Protection of the Interests of a Former Family Member-Owner of a Privatized Residential Premises

The legislation of the Russian Federation enshrines the right of a former family member-owner of a privatized dwelling premises who gave his consent to privatization in favor of another person (a person who did not take advantage of privatization) to live in a dwelling dor an indefinite period. The nature of this right is not clearly defined and is the subject of numerous doctrinal discussions. Protection of the interests of the authorized person is controversial. As a result of the analysis of judicial practice, the author highlights the main ways to protect the rights of a person who did not take advantage of privatization and concludes that he has an access to such property lawsuits as a negatory claim (including the order to move into a residential building), and a claim for recognition of the right. The paper determines the approach according to which the right of a person who did not take advantage of privatization, along with the rights to live in a residential premises on the basis of a testamentary refusal and on the basis of a contract of lifelong maintenance with a dependent, by its legal nature represents a limited property right to live in someone else’s residential premises, namely, habitation, which, in turn, is a kind of the rights of personal use or usufruct.

1. Akhmetyanova ZA. Property law. Moscow: Statute Publ., 2011. (In Russ.).

2. Alekseev SS, Alekseeva OG, Belyaev KP, et al. Gongalo BM (ed.). Civil law. In 2 volumes. Vol. 1. 3rd ed. Moscow: Statute Publ.; 2018. (In Russ.).

3. Bobrovskaya ON. Social usufruct as an institution for meeting the housing needs of citizens. Family and Housing Law. 2012;2:32-35. (In Russ.).

4. Bychkova EYu. The right of personal use of residential premises: novelties of the draft Civil Code of the Russian Federation. Family and Housing Law. 2016;2:24-27. (In Russ.).

5. Krasnokutskiy VA, Novitsky IB, Peretersky IS, et al. Novitsky IB, Pereterskiy IS (eds.). Roman private law. Moscow: Jurist Publ.; 2004.

6. Podshivalov TP. Systematization of property claims in civil law. Civil Law Herald. 2022;5:85-118. (In Russ.).

7. Rybalov AO. Iura in re: numerus clausus vs numerus apertus. Bulletin of Economic Justice of the Russian Federation, 2018;7:144-162. (In Russ.).

8. Samoilov EI. Problems of application of property lawsuits as ways of protection of housing rights. The Laws of Russia: Experience, Analysis, Practice. 2019;5:21-25. (In Russ.).

9. Samoilov EI. The specific feature of limited proprietary rights of citizens to a residential premise. Family and Housing Law, 2018;5:31-34. (In Russ.).

10. Sinitsyn SA. Claim protection of property rights in Russian and foreign civil law: Current issues. Moscow: Infotropik Media Publ.; 2015. (In Russ.).

11. Sukhanov EA. Property Law: A scientific and educational essay. Moscow: Statute Publ.; 2017. (In Russ.).

12. Suslova SI. Property rights to residential premises: the ratio of civil and housing legislation. Notarius. 2011;3:26-29. (In Russ.).

13. Tolstoy YuK. Housing Law. 2nd ed. Moscow; 2011. (In Russ.).