legal nature). The absoluteness of real rights is due precisely to the fact that they consolidate a person’s relationship to a thing, and not to other persons, excluding for them the possibility of preventing an authorized person from using a thing or influencing a thing without his permission.”

Along with the absolute nature of limited real rights, their other characteristic legal features are:

firstly, that real rights to property may belong to persons who are not the owners of this property (clause 2 of Article 216 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation);

secondly, that real rights arise on the basis of adopted laws;

thirdly, the right to follow the legal fate of property when transferring ownership from one entity to another (clause 3 of Article 216 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation) (with the exception of privatization of state and municipal property);

fourthly, real rights are one of the types of property rights;

fifthly, a person who has a limited property right has the right to protect his possession also against the owner (Article 305 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation).

It should be noted that the list of limited real rights set out in paragraph 1 of Article 216 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation is not exhaustive. In the science of civil law, various classifications of limited property rights have been proposed, the objects of which may be residential premises.

E.A. Sukhanov classified limited real rights depending on a specific type of property. He highlighted: firstly, the real rights of some legal entities to manage the owner’s property; secondly, limited property rights to use other people's land plots; thirdly, rights to limited use of other real estate (for example, residential premises); fourthly, ensuring the proper fulfillment of obligations of the right of pledge (pledgee) and lien, the objects of which may be movable things.

E.A. Barinova proposed a classification based on a formal legal feature - an indication in the law. Limited real rights, in her opinion, are divided into two categories: 1) specified in the law as real rights and 2) not specified in the law as real rights.

According to the author of this article, the proposed classifications by E.A. Sukhanov and E.A. Barinova may be assigned a limited real right of permanent (indefinite) use of residential premises, which is not formally defined in the law, but follows from the current regulations in the housing and civil law spheres.

Family members of the owner of the residential premises who had equal rights to the provided residential premises and refused to participate in the privatization of housing.

The real right of permanent indefinite residence of a family member who has given consent to privatization and thus renounced a share in privatized housing is guaranteed by Federal Law No. 189 of December 29, 2004 “On the entry into force of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation”, in accordance with Article 19 of which The provisions of Part 4 of Article 31 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as the Housing Code of the Russian Federation) regarding the loss of the right to use the owner’s residential premises by former members of his family do not apply to former family members of the owner of the privatized residential premises, provided that at the time of privatization of this residential premises these persons were equal the right to use this premises with the person who privatized it, unless otherwise provided by law or agreement. In the Review of Judicial Practice of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation for the fourth quarter of 2005, approved by the Resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Court dated 03/01/2006, when explaining the mandatory consent of a person during the privatization of residential premises, it is noted that it is based on the fact that the right to use this residential premises for the person will be be of an indefinite nature, therefore, his rights must be taken into account when transferring ownership of residential premises to another person, since a different interpretation would violate the provisions of Article 40 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, according to which everyone has the right to housing and no one can be arbitrarily deprived of their home . Consequently, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation believes that if a former member of the owner’s family, who had equal rights to privatization with him, renounced the right of ownership of the privatized housing by giving consent to another person, then when the ownership of the residential premises is transferred to another person, he retains the real right of permanent unlimited use of the residential premises and cannot be evicted.

It seems necessary to note that the right of use is retained by the former family member even when living in another residential area. This is due to the fact that, according to paragraph 2 of Article 9 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, “the refusal of citizens to exercise their rights does not entail the termination of these rights, except in cases provided for by law.” Currently, the current legislation does not directly establish such a basis for terminating the right to use residential premises for a former member of the owner’s family as living in another residential premises, as well as defining one’s place of residence in another residential premises as permanent (deregistration).

Moreover, in the answer to question No. 37 (Answers to questions approved by the Resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated March 1, 2006) it was concluded that “the right to use the residential premises of a former member of the owner’s family is terminated regardless of his actual presence in the disputed residential premises and (or) failure to pay for housing and utilities.”

Since the current legislation reserves the right to use residential premises for a former member of the owner’s family when the ownership of the residential premises is transferred to another person, the legislator establishes provisions aimed at protecting, first of all, the interests of the former members of the owner’s family living in the residential premises when selling the residential premises, as well as guaranteeing the awareness of the buyer of residential premises about the rights of third parties. Thus, Article 558 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation establishes that “an essential condition of the contract for the sale of a residential building, apartment, part of a residential building or apartment in which reside persons who, in accordance with the law, retain the right to use this residential premises after its acquisition by the buyer is a list of these persons indicating their rights to use the residential premises being sold. A contract for the sale of a residential building, apartment, part of a residential building or apartment is subject to state registration and is considered concluded from the moment of such registration.”

However, as follows from the above article, its norms apply only to former members of the owner’s family living in the residential premises. Consequently, former family members of the owner of the residential premises who do not use the residential premises may not be included in this agreement.

Thus, the rights of the buyer of residential premises may be infringed as a result of the “appearance” (and presentation of claims during the limitation period) by a former family member of the owner of the residential premises who does not live in the residential premises transferred under the purchase and sale agreement and is not registered in it.

A family member’s refusal to privatize housing in accordance with Article 153 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation is a unilateral transaction aimed at establishing civil rights and obligations. To carry it out, it is sufficient to express the will of one party (clause 2 of Article 154 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). As a result of its completion, other family members acquire the right of ownership to the due share of the family member who refused it in the privatized residential premises.

Legatees using residential premises provided under a will

The Housing Code of the Russian Federation, which came into force in 2005, legalized the concept of real rights in the housing sector in the second section “Ownership and other real rights to residential premises.” Thus, the Housing Code of the Russian Federation includes the use of residential premises provided by testamentary refusal (Article 33 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation) and the use of residential premises on the basis of a lifelong maintenance agreement with dependents (Article 34 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation).

The essence of a testamentary refusal in accordance with paragraph 1 of Article 1137 is to impose on one or more heirs by will or by law the execution at the expense of the inheritance of any obligation of a property nature in favor of one or more persons (legatees) who acquire the right to demand the fulfillment of this obligation .

In accordance with paragraph 2 of paragraph 2 of this article, the testator may impose on the heir to whom a residential house, apartment or other residential premises is transferred the obligation to provide another person with the right to use this premises or a certain part of it for the period of this person’s life or for another period. Thus, the use of residential premises by the legatee under a testamentary refusal may acquire the character of permanent (indefinite) use if the period of use of the housing is determined by the period of life of this person. If the right to use residential premises is granted to a legatee for a certain number of years (the life period of the legatee), the right to permanent (indefinite) use of residential premises does not arise.

In accordance with paragraph 1 of Article 33 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, upon expiration of the period of use of residential premises established by testamentary refusal, the right to use the residential premises of the relevant citizen is terminated, except for cases where the right to use this residential premises of the relevant citizen arose on another legal basis.

In accordance with paragraph 3 of Article 1137 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, upon subsequent transfer of ownership of property that was part of the inheritance to another person, the right to use this property granted by testamentary refusal remains in force. The stated norm contains a fundamental legal feature of a limited property right - following the legal fate of property when transferring ownership from one subject to another.

The Housing Code of the Russian Federation establishes equality of rights of the owner and the legatee when using residential premises provided by testamentary refusal (clause 1 of Article 33 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation), as well as joint and several liability with the owner of the residential premises for the obligations arising from the use of such housing (clause 2 of this article).

A testamentary refusal, like the refusal of a family member to privatize housing, in accordance with Article 153 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, is a unilateral transaction aimed at establishing civil rights and obligations. To carry it out, it is sufficient to express the will of one party - the testator (clause 2 of Article 154 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). As a result of its completion, the legatee acquires the right to reside in the residential premises of the testator, who received ownership through inheritance by other heirs.

Recipients of annuity based on a lifelong maintenance agreement with dependents

A limited real right of permanent (perpetual) right to use residential premises may arise from legal relations associated with a lifelong maintenance agreement with dependents (Article 34 of the RF Housing Code). The dominant doctrinal point of view on the nature of limited real rights is their emergence on the basis of existing laws. However, in civil law there is another less common point of view, which interprets the origin of limited real rights from civil contracts. So, E.A. Barinova, among unnamed property rights, identifies rent, rental of residential premises, gratuitous use (loan). The Housing Code of the Russian Federation, which came into force in 2005, legally formalized the contractual nature of the permanent (indefinite) use of residential premises, arising from a lifelong maintenance agreement with dependents, which provides the annuity recipient not only with the right to reside in residential premises throughout his entire life, but also the preservation of this property right in the case of alienation, collateral and other encumbrance of housing with his consent (Article 604 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation).

The legal regulation of a lifelong maintenance agreement with dependents is contained in Articles 601–605 of Chapter 33 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation.

Under an agreement of lifelong maintenance with a dependent, the recipient of the annuity, a citizen, transfers the ownership of a residential house, apartment, land plot or other real estate belonging to him to the payer of the rent, who undertakes to provide lifelong maintenance with the dependent of the citizen and (or) a third party (persons) specified by him (Part 1 Article 601 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). The subject of a lifelong maintenance agreement with dependents can only be real estate (residential and non-residential). The form of rent can be expressed either in cash or in kind. The latter can be expressed in providing the needs of the annuity recipient for housing, food, clothing, as well as in caring for the annuity recipient, if this is necessary due to his state of health.

The agreement may also provide for payment by the rent payer for funeral services. A contract of lifelong maintenance with dependency may provide for the possibility of replacing one form of annuity with another, that is, payments in kind by cash payments periodically made during the life of the annuity recipient (Article 603 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation).

In accordance with Article 34 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the rights of the holder of a limited property right - permanent (indefinite) use of residential premises arising from the recipient of the annuity on the basis of a lifelong maintenance agreement with dependents - are similar to the rights of the legatee granted under a testamentary refusal (Article 33 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation).
Based on the above analysis of legal regulations, the following conclusions can be drawn:

The current Civil Code of the Russian Federation (clause 1, article 216) contains a list of limited real rights, the list of which is not exhaustive.

Permanent (indefinite) use of residential premises is a limited property right, not named in the current laws, but formed on the basis of the adopted Housing Code of the Russian Federation and the Federal Law “On the Enactment of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation.”

These regulations and laws legalized transactions as a source of limited property rights - permanent (indefinite) use of residential premises. Refusal to privatize housing by family members and testamentary refusal are unilateral transactions. A lifelong dependency agreement is a two-way transaction.

Currently, the current housing legislation knows three categories of holders of the real right of permanent (perpetual) use of residential premises: family members of the owner of the residential premises who had equal rights to the provided residential premises and refused to participate in the privatization of housing, legatees under a testamentary refusal, recipients of rent under a lifelong maintenance agreement with dependents.

Digest:
Permanent use of residential premises is a limited property right, unnamed in current laws

Barinova E.A. Property rights in the system of subjective civil rights // Current problems of civil law: Collection of articles. Vol. 6 / Ed. O.Yu. Pintail. M., 2003. pp. 165-166.

Federal Law of December 29, 2004 No. 189 “On the implementation of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation” (as amended on December 1, 2007) // “Parlamentskaya Gazeta” No. 7-8, 15.01. 2005; RG, 31.12. 2006; SZ RF, 2007, No. 1, art. 14, No. 49, Art. 6071.

Housing Code of the Russian Federation dated December 29, 2004 No. 188-FZ (as amended on May 13, 2008). // SZ RF, 2005, No. 1, art. 14, 2006, No. 1, art. 10, No. 52 (part 1), art. 5498, RG No. 297, dated December 31, 2006; SZ RF, 2007, No. 43, art. 5084, 2008, No. 17, Art. 1756, No. 20, Art. 2251

Review of judicial practice of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation for the fourth quarter of 2005, approved by the Resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Court dated March 1, 2006 // Bulletin of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, 2006, No. 5.

Civil Code of the Russian Federation (part three) dated 26.11. 2001 No. 146-FZ (as amended on June 30, 2008) // SZ RF, 2001, No. 49, art. 4552; 2004, No. 49, Art. 4855; 2006, No. 23, Art. 2380, No. 52 (part 1), art. 5497; 2007, No. 1 (part 1), art. 21, No. 49, Art. 6042; 2008, No. 18, Art. 1939, No. 27, art. 3123.

Cm: Barinova E.A. Right there.

Civil Code of the Russian Federation (Part Two) dated January 26, 1996 No. 14 - Federal Law (as amended on July 14, 2008, as amended by the Federal Law dated January 26, 1996) // “Collection of Legislation of the Russian Federation,” 1996 , No. 5, Art. 410, Art. 411, No. 34, Art. 4025, 1997, No. 43, Art. 4903, 1999, No. 51, art. 6288, 2002, No. 48, Art. 4737, 2003, No. 2, Art. 160, Art. 167, No. 13, Art. 1179, No. 46 (part 1) art. 4434, No. 52 (part 1), art. 5034, 2005, 1 (part 1), art. 15, art. 45, no. 13, art. 1080, No. 19, Art. 1752, No. 30 (part 1), Art. 3100, 2006, No. 6, Art. 636, 2006, No. 52 (1 part), Art. 5497, 2007, No. 1 (1 part), Art. 39, No. 5, Art. 558, No. 17, Art. 1929, No. 27, art. 3213, No. 31, Art. 3993, No. 31, Art. 4015, No. 41, Art. 4845, No. 44, Art. 5282, No. 45, Art. 5428, No. 49, Art. 6048, No. 50, art. 6247, 2008, No. 17, art. 1756, art. 29 (part 1), art. 3418.

Senior Assistant Prosecutor of the Smolensk Region for Media and Public Relations Alexander BOROVIKOV answers:

According to paragraph 2 of Art. 292 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the transfer of ownership of a residential building to another person is the basis for termination of the right to use residential premises by family members of the previous owner, unless otherwise provided by law.

In accordance with Art. 2 of the Law of the Russian Federation of July 4, 1991 N 1541-1 “On the privatization of housing stock in the Russian Federation” citizens of the Russian Federation occupying residential premises under a social tenancy agreement in the state and municipal housing stock have the right, with the consent of all adult members living together families to acquire ownership of these premises on the terms provided for by the said Law and other regulations of the Russian Federation and constituent entities of the Russian Federation.

Based on Art. 19 of the Federal Law of December 29, 2004 N 189-FZ "On the entry into force of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation", persons who agreed to privatization retain the right to use the premises. Taking into account the explanations in paragraph 18 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated July 2, 2009 No. 14 in relation to those named in Art. 19 of the Federal Law of December 29, 2004 N 189-FZ of former family members of the owner that the provision of paragraph 2 of Art. 292 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. This is due to the fact that privatization of premises occupied under a social tenancy agreement is impossible without obtaining the consent of the owner’s family members. The right to use such premises for former family members will be of an indefinite nature. Consequently, this right must be taken into account when transferring ownership of the premises to another person on the appropriate basis (for example, purchase and sale, exchange, donation, rent, inheritance)."

It should also be noted that the presence of rights to perpetual use of an apartment is not classified as an encumbrance subject to registration in the Unified State Register: neither by the norms of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, nor by the norms of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, nor by the Federal Law "On State Registration of Rights to Real Estate and Transactions with It" dated July 21, 1997 N 122-FZ, the said right to perpetual use of residential premises is not classified as an encumbrance provided for by law and subject to state registration."

However, this does not negate the seller’s obligation to inform the future buyer that there are persons in the purchased apartment who retain such right of use, under penalty of recognizing the transaction as void. Having given consent to the privatization of residential premises, the person proceeded from the fact that the right to use this residential premises for him would be of an indefinite nature, therefore, his rights must be taken into account when transferring ownership of the residential premises to another person, since a different interpretation would violate the provisions of the article 40 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation."

By virtue of paragraph 1 of Article 432 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, an agreement is considered concluded if an agreement is reached between the parties in the form required in appropriate cases on all the essential terms of the agreement.

A demand for application of the consequences of invalidity of a void transaction may be made by any interested party. The court has the right to apply such consequences on its own initiative, paragraph 2 of Article 166 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation.

Thus, to analyze the history of an apartment and exclude defects if there is privatization in the history of the apartment:

Please note the following:

1. Who was registered at the time of privatization. Were minor children whose rights were violated registered?

2. Are there any persons who refused privatization who have an indefinite right to use the apartment?

3. When carrying out a purchase and sale transaction, a list of all persons who have the right to use the apartment at the time of the transaction is mandatory. The absence of this list may result in the invalidity of the transaction.

However, it should be borne in mind that we are talking about preserving the right to live in an apartment indefinitely, but not about the right of ownership to it. In addition, persons registered in it may also lose the right to live indefinitely in a privatized apartment on a general basis in connection with leaving it, refusing or evading payment of utility bills and other mandatory payments, since such a right is not unconditional.

In accordance with paragraph 2 of Art. 292 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the transfer of ownership of a residential building or apartment to another person is the basis for termination of the right to use residential premises by family members of the previous owner, unless otherwise provided by law.

According to Art. 19 of the Federal Law "On the entry into force of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation" the effect of the provisions of Part 4 of Art. 31 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, providing that 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 agreement between the owner and the former member of his family, does not apply to former members the family of the owner of the privatized residential premises, provided that at the time of privatization of this residential premises, these persons had equal rights to use this premises with the person who privatized it, unless otherwise established by law or agreement.

As follows from Art. 2 of the Law of the Russian Federation dated July 4, 1991 No. 1541-1 “On the privatization of housing stock in the Russian Federation” citizens occupying residential premises in the state or municipal housing stock, including housing stock under the economic management of enterprises or the operational management of institutions (departmental fund) on the terms of social rent, has the right, with the consent of all adult family members living together, as well as minors aged 14 to 18 years, to acquire ownership of these residential premises.

Thus, paragraph 2 of Art. 292 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, since, by giving consent to the privatization of residential premises occupied under a social tenancy agreement, without which it would have been impossible, they proceeded from the fact that the right to use this residential premises for them would be of an indefinite nature and it should be taken into account when transferring the right ownership of residential premises on an appropriate basis to another person (for example, purchase and sale, exchange, donation, rent, inheritance).

Consequently, if a former member of the owner’s family at the time of privatization had equal rights with a person who subsequently acquired ownership of this residential premises, but refused privatization, giving consent to privatization to another person, then when the ownership of the residential premises is transferred to another person, he does not may be evicted from this residential premises, since he has the right to use this residential premises. In this case, it is necessary to proceed from the fact that the right of use is of an indefinite nature.

Eviction of citizens from residential premises falls into categories of cases that are subject to consideration with the mandatory participation of a prosecutor.

Part 2 of Article 320 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation and part 3 of Article 376 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation stipulate that if a prosecutor participated in the consideration of the case, the prosecutor's office has the right to challenge both court decisions that have not entered into legal force and those that have entered into legal force.

In this situation, if a citizen believes that the decision of the court of first instance on the dispute over eviction has violated his rights and legitimate interests, he has the right to apply to the district prosecutor’s office at the location of the court that considered the case on the merits, with a request for the prosecutor to check the legality of the person who has not entered into the legal force of a judicial act of the district court.

If a citizen disagrees with the decision of the court of first instance and the ruling of the judicial panel for civil cases of the St. Petersburg City Court, he has the right, within six months from the date the court decision entered into legal force, to file a cassation appeal with the city prosecutor's office, attaching duly certified copies to the appeal court decisions.

Who has the right to lifelong use of residential premises?

The Civil Code of the Russian Federation seems to have established an open list of limited real rights, although the generally accepted doctrinal view is the principle of a closed list of real rights (numerus clausus). However, this principle only means that new real rights cannot be “invented” by participants in civil transactions, but it does not mean at all that new real rights cannot be introduced by the legislator.

The right of lifelong residence, which will be discussed below, is, in our opinion, the product of two evils. Firstly, hastily adopted and, therefore, ill-considered privatization legislation, in particular, the RSFSR Law of July 4, 1991 N 1541-1 “On the privatization of housing stock in the Russian Federation.” Secondly, judicial practice, for unknown reasons, allowed such an obvious abuse of the right, which is the right of lifelong residence.

Answer: Article 19 of the Federal Law “On the Entry into Force of the RF Housing Code” provides that the provisions of Part 4 of Art. 31 of the RF Housing Code does not apply to former family members of the owner of a privatized residential premises, provided that at the time of privatization of this residential premises, these persons had equal rights to use this premises with the person who privatized it, unless otherwise established by law or agreement.

It follows from Part 2 of Article 292 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation that the transfer of ownership of a residential building or apartment to another person is the basis for termination of the right to use residential premises by family members of the previous owner, unless otherwise provided by law.

In accordance with Article 2 of the Law of the Russian Federation “On the privatization of housing stock in the Russian Federation,” citizens occupying residential premises in the state or municipal housing stock, including housing stock under the economic management of enterprises or the operational management of institutions (departmental fund) on social rental terms, have the right with the consent of all adult family members living together, as well as minors aged 14 to 18 years, acquire ownership of these residential premises.

The consent of the person who lives together with the owner of the residential premises is a prerequisite for privatization. It should be taken into account that, having given consent to the privatization of residential premises, the person proceeded from the fact that the right to use this residential premises for him would be of an indefinite nature, therefore, his rights must be taken into account when transferring ownership of the residential premises to another person, since a different interpretation would violate the provisions of Article 40 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, according to which everyone has the right to housing and no one can be arbitrarily deprived of their home.

In accordance with Part 1 of Article 558 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, a list of persons who, in accordance with the law, retain the right to use residential premises after its acquisition by the buyer, indicating their rights to use the residential premises being sold, is an essential condition of the contract for the sale of a residential building, apartment, part of a residential building or apartment in which these persons live.

It follows from this rule that when alienating residential premises, the contract must indicate the right of the person who lives in it to use this residential premises; otherwise, the contract cannot be concluded, since an agreement has not been reached on all essential terms. Consequently, if a former member of the owner’s family at the time of privatization had equal rights with a person who subsequently acquired ownership of this residential premises, but refused privatization, giving consent to privatization to another person, then when the ownership of the residential premises is transferred to another person, he does not may be evicted from this residential premises, since he has the right to use this residential premises. In this case, it is necessary to proceed from the fact that the right of use is of an indefinite nature.”

Such an unconvincing argument and “far-fetched” Art. 40 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation demonstrate to us the obvious abuse of law committed by the Supreme Court. It is clear that practice strives to follow the general paradigm of a social legal state, where individual rights and freedoms are immutable and much more significant than economic rights, in particular the right of property. However, we must not forget that by violating the right of property, we thereby violate the inalienable rights of the individual.