Privatization of an apartment in 2021 - general information

Among users of public housing, the most pressing question today is when the privatization of apartments in Russia ends. The possibility of converting state-owned residential space into private ownership is extremely necessary for citizens who do not have the opportunity to purchase new housing today. In order to complete all the required documents correctly and within the prescribed period, you should understand the issues of privatization and its types.

What does privatization mean and in what types does it take place?

In 1991, a law was passed allowing people to privatize, under certain conditions, the municipal apartments they were using. Most often it was a social rental agreement. The user of this housing was a citizen, and the owner of this property was the state. The law issued allowed, subject to certain conditions, the transfer of leased municipal space to private ownership. It was allowed to transfer any type of municipal property that had been officially leased for a long time: plant, factory, garage. The process of transferring property rights was free for citizens.

Privatization gave a person not only the opportunity to obtain ownership of public housing, but also subsequently to dispose of it at his own discretion:

• transfer under a gift agreement;
• re-register in the name of relatives;
• rent out;
• sell.

The main basis for carrying out this procedure was the existence of a social tenancy agreement with the municipality in whose ownership the property was located. Only the person with whom the initial rental agreement was concluded could privatize housing.

The types mean how the re-registration process will be carried out: paid or free. Russian legislation provides for both types, but today it is free.

What is the difference from paid

Why is paid privatization needed? Today in Russia there is free privatization for an indefinite period, but due to the fact that this law is changed regularly, the question arises about when paid privatization will be introduced, why and what will be the difference between paid and free?

Today the situation is as follows: the procedure for paid privatization was not established even at the time of the procedure, which began in 1992. Today, there is also no order or algorithm for carrying out this process, so experts and we can only guess.

Some believe that after the end of free privatization, paid privatization will come, but it is not clear in what order the purchase of apartments will take place.

Privatization restrictions

The original regulatory act provided for restrictions on certain types of housing that were not subject to privatization:

1. Living space in dilapidated houses and those recognized as unsafe.
2. Living space on the territory of boarding houses.
3. Housing located in military camps (this is the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Defense, not the territorial administration).
4. Residential properties owned by a flexible federal fund (the local municipality did not have the authority to dispose of them).

These restrictions were subsequently lifted. These objects can be privatized today.

What is private property, the form of ownership is private, what does it mean?

Private property is a type of ownership in economics that provides for the rights of legal entities and individuals, groups of these individuals, to the object of ownership. All rights are regulated at the legislative level. Private ownership is the basis of market relations. It secures the control right of specific people to economic benefits and life benefits. Objects for private use can be:

• final products;
• capital;
• real estate;
• land resources;
• the wealth of nature.

Private ownership is divided into two types:

1. A group of production tools used by people involved in the work process.
2. Groups of objects subject to material production conditions of workers. They are based on the use of someone else's labor.

Private property can be a store, hairdresser, summer cottage, apartment and much more. The owner can deal with the objects at his own discretion, despite the fact that these objects are part of the market economy. At the legislative level, the process of transferring state ownership to private individuals is allowed. This is privatization. If private property passes to the state, then this process is called nationalization.

The general concept of private property is the relationship between citizens based on material principles relating to any areas of employment and means of production. The right to dispose of the object has exclusively the owner.

Legal deadlines for completing the procedure

Today, the question remains open until what year the privatization of state apartments has been extended. According to existing practice, the end date of this procedure has already been postponed several times, and when it should end remains unknown.

The government ordered the free transfer of its own housing stock into private hands in 1991. Since this date, the end of privatization has already been postponed five times. When the next deadline came to an end, citizens en masse turned to the government with a request to extend the validity of this law due to the fact that many simply did not have time to submit or complete the necessary documents. The state has repeatedly met its citizens halfway.

The latest news suggests that now an apartment or dormitory can be re-registered as private property before 2018. The specific end month has not been determined. An individual wishing to take ownership of a home or privatize property for a child must urgently submit documents to the municipality. Although the exact end date of free privatization is unknown, one should not delay with this procedure.

There is a difference between privatization and the procedure for purchasing real estate from state ownership. No one is going to cancel the latter yet.

Many ministers say that 2021 is the last deadline and will no longer be extended. An ardent opponent of the free transfer of residential space to private ownership is the Ministry of Economic Development. They say that in this way the housing stock is falling out of the state's economy en masse.

To date, the State Duma has no plans to abolish free housing transfers completely. She intends to make it pay for the majority of the population, but leave it free for privileged categories.

Ending

The end date is as follows: the next term ends, as indicated in Federal Law-19 of February of this year, 01.03. 2017 .

You can find out what the owner will have to pay for out of his own pocket in a privatized apartment, as well as other rights and obligations of the owner and registered persons in a privatized living space on our website.

For whom can the procedure remain free?

Starting next year, the government is going to cancel the procedure for free transfer of state housing into private hands, but for some citizens the privatization of apartments will be extended.

The right to free re-registration can be used by:

1. A child left without parental care is an orphan.
2. Citizens who previously took part in privatization under the age of 18 (minors).
3. Citizens who received housing from the state as part of social programs: military personnel, disabled people, etc.

The rest of those who wish will be able to purchase state real estate (housing, dacha or land plot, non-residential space) on standard conditions.

Who has the right to free privatization of land

What types of land plots can be privatized for free and which cannot?

First of all, let's look at which land plots are subject to free privatization:

• land plots on which there are houses that were previously purchased by citizens as property before the entry into force of the Land Code of the Russian Federation until 2001;
• land plots that were transferred to citizens for rent for individual housing construction or private plots;
• land plots that were transferred to citizens on the basis of lifelong ownership;
• land plots allocated for dacha, garden or vegetable farming;
• land plots for the construction of garages.

Land plots that cannot be privatized:

• lands that were withdrawn from public circulation;
• lands that are national heritage - historical or cultural value;
• lands that belong to the strategic zone.

The right to privatization is available to the owner of a building on a given plot of land, and is also available to those whose land plots are on an indefinite lease. Free privatization is also allowed for owners of summer cottages and garden plots that are not intended for permanent residence.

It is worth noting that the heirs will not have the right to privatize these types of land plots. This can only be done by those who have been granted this municipal ownership by the state. The heirs will have to buy or rent this plot of land at the cadastral value.

Privatization procedure

The process of re-registration of ownership is based on the necessary package of documents, which should be collected in advance before submitting the relevant application to government agencies. When collecting documents, it is important to pay attention to how old they are. They must be valid on the day they are submitted. Any official document has a limited validity period. There is no need to stretch the time between their collection and submission for privatization, since the extension of such documents is not provided. To avoid delaying the process, you should initially formally submit a request to the local administration as to whether the privatized object is subject to transfer from state ownership to private ownership. Despite the abolition of most restrictions, not every object today can be privatized.

The next point concerns residential areas. If an apartment or house has several tenants, it is important to obtain written consent from each of them to privatize the property. Only the person who participates in the process of transfer of rights will be appointed as the owner of the privatized object. Each of the residents can act only on their own behalf. Signing documents for another person in this process is unacceptable. A property may have one owner or more if several residents are involved in the process. When dividing ownership rights, each participant will receive a certificate indicating his share in the apartment or land.

Before submitting documents, it is important that the property be inspected by a BTI specialist. He will assess the condition of the premises and conduct an inspection for illegal alterations. If there are no comments or complaints, you can safely submit documents.

The privatization procedure is as follows:

1. The collected documents are submitted to the housing department of the local administration (municipality). Here, a department specialist checks the authenticity and legality of the submitted documents. Today it is possible to quickly and easily submit documents through the MFC.
2. This is followed by the signing of the privatization agreement. All residents of the apartment must sign it.
3. Then submit documents to Rosreestr to formalize the transfer of ownership.

Among the main documents required for re-registration of residential premises are:

1. Initial social tenancy agreement or order. They confirm the legality of a person’s residence in a specific apartment.
2. Cadastral document (passport) with technical information on the property.
3. Technical passport of the residential premises (issued by the BTI).
4. A document from housing and communal services confirming the absence of arrears in payments.
5. An extract from the house register, which contains information about registered persons (registered and resident).
6. Certificate from Rosreestr about the ownership of real estate at the time of filing an application for privatization.
7. Passport of the person participating in privatization (applicant).
8. Receipt of payment of the state fee for paperwork.

Action steps

After collecting all the certificates and documents, the following steps await when transferring housing into personal ownership:

1. Contact the office of the multifunctional center with all papers and an application or submit an application through the State Services portal. You can make an appointment at the MFC and clarify the list of documents remotely. This will help reduce time and effort. In exchange for the package, the applicant will be given a receipt with a list of papers submitted for consideration.
2. The inspector will check the package and set a date for the meeting of the privatization commission.
3. Wait for the commission's decision. It can be accepted for a maximum of 2 months from the date of submission of documents.
4. If the result is positive, receive a document for the transfer of ownership.
5. Issue a certificate of ownership of property in Rosreestr.
6. Re-register with the BTI service.

After this, the citizen and his family become the owners of the living space. If family members refuse the share, then the applicant will be the sole owner, if not, then everyone will have a share.

Those relatives who renounced their share in the property do not become owners, but they retain the right to lifelong residence in the territory of this living space. The consent of children under 14 years of age is not required; they automatically become participants in privatization.

Russians can reduce their waiting time. To do this, you will need to pay for an urgent procedure. The cost can be determined by a realtor who will take care of all stages of preparation and collection of documents.

Application for privatization and housing transfer agreement

The application for privatization of residential space has a standard form. It must be written by the person with whom the municipality entered into the initial social tenancy agreement. Such an application is drawn up by hand according to a standard form. A ready-made form and a sample document can be found on legal Internet portals. Including sample documents, the housing department and city administration must have them. Modern paperwork allows citizens to submit applications electronically, fill them out, print them and sign them. An appeal to government authorities must contain basic information:

1. Full name of the person applying (applicant).
2. Complete information about the place and date of birth, information about the current place of registration and residence (if these are different addresses, both are indicated).
3. The request itself to the state (for privatization) indicating the housing in question.
4. Technical and legal characteristics of the residential premises in question (location address, number of rooms, BTI data on area and layout).
5. If other persons are registered in the apartment, it is necessary to indicate in the application their opinion on privatization (participate, do not participate, object or not).

If the request specified in the application is granted, an agreement will be required between the local municipality and the citizen to transfer the housing into private ownership. It is registered at the territorial office of the Housing Fund. It is possible to submit documents for registration to the MFC. To do this you will need to collect and submit:

1. A copy of the passport of the person who is asking for privatization, as well as those who are registered in the living space with him. If we are talking about minors (under 14 years old), a copy of the Birth Certificate is provided.
2. An agreement confirming social tenancy or a warrant for this apartment.
3. Extract from the house register.
4. Permission from the administration for privatization or a certified copy of the court decision (if the issue was resolved in court).

The agreement is drawn up by a representative of the municipality, who is in charge of privatization issues.

Privatization as a process of transferring state property into private ownership

Privatization is a long and painful process. Historical experience provides both facts that indicate a strong extension of privatization over time and arguments in favor of gradualism. The main one of these arguments is that the speed of fair privatization must be correlated with the possibilities of accumulating monetary capital, in particular, the savings of the population. And they are such that allocating more than 1-2% of national income per year to this event violates the stability of the economy. Given that the total value of accumulated buildings, structures and equipment in a normal Western country is usually much greater than the annual national income, the sale of all fixed assets can easily take many decades.

It is obvious that politicians who have decided to end the complete nationalization of the economy and who believe that only comprehensive privatization will help create an effective economic system are faced with a difficult choice: either stretch out the transition from one economic regime to another for a good half century, or distribute funds to private individuals for free , or, finally, create conditions for the forced redistribution of income from the consumption fund to the accumulation fund. Reasons for the privatization process.

Let us consider the reasons for the privatization process using the example of factors that initiated the process of Western privatization in the 80s. It began in Western European countries in the late 70s and early 80s and became possible and necessary as a result of the development of several long-term processes in the economy.

Firstly, over the forty war and post-war years, a high level of centralization of private capital was achieved. The spread of financially powerful transnational corporations, which at one time underlay the nationalization of capital-intensive types of production. Private financial groups are now capable of mobilizing large amounts of capital, sufficient to independently implement most new industrial projects and modernize old industries. Just a few decades earlier, in the 40s and 50s, many basic and new industries (rail and air transport, metallurgical and mining communications) could only be created or reorganized thanks to massive government budgetary support. Since then, the conditions of competition and the organization of inter-firm economic relations have also changed. At one time, an important argument in favor of nationalization and direct state control was the accusation of “trusts” - large corporations - of regular monopolistic practices in the sales and raw materials markets, of slowing down scientific and technological progress, and of completely ignoring the interests of hired labor. In the 50-70s, decisive changes took place related to the formation of a new type of development based on the continuous improvement of technology and technology, expansion and diversification of markets in a single world economic space. The internationalization of production and circulation has practically eliminated the danger of “decay” of economic life. Despite unprecedented rates of concentration and centralization of capital, stable regimes of effective competition have been created in most industries. Even large banking, trading, industrial and financial groups are now unable to establish control over global industrial markets. There is no longer an urgent need to counter the tendency towards cartelization of markets through administrative measures, which in the 1930s was a real scourge of free enterprise and a tangible obstacle to scientific and technological progress.

The third group of reasons that reversed the trend towards nationalization of economic life, theoretically substantiated by Keynes, Marxists and institutionalists. It is directly related to the consequences of the crisis of 1974-1975. The crisis taught an unexpected lesson to theorists and practitioners of the “welfare state” who relied on the theoretical framework of Keyesianism.

The Keyesian scheme involves influencing the behavior of entrepreneurs by changing the parameters of effective demand, in particular, through fiscal policy, that is, through the macroeconomic sphere. It turned out that during periods of sharp changes in the structure of industry production costs and effective demand (this is what happened after the abrupt increase in oil prices in 1973), only a strategy of comprehensive implementation of the results of scientific and technological progress into production can be an effective way to overcome the economic crisis. First of all, enterprises should implement such a strategy - only they know the tastes and intentions of consumers and the actual contents of their wallets. The state is unable to effectively stimulate scientific and technological progress at individual enterprises. The mobilization of large financial resources through taxation, which was successfully used in its time to create atomic weapons and ballistic missiles, the buyer of which was the state itself, clearly does not live up to expectations here. But if the productivity of social labor does not increase as a result of investment forced by the state, the entire chain of national economic dependencies reflected in the Keynesian model collapses (according to which an increase in budget expenditures and cheap loans expands consumer and investment effective demand, which, in turn, stimulates production). Meanwhile, the entire philosophy of the “welfare state” is tied to the idea of ​​increasing demand for the sake of expanding highly efficient production. In the 30s, such a dependence was in effect. It seemed that it was bearing fruit in the post-war period. The “oil crisis” changed the direction of cause-and-effect relationships. It can be argued that the need for state presence in the production sector as an entrepreneur, which was acutely felt in the 40s, by the beginning of the 80s had disappeared as part of government measures aimed at maintaining economic activity, denationalization and privatization. This did not happen immediately after the “oil crisis,” but 5-7 years later, during which the current economic policy remained Keynesian. As part of this policy of overcoming the crisis, state-owned enterprises, contrary to their strategic interests, were actively used by their owners as a tool to maintain global demand. Governments imposed a number of obligations on state-owned enterprises from which the private sector was exempted: generating investment by increasing debt, maintaining employment levels to ease the situation in the national labor market and contrary to industrial expediency, restraining the rise in product prices so that national inflation indices do not rise too much quickly, etc.

State entrepreneurship was placed in deliberately unequal conditions and suffered losses that should not have been incurred if government policy had been the same in relation to all economic entities at the micro level. Having previously worked in a regime of, as a rule, zero profitability, the state production sector emerged from the Keyesian stage of anti-crisis and anti-inflationary policies with deeply disturbed finances. And conservative criticism hastened to blame “irresponsible” government managers for everything, who are supposedly imprudent by nature, since the sword of Damocles of bankruptcy does not hang over them. Any manager, as an employee, is not obliged to own the property of the company he manages, be it private or public. The motives for his effective behavior as a manager are determined by the market of managers. And in this market everyone is equal, since the assessment depends on the success of previous professional experience.

The crisis, developing in conditions of widespread internationalization and permeability of national economic borders, has acutely raised the problem of the competitiveness of business agents. A revision of the principles of government intervention in the economy began.

The entrepreneurial class demanded and achieved from the state, on the one hand, the abandonment of most selective methods of influence, when an individual company or industry became the object of state intervention, and on the other hand, a sharp reduction in overall macroeconomic overhead costs in the form of extensive social policies, high ceilings for minimum wages, free payments due to unemployment, temporary disability, etc. The time of the “welfare state” is over. Along with it, the mission of the public sector, which occupied a certain place in the structure of government social structures, also ended. At the end of the 70s, Western capitalism entered a period of widespread privatization. We must not forget the fact that privatization turned out to be extremely beneficial politically.

By transferring to the level of enterprises the solution of unpopular, but urgent and inevitable economic problems (reduction of employment due to production necessity, reduction of budget subsidies by increasing prices for products of state-owned enterprises, shifting the entire set of relations “labor collective - government” into the sphere of relations “labor collective - private” owner”), conservatives abdicated responsibility for the socio-economic situation in the country as representatives of state power. Thus, they politically outmaneuvered the socialists and radicals, who called for voting for themselves precisely because they supposedly knew how to cope with the crisis. Political interest successfully coincided with ideological interest. The very fact of turning to privatization after long decades of the dominance of state capitalism rehabilitated the capitalist economic system. 4. Privatization and the business entity The engine of any reform is not only general considerations about the good of the people, nation or country. The specific option for choosing a trajectory to achieve a goal formulated in general terms is determined by the relationship between the specific interests of social groups and the political entities representing them. Specific privatization programs usually have multiple objectives. First, by selling state property, ease the burden of the state budget, eliminating subsidies to enterprises and increasing revenues to the budget revenues. Secondly, to create competitive conditions in those industries where all enterprises, being state-owned, were managed from a single administrative center. Third, take advantage of the change in the form of ownership and carry out a preliminary rationalization of the structure of large state corporations before they become private.

Fourth, carry out privatization and corporatization so that control over large corporations falls into the hands of those individuals or institutions that are interested in the development of production, and not in the speculative resale of property. Fifth, take advantage of privatization to maximize the “dispersion” of shares among workers and minor employees. This measure is considered as an integral element of general social policy that stimulates the participation of workers in the capital or management of an enterprise. The content of the Western privatization process becomes clearer from the discussions that have been and are ongoing around its individual aspects. The issue of the nature of the funds mobilized for the purchase of state property, and in this regard, the national economic purpose of the revenue received by the government, was actively discussed. The purchase and sale of property is a capital transaction and is therefore financed from the savings of households and businesses. But then, the rigorists argue, the proceeds from the sale of state property should be used for investment, and not for paying off budget deficits. The latter, as a rule, are formed as a result of gross violations of financial discipline by the state administration, and the path to a deficit-free economy must be sought in establishing order in the budgetary economy itself. Any conversion of capital (savings) into non-accumulating current income is considered as a waste of capital, as a sacrifice of the interests of the future of the nation. To defend themselves against such accusations, Western governments typically created special funds, the accounts of which reflected the purpose of the funds received from privatization. Another discussion was about the disaggregation of industry corporations, whose state status at one time was explained by a natural monopoly. Communications, railway transport, electricity and gas distribution networks - all these industries were either immediately created as state-owned or nationalized due to their technologically determined social nature.

The nationalization of such industries has always been considered justified, since, other things being equal, there is a direct positive relationship between the integrity of their technological process, the management of the industry from a single center and the level of its efficiency and profitability. The disaggregation of such natural monopolies and the transfer of individual parts to different corporations is fraught with a deterioration in the economic indicators of the functioning of a single complex. And this contradicts the common sense of a business interested in minimizing costs. A natural monopoly remains a monopoly regardless of whether it is exercised by a public or private owner. As for the abuse of a monopoly position, it can be expected more likely from a private corporation than from a state one. The solution was found in a very original privatization scheme: the rights to receive income were sold in the form of shares to private individuals and institutions, and control over the economic activities of a private corporation remained in the hands of the state administration. For this purpose, she was awarded a “golden share” or a law was passed on the social status of this kind of businessmen. The idea of ​​creating a “hard core” of shareholders in new private companies has also become the subject of intense political and theoretical debate.

The meaning of this idea is to concentrate a controlling stake in the hands of a small number of “friendly” banks and industrial companies that could jointly develop and implement a long-term development strategy for the former state corporation. In this way, it is possible to ensure unity of management and prevent the sale of a single technological or efficient economic complex in parts, based only on the speculative considerations of its owners. The problem of privatization and its subject is perhaps the key for this entire process, the meaning of which is to ultimately obtain a competent “owner” capable of taking responsibility for maintaining and increasing production efficiency. A mere change of ownership or replacement of the state by a private individual or group of private individuals does not guarantee success. After all, the ultimate motivation of any owner is not production, but profitability, profitability.

The latter can be achieved in different ways, among which improving technology, organization and management is not always the easiest and most reliable. During a period of general disruption of economic proportions, severance and switching of technological connections, ordinary speculation often turns out to be a more profitable and calm business.

Privatization is divided into three stages.

Stage 1 is the so-called technical privatization, the success of which is completely predetermined by the balance of interests in society. At the same time, a spontaneous process of privatization begins, both in legal and illegal forms. Therefore, primary privatization simply legitimizes property rights that were illegal under the command economy. The impetus for the start of this privatization is the political will of the state authorities.

The most important thing for this stage is the very rapid quantitative increase in private enterprises and structures for regulating private property rights. A sign of the completion of the first stage is a decrease in the intensity of growth in the number of enterprises and the emergence of qualitative changes in the established institutions of private property.

The second stage consists of two parallel processes: intensive redistribution of private property rights after initial privatization and the streamlining of chaotic government intervention in this process. A sign of the completion of the second stage is a certain stabilization of the systems of new property rights and the qualitative and quantitative stabilization of the new system of economic mechanisms. At the third stage, a stable system of property rights appears. This requires a fully completed set of other elements. The third stage is the last in the privatization program, after which there is a complete transition to a market economy.

The overall goal of privatization is to provide conditions for the functioning of the future market system. In turn, the general goal consists of three main ones: 1) — Ensuring the stability of the system of property rights relations; 2) — Creation of conditions (economic mechanisms, legal institutions) for the self-reproduction of this system; 3) — Economic efficiency at the micro and macro levels. The main indicator of the effectiveness of privatization follows from this: the creation of conditions for the economic implementation of a new system of property rights, focused on the efficiency of the economic system both as a whole and at the micro level.

The privatization program, developed in 1992, became the fundamental document for the implementation of large-scale privatization in 1992-1994 and at the same time a compromise between paid for the active part and free (vouchers were issued to everyone) for the rest of the population. This compromise led to many shortcomings of the Russian privatization model, which resulted in many contradictions at the junction of the first and second stages of privatization:

If the stage of primary privatization in Russia in 19992-1994 entailed a rapid increase in critical mass, then the situation in the privatization of the second half of 1994-early 1996 can be assessed as almost complete inhibition and uncertainty, when spontaneous processes sharply intensified and the endless stream of declarations had no basis no economic base. In general, there was no privatization boom in the first two years of monetary privatization. Enterprises still cannot consider privatization as a source of large investments. This is explained by the fact that the main purpose of the 1995 privatization was to finance the budget deficit. But there is no compromise between investment capital and budget revenues. Initially, the amount of federal budget revenues. Initially, the amount of federal budget revenues from privatization was determined at 8.7 trillion rubles, but later, taking into account real indicators, the law of December 27, 1995 was reduced to 5 trillion rubles. To assess the effectiveness of the privatization model throughout almost the entire 1995, the following example should be given: in 1995. The budget collected 7.3 trillion rubles from privatization in Russia, and 80% of this figure was received in the last two months, when the share-for-shares auction method was used in practice. The resulting annual income of 1.1 trillion rubles from standard sales methods (15% of total income) indicates the extremely low effectiveness of mass auctions and competitions for replenishing the budget. The year 1995 was also characterized by the use of new privatization methods. Decree of the President of the Russian Federation No. 478 of May 11, 1995 contained an instruction to the government to develop a procedure for transferring state-owned shares of joint stock companies as collateral and trust management to legal entities. The experience of transferring federally administered shares to private institutions into trust was put into practice. So, the main result of the monetary stage of privatization in Russia was the stabilization of private property rights.

The final stage of privatization. This stage began in 1996 and continues to this day. The last stage of privatization is the longest, because its final result is the emergence of an absolutely stable system of property rights.

Conclusion

In this work, we examined the features of municipal property as the socio-economic basis of local government. As a result of the analysis of the regulatory framework ensuring the process of municipal property management, the following was established.

Municipal property as one of the forms of property is recognized and protected on the basis of Article 8 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. Article 9 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation establishes that land and other natural resources may be in municipal ownership. In accordance with Article 130 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the population, in the process of exercising local self-government, owns, uses and disposes of municipal property, while local government bodies, as follows from Article 132, independently manage municipal property. Thus, the Constitution of the Russian Federation has established all the necessary foundations in relation to municipal property: it is recognized and protected, the owner - the population - and the manager of municipal property - local government bodies are named.

Direct legislative regulation in the sphere of property relations, including municipal property, is carried out by the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and laws adopted in accordance with it. Since municipal property constitutes one of the economic foundations of local self-government, the rules relating to municipal property are also contained in the Federal Law “On the General Principles of the Organization of Local Self-Government”.

The concept of “municipal property” is defined in Article 215 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation: “Property owned by the right of ownership to urban and rural settlements, as well as other municipal entities, is municipal property.”

Bibliography

1. Animitsa E.G., Tertyshny A.T. Local self-government: history and modernity. - Ekaterinburg: Uralsk State Publishing House. University, 2006. 2. Budget Code of the Russian Federation.-M., 2006.

3. Civil Code of the Russian Federation in two parts. - St. Petersburg, 2002.

4..Tax Code of the Russian Federation in two parts.-M., 2007

Advantages and disadvantages of the procedure

Privatization, like any civil legal process, has a number of disadvantages and advantages:

Causes

During the next extension, high-ranking officials speak of the observance of some kind of social justice .

Wake up, citizens! There is no such concept in economic formation.

There is only economic expediency, and, to a lesser extent, fear of popular revolt.

Therefore, the reasons for the next extension are mostly economic :

1. Difficult economic situation.
2. Expanding the tax base to the maximum. They will “sell”, excuse the crude expression, real estate until all tenants of residential premises become owners and taxpayers.
3. Transfer of unprofitable assets (housing) to the population. This will free up funds in the budget that are currently allocated to maintaining the housing stock.
4. The possibility of social tension is small. But it cannot be ruled out either.

You can learn about how to privatize an apartment under a social tenancy agreement, and what to do if the order for the apartment is lost, from our articles.

Features and nuances of this procedure

The state grants the right to privatization to a citizen only once. If for some reason a person transferred the property back to the municipal fund, he can no longer claim this property. A property may be re-privatized if:

1. If the court found that in the first process of transferring property rights from the state to the citizen, the rights of the latter were violated. It does not matter who initiated the challenge in court, but the fact of violation of human and civil rights must be recorded by the court. In this case, the reuse of this right to real estate will be granted.
2. If a citizen has already inherited privatized housing, he will be given the opportunity to carry out this procedure again on the same property.
3. If the citizen was a minor at the time of privatization. Here we are considering the option that a citizen under 18 years of age could take part in the re-registration of the right to a housing property, but the decisions were made for him by his parents.

The citizens mentioned above have every right to re-apply for re-registration of rights, even if the disputed object has already been privatized. There is no statute of limitations for such cases.

Special attention should be paid to situations where several people live in a municipal apartment. In this case, privatization will require the consent of all residents. If someone does not want to take part in this procedure, a written refusal certified by a notary is required. If all residents of one apartment cannot agree on the shares of ownership of this residential premises, privatization will be refused.

The municipality has the right to refuse to satisfy a citizen's request for its own reasons. Here it will be necessary to file a claim in court. There are frequent cases of refusal due to incorrect execution of documents. Unlawful refusal by the administration occurs frequently. There is a certain judicial practice when considering this category of cases, which often sides with citizens rather than government agencies.

Privatization is most often refused by citizens who want to transfer ownership of departmental housing: official or military. A serviceman cannot apply for an apartment received from the Ministry of Defense (and not the district municipality), just as an employee cannot apply for housing of an organization.

Why can they refuse?

Some Russians are faced with refusal to carry out privatization. This is possible in the following situations:

• the documents provided contain false information or are compiled incorrectly;
• real estate cannot be privatized in accordance with the law;
• the housing was subject to redevelopment or reconstruction that was not legalized;
• the applicant does not have permanent registration in the privatization object or he only rents living space;
• the citizen is already the owner of some other home and tried to hide this fact.

The applicant from the MFC will receive a reasoned refusal to carry out the procedure for transfer of ownership. The reason will be clear from it. If it is not legal, then the citizen can go to court and challenge it.

about the author

Klavdiya Treskova - higher education with qualification “Economist”, with specializations “Economics and Management” and “Computer Technologies” at PSU. She worked in a bank in positions from operator to acting. Head of the Department for servicing private and corporate clients. Every year she successfully passed certifications, education and training in banking services. Total work experience in the bank is more than 15 years. [email protected]

Is this article useful? Not really

Help us find out how much this article helped you. If something is missing or the information is not accurate, please report it below in the comments or write to us by email