On recognition as illegal and cancellation of the decision of the housing commission on refusal to privatize housing, coercion to privatize housing
No.6001-23-00-6ap/381 dated 08/15/2023
Plaintiffs: M.G., M.Ya., M.E., M.A.
Defendant: State Institution "Department of Housing and Housing Inspection of the city"
Interested parties: Akimat of the city of K. region, NAO "Government for Citizens State Corporation".
The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the illegal and cancellation of the decision of the housing Commission of June 6, 2022 on the refusal to privatize housing, forcing the privatization of housing.
Review of the defendant's cassation appeal.
PLOT: On January 23, 2014, the Housing Department and M.G. signed a lease agreement for a home equivalent to an office one, according to which M.G. and her family members M.Ya., M.E. and M.A. were provided with an apartment located at 188 Street, A. city (now Shaimerden Kosshygululy), house No. 7, apartment No. 222. M.G. applied to the Housing Department with an application for the privatization of the occupied apartment by foreclosure at residual value.
By the decision of the Housing Commission of June 6, 2022, she was denied the privatization of housing, due to the implementation of the right of privatization earlier.
Judicial acts:
1st instance: the claim is satisfied.
Appeal: the court's decision is upheld.
Cassation: judicial acts are upheld.
Conclusions: The local courts, satisfying the claim, came to a reasonable conclusion based on the following.
According to the apartment privatization agreement No. 6556 dated January 29, 1997, M.G., along with family members M.M. and M.Ya., simultaneously privatized two apartments No. 6 and No. 4 in a barrack-type apartment building, consisting of three rooms with a total area of 43.3 square meters, located at the address: city of K., No. 34 30 let Kazakstan Street (hereinafter referred to as the previously privatized dwelling).
According to the technical passport, the previously privatized dwelling was built in 1955. This barrack-type apartment building was demolished in 1998.
In the court of first instance, a representative of the Akimat of the city of K. explained that no compensation had been paid to the plaintiffs. The defendant did not provide evidence that M.G. and his family members had received compensation for the demolished home.
Attention!
Law and Law Law Law draws your attention to the fact that this document is basic and does not always meet the requirements of a particular situation. Our lawyers are ready to assist you in legal advice, drawing up any legal document suitable for your situation.
For more information, please contact a Lawyer / Attorney by phone: +7 (708) 971-78-58; +7 (700) 978 5755, +7 (700) 978 5085.
Attorney at Law Almaty Lawyer Legal Services Legal Advice Civil Criminal Administrative Cases Disputes Protection Arbitration Law Firm Kazakhstan Law Office Court Cases
