The Constitutional Court sided with a Yaroslavl resident in an eviction case

This was reported by the press service of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation.

As the court explains, initially Yaroslavna Yana Strauss refused to participate in the privatization of the apartment where she lived with her husband and received the right to use the premises indefinitely. But in 2022, the house was declared unsafe and subject to demolition. Yana Strauss’s ex-husband received payment for this.

The administration of the Kirovsky and Leninsky districts of Yaroslavl went to court, demanding that Yana Strauss be recognized as having lost the right to use the apartment, deregister her and evict her. The district court rejected the claim regarding Yaroslavna’s rights, but the regional court overturned the decision, satisfying the administration’s demands.

As a result, Yana Strauss appealed to the Constitutional Court, which came to the conclusion that in this case we are talking about a violation of a woman’s constitutional right to housing.

“Housing guarantees for former family members of the owner of a residential property who refused to participate in its privatization in the event of termination of ownership of this housing are determined by the circumstances of the particular case. At the same time, the need to provide such guarantees cannot be questioned in relation to those persons for whom this is the only living space and who do not have a real opportunity to independently satisfy the need for housing,” – noted the Constitutional Court.

However, the legislation does not establish the procedure and conditions for maintaining housing guarantees in the circumstances of Yana Strauss. Consequently, there is no order or means of protecting rights. Which ultimately became a precedent for changing federal legislation. Thus, the Constitutional Court decided “to make appropriate changes to the legislation as soon as possible.”

As for Yana Strauss herself, until this moment the court may oblige local governments to provide the former family member of the owner of the repossessed emergency housing with other housing for use.

“The applicant’s case is subject to re-examination,” – the court decided.

Subscribe on VKontakteSubscribe on Telegram
Subscribe to newsletterReport news