- Статьи
- Society
- House of sand and deception: The Supreme Court has protected the tenants and owners of samostroi
House of sand and deception: The Supreme Court has protected the tenants and owners of samostroi
The country's main judicial body has put an end to the dispute over the demolition of illegal houses. The Supreme Court of Russia stressed that when demolishing unauthorized buildings, the courts must take into account the fate of the people living there. The decision obliges to simultaneously consider the issue of eviction and the protection of citizens' rights. Lawyers call this position a turning point, because social protection now balances the requirements of the law. Experts warn that by buying housing without checking permits, citizens risk being left without rights and without compensation. The state is not obligated to pay for the relocation of those who participated in illegal construction, but the court may delay the demolition so as not to violate the constitutional right to housing. Details can be found in the Izvestia article.
It's about people, not concrete.
The Supreme Court of Russia has placed an important legal emphasis: when demolishing unauthorized buildings, the courts are obliged to take into account the fate of people already living in these houses, the Department for Public Relations and Mass Media of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation reported. The decision in case No. 18-KG25-168-K4 was made after a long conflict in one of the cities of Kuban, where they wanted to demolish a five-story building due to exceeding the allowed number of floors. The owners of the plot received permission for only a three-story house, but they built five, turning the private project into an apartment building, where families were already living by the time of the dispute.
The judges emphasized that if citizens who have the legal right to use housing live in an unauthorized building, then demolition is possible only if the issue of their eviction and ensuring housing rights is resolved at the same time. The Supreme Court sent the case for review, obliging the court of second instance, with the participation of the prosecutor's office, to check whether the developer had attempted to legalize the facility by obtaining the necessary permits.
The press service of the Ministry of Construction of Russia revealed to Izvestia the official understanding of the problem. The Ministry recalled that a building permit is the primary legal basis for any work. In its absence, the object automatically loses the signs of legitimate capital construction and becomes unauthorized.
— Construction or reconstruction of a building without obtaining a permit is unacceptable. Such facilities can be recognized as unauthorized buildings, since it is impossible to establish their safety without approved design documentation," the press service said.
The Ministry of Construction recalled that since 2018, the law allows for the possibility of bringing buildings into compliance with regulations, if the site and building parameters allow it. But even this procedure is impossible if the facility is built on land intended for other purposes, such as residential housing or gardening. The law explicitly prescribes that in such cases, a decision on demolition can only be made by a court.
Who pays for the relocation
It should be noted that the problem of social responsibility for the relocation of residents from unauthorized homes has become one of the central ones recently. Maria Spiridonova, Managing Partner of Leges Bureau, member of the AYUR, emphasizes that the mere fact of living in such an object does not guarantee payment for relocation or provision of other housing.
— When there is a prospect of demolition of unauthorized buildings, the most important question is who pays for the relocation of tenants. The Supreme Court explicitly stated that if registered citizens live under one roof, then the issue of their future fate must be resolved along with the decision on demolition. The court may delay the execution of the decision so as not to violate the constitutional right to housing," she explains.
At the same time, the expert notes a legal vacuum: the law does not provide for a clear cost recovery mechanism, and the courts consider each case individually. Responsibility may fall on both the developer and the authorities if their inaction has led to a violation of the rights of citizens.
Legal risks and the cost of error
Lawyers warn that buying an apartment in Samostroy is almost always a step into the legal unknown. Konstantin Lushnikov, Managing Partner of PROLEX Law Firm, member of the AYUR, recalls that ownership of such objects does not arise, which means that any "apartment" in an unauthorized building turns into only a property claim without a real legal title.
— Neither a notary nor an escrow account guarantees protection if the object is illegal. The buyer is not buying a home, but a potential problem," the expert emphasizes.
He also emphasizes that the costs of demolition are borne by the erected object or the owner of the site. The State is not obligated to compensate for the relocation if the residents were aware of the violations. At the same time, the court must assess whether the demolition will lead to a violation of the right to housing, and has the right to oblige the authorities to provide social support measures.
A law that works for prevention
Olga Vlasova, an adviser to the Federal Chamber of Lawyers of the Russian Federation, recalls: "no one will pay" for the relocation of those who deliberately participated in illegal construction or acquired facilities with obvious violations.
— The construction of an unauthorized building is a violation of the law, and no one will pay for the resettlement of such people. The defendant is obliged to demolish the building himself at his own expense. If this does not happen, the administration carries out the demolition and collects the costs," the lawyer emphasizes.
She advises to carefully check the title documents and the building permit. Make sure that the purpose of using the land corresponds to the type of object, otherwise the buyer risks being left without protection and without compensation for losses.
When samostroy is not samostroy
Not all buildings erected with violations are automatically recognized as unauthorized. Evgenia Basos, Associate Professor of the Department of Family and Housing Law at the Moscow State Law University, points out cases where a developer can prove the good faith of his actions.
"If a person did not know and could not have known about the restrictions on the use of the site, and the authorized body issued a permit allowing construction, the building cannot be recognized as unauthorized," she notes.
The expert adds that if a court decision on demolition is made against an acquirer who was not involved in the construction, he has the right to claim damages from the real culprit — the one who actually erected the object. This creates legal protection for bona fide buyers affected by someone else's violation, she said.
Переведено сервисом «Яндекс Переводчик»
