Unfortunately, this issue is relevant not only for those affected by these floods. Every year in our huge country there are fires, floods, and in some areas even earthquakes, the consequences of which are sometimes devastating, leaving a huge number of families without a roof over their heads. In addition, the dishonest attitude of the residents themselves towards their houses, the negligent attitude of management companies in the major repairs of houses under their jurisdiction and the elementary dilapidated state of many old buildings force the population to apply for recognition of such residential premises as unsuitable for permanent residence.

In this regard, as a rule, legally poorly “savvy” citizens have a lot of questions about the very procedure for declaring residential premises unfit for habitation, about the criteria by which these premises will be assessed during the inspection, and the possibility of personal participation in this procedure.

Let's try to figure out exactly what criteria a residential building must meet, what is necessary to declare it unfit for habitation, how to protect your rights and not be left on the street. To do this, let us turn to the following examples of judicial practice.

In Komsomolsk-on-Amur, a citizen of one of the housesappealed to the court to challenge the conclusion of the city interdepartmental commission to resolve the issues of recognizing his house as unfit for habitation by the administration of the city of Komsomolsk-on-Amur, Khabarovsk Territory, and imposing the obligation to hold a repeat meeting.

In support of the stated requirements of S.A.V. indicated that the city interdepartmental commission for resolving issues of declaring houses (residential premises) unsuitable for habitation by the administration of the city of Komsomolsk-on-Amur, Khabarovsk Territory, adopted a conclusion on the compliance of the premises with the requirements for residential premises and its suitability for living. This conclusion, according to the applicant, was made in violationpoints 7, 42 , 43 , 44 , 46 Provisions on recognizing premises as residential premises, residential premises unsuitable for habitation and an apartment building as unsafe and subject to demolition, approvedDecree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated January 28, 2006 № 47 , since he was not notified of the meeting of the interdepartmental commission, and therefore was deprived of the opportunity to apply for the involvement of competent authorities in the work of the commission, the procedure for assessing the compliance of the premises with the requirements established in the Regulations was not checked, the actual condition of the residential premises was not checked, additional documents necessary to make an objective decision were requested. The contested conclusion of the interdepartmental commission was not signed by three members of the commission. The court of first instance rejected his claims. In a cassation appeal, the citizen asks to cancel the decision of the court of first instance and make a new decision.

In objections to the cassation appeal, the representative of the administration of the city of Komsomolsk-on-Amur, Khabarovsk Territory A.V.P. asked the decision of the Central District Court of Komsomolsk-on-Amur to be left unchanged, and the cassation appeal of S.A.V. without satisfaction.

Having checked the case materials, discussed the arguments of the cassation appeal and the objections received to it, the judicial panel considers it necessary to cancel the court decision on the following grounds.

According toparagraph 47And48 Regulations, the decision of the commission is made by a majority vote of the commission members and is drawn up in the form of a conclusion on recognizing the premises as suitable (unsuitable) for permanent residence, which is drawn up in triplicate.

From the conclusion of the interdepartmental commission it is clear that it was not signed by three of its members— Head of the Komsomolsk Department for Supervision of Industrial and Energy Safety and Nuclear Supervision of the Far Eastern Directorate of the Federal Service for Environmental, Technological and Nuclear Supervision, Head of the Legal Department of the Administration of the City of Komsomolsk-on-Amur, Chief State Inspector of the Department of State Supervision for the City of Komsomolsk-on-Amur.

The case materials do not contain evidence that members of the interdepartmental commission were present at the meeting of the interdepartmental commission when considering S.A.V.’s application.

In violationparagraph 6 point 7, clause 2.1. Regulations on the city interdepartmental commission to resolve issues of declaring residential buildings (residential premises) unfit for habitation, approved by the Decree of the administration of the city of Komsomolsk-on-Amur, Neither the owner of the residential premises (the person authorized by him) nor qualified experts from design and survey organizations with the right of a casting vote were involved in the work in the commission with the right of an advisory vote. The failure of the interdepartmental commission to involve the owner of the residential premises in the work of the commission deprived him of the right to make a statement during the work of the commission in accordance withparagraph 46 Provisions of a petition for additional examination and testing.

When assessing the compliance of a premises in operation with the requirements established in the Regulations, its actual condition is checked. At the same time, an assessment is made of the degree and category of the technical condition of building structures and a residential building as a whole, the degree of its fire resistance, conditions for ensuring the evacuation of residents in the event of a fire, sanitary and epidemiological requirements and hygienic standards, the content of chemical and biological substances potentially hazardous to humans, the quality of the atmospheric air, the level of background radiation and physical factors of sources of noise, vibration, the presence of electromagnetic fields, microclimate parameters of the room, as well as the location of the living space (paragraph 43Regulations).

In violationpoints 43, 44 Regulations, the interdepartmental commission did not check the actual condition of the residential premises, and did not request additional documents necessary to make a decision.

It is obvious from the case that the conclusion is based on the acts of the service organization for a certain individual period on the facts of flooding caused by roof leaks and malfunction of engineering equipment, which cannot indicate the condition of the facility on the date of consideration of this issue by the interdepartmental commission.

Thus, the conclusion on recognizing the residential premises as suitable for permanent residence was given by the interdepartmental commission of the administration of the city of Komsomolsk-on-Amur with significant violations of the Regulations on recognizing the premises as residential premises, and the residential premises as unsuitable for habitation.

The court, having recognized the application as justified, makes a decision on the obligation of the relevant government body, local government body, official, state or municipal employee to eliminate in full the violation of the rights and freedoms of a citizen or the obstacle to the exercise by a citizen of his rights and freedoms.

Considering that the conclusion of the city interdepartmental commission on resolving the issues of declaring houses (residential premises) unsuitable for habitation by the administration of the city of Komsomolsk-on-Amur, Khabarovsk Territory, violated the rights of S.A.V., the judicial panel considers it necessary to satisfy the applicant’s demands.

As a striking example, we can also consider a case that has the exact opposite outcome.

S.S.N. appealed to the court to challenge the decision of the Interdepartmental Commission of the Shakhty City Administration to recognize the residential premises as unfit for habitation, the apartment building as unsafe and subject to demolition, the refusal to recognize the apartment owned by him as unfit for habitation, and the obligation to recognize the apartment as unfit for habitation.

The applicant indicated that the residential premises in which he lives are unsuitable for living, since the house was built in 1917, has 71% physical wear, the house does not have water supply and sewerage, and there is stove heating instead of centralized heating. At the end of 2011, S.S.N. appealed to the Interdepartmental Commission of the Shakhty City Administration for recognizing residential premises as unfit for habitation, an apartment building in disrepair and subject to demolition with a statement to recognize his apartment as unfit for habitation, but on December 21, 2011, this was denied to him.

Considering the refusal to be unlawful, the applicant asked the court to recognize the said decision of December 21, 2011 as illegal and to oblige the interdepartmental commission to issue a conclusion declaring his apartment unsuitable for permanent residence.

The representative of the Shakhty City Administration, K.O., asked to refuse S.S.N.’s application, explaining that in accordance with the regulations governing the recognition of residential premises as unsuitable for living according to safety criteria and judicial practice, it is not possible to recognize a separate apartment in an apartment building in disrepair. Entire entrances or residential buildings are considered emergency.By the decision of the Shakhtinsky City Court of the Rostov Region dated February 20, 2012, in satisfaction of the application of S.S.N. was refused.

Disagreeing with the decision, S.S.N. filed an appeal, in which he raised the issue of canceling the court decision and making a new decision to satisfy the application.

He considered the court's decision illegal and unfounded, violating his housing rights. He indicated that his apartment did not meet the requirements for residential premises, and therefore he applied to the commission to declare the apartment unfit for habitation. At the same time, he submitted the entire package of documents necessary for this, the list of which was determined by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated January 28, 2006 No. 47.

However, by decision of the commission, his application was denied due to the submission of an incomplete package of documents.

Having familiarized itself with the materials of the case, having considered the appeal within the limits of the arguments set out in it, having listened to S.S.N., the judicial panel comes to the following conclusions.

In making its decision, the court of first instance was guided by the provisions of Article 15 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of January 28, 2006 No. 47, which approved the Regulations on recognizing premises as residential premises, residential premises unsuitable for habitation and an apartment building as unsafe and subject to demolition or reconstruction, and proceeded from the fact that from all the regulations governing these legal relations, it follows that only an apartment building, and not a separate apartment, can be recognized as unsafe.

In addition, the court proceeded from the fact that the applicant was repeatedly explained that in order to recognize the house as dilapidated, it is necessary to submit to the commission the minutes of the general meeting of all residents of the apartment building on recognizing the house as unfit for habitation and the corresponding package of documents. The court came to the conclusion that the stated demands were unfounded and therefore refused to satisfy them.

Thus, after analyzing judicial practice and legislation on recognizing residential premises as suitable (unsuitable) for permanent residence, the following conclusions can be drawn.

Article 15 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation provides a definition of “residential premises suitable for permanent residence”; in accordance with this definition, an isolated premises is recognized as such, which is real estate and is suitable for permanent residence of citizens (meets established sanitary and technical rules and regulations, other requirements) . The legislation does not give us a specific definition of “residential premises unsuitable for habitation”, providing only the grounds on which the premises can be recognized as such.

A complete list of grounds for recognizing residential premises as unsuitable for habitation is presented in the Regulations on recognizing premises as residential premises, residential premises as unsuitable for habitation and an apartment building as unsafe and subject to demolition or reconstruction (approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of January 28, 2006 No. 47), also in accordance with it recognition of private (individual) residential premises as residential premises suitable (unsuitable) for permanent residence of citizens is carried out by an interdepartmental commission created for these purposes.

This commission is created by local government bodies from representatives of this body and delegates to the commission the authority to assess the compliance of these premises with the requirements established in the Regulations for making a decision on recognizing these premises as suitable (unsuitable) for citizens to live in.

But, since for the most accurate and complete analysis of the condition of residential premises, only representatives of the authorities indicated above are not enough, the commission also includes representatives of bodies authorized to conduct regional housing supervision (municipal housing control), state control and supervision in the areas of sanitary -epidemiological, fire, industrial, environmental and other safety, protection of consumer rights and human well-being, to carry out inventory and registration of real estate located in urban and rural settlements, other municipalities, and, if necessary, architectural authorities, urban planning and relevant organizations.

Also, to monitor the progress of the commission’s work, with the right of an advisory vote, the owner of the residential premises or a person authorized by him is included in the commission, and, if necessary, qualified experts from design and survey organizations with the right of a casting vote.

The commission conducts a comprehensive inspection and assessment of the premises for suitability (unsuitability) for permanent residence, making a decision by a majority vote. The result of this inspection is a conclusion drawn up in triplicate and signed by all members of the commission. Based on the received conclusion, the local government body makes a decision and issues an order indicating the further use of the premises, the timing of the resettlement of individuals if the house is recognized as unsafe and subject to demolition or reconstruction, or recognizing the need for repair and restoration work. The decision of a local government body can be appealed by interested parties in court.

If the arguments of the owners of residential premises who have applied to recognize the residential premises as unfit for habitation are accepted by the court, a forensic examination may be ordered, the task of which will be to assess the technical condition of the residential building or check the compliance of the residential premises with established requirements. To do this, the court will need to provide evidence that the procedure for declaring a residential premises unfit for habitation has been violated, and the house is in disrepair and subject to demolition.

Depending on the circumstances of a particular case, during the examination it becomes clear:

• Is there a statement from the owner of the premises in the file prepared by the commission?
• Has the degree and category of technical condition, degree of fire resistance, provision of evacuation of citizens, sanitary and hygienic requirements and other factors affecting the quality of life of people been assessed?
• The procedure for assessing the compliance of the premises with established requirements has been violated or not.
• Other factual data necessary for the court to make a decision.

Conducting an expert study as determined by the court makes it possible to determine whether the owner of the premises or his authorized representative, as well as qualified specialists, were involved in the work of the interdepartmental commission.

During the trial, the court establishes the objectivity of the decision-making, the degree of completeness and comprehensiveness of the work of the interdepartmental commission.

Unfortunately, as practice shows, in most cases the issue of declaring private residential premises unsuitable for permanent residence has to be resolved through the court, which, in turn, must study the case materials in as much detail as possible before making a decision.

A lot of patience and endurance is required on the part of the plaintiffs, as can be seen from the case materials and in the above examples from judicial practice. Therefore, you should properly prepare for cases of this kind, referring to the rules of law governing these relations, carefully checking all available documents and insisting on exercising your rights “to the last”, especially if they are clearly violated.

Living in a dilapidated house brings not only discomfort, but also a danger to life. Each regional facility in Russia has a separate program that allows for the resettlement of citizens from buildings recognized as unsafe. Let's consider what needs to be done to recognize a private house as unsafe.

General information

In Russia, a program to eliminate dilapidated housing has been operating for quite some time. Despite the fact that it has been in operation for a long time, a small number of residents have been relocated.

Resettlement according to the project works like this:

• A regional program to eliminate unsuitable housing is being formed;
• Objects are recognized as unsafe and subject to demolition;
• A list of dilapidated and emergency housing is being created;
• A conclusion is made on the reconstruction of the specified house or its removal;
• Before demolition, an equivalent living space is found.

Typically, housing is selected in the same area where people from the house that is being demolished previously lived. The owner of a residential property has the right to write a statement of desire to move to another area.

Any citizen has access to information about whether his house is classified as unsafe and unfit for habitation - special websites have been created for this with a search form by address. Instead of housing, it is possible to provide him with any monetary compensation based on the size of the living space.

It is important to pay attention to the fact that relocation in accordance with the civil code cannot be regarded as a way to improve living conditions or increase living space. When searching for new housing, the area of ​​the previous housing and its condition are taken into account.

The provision applies to all cases, even when a person owned residential premises less than the accounting norm. A person receives the same area that he had.

If the owner wants the new housing to be larger, he will have to pay extra out of his own pocket for the excess meters. There are no strict parameters when choosing the type of housing - the main thing is that it is not in emergency condition.

Basic Concepts

It is important to distinguish when a house can be considered unsafe and when it is considered dilapidated, since these are two big differences. Resettlement is not carried out from a dilapidated house - it is considered old, but suitable for living. The emergency premises are considered completely unsuitable for habitation.

The main requirements for an emergency house are its location in a dangerous or emergency area, a serious violation of sanitary standards and a threat to residents. In this case, it will be simply dangerous to stay in such a room any longer - hasty resettlement and demolition are being carried out.

Even if a private house, recognized as dilapidated, and the land plot under it are 75% uncomfortable, but do not threaten life and health, then resettlement will not take place. Therefore, most buildings in disgusting condition are still in use, awaiting recognition as unsafe.

Building assessment

The legislation is applicable in housing conditions that do not meet sanitary standards, safety regulations, and also threaten health and life. The criteria for assessing accident rates are given in Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 47:

• Dangerous location of the house - an area with a high probability of landslides, avalanches, floods, flooding;
• Man-made danger – being near objects of man-made danger and accidents;
• Communication hazard - placing housing too close to power lines;
• Geological factors - destruction or damage to a house as a result of storms, earthquakes, blizzards, with the impossibility of its restoration;
• Being near highways means exceeding noise standards by more than 55 decibels;
• Hygienic violations – the inability to comply with sanitary and epidemiological standards.

The criteria also include the condition of the foundation and load-bearing elements of the building - if they are worn out and deformed, the housing is considered unsuitable for use.

Legal basis

The targeted program for the resettlement of citizens was previously supposed to end two years ago, but it was extended until the end of September of this year. Now it has been continued within the framework of individual regional programs. Currently, self-government bodies have the right to recognize housing as unsuitable in accordance with Article 14 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation.

It is necessary to request a survey of the condition of the building based on the situation with the local authorities.

What you need

A house that is in real emergency, and which according to documents belongs to the housing stock as complete and safe, must be recognized as unfit for use. The requirement to recognize an accident may be put forward by:

• Owner of residential property;
• Tenant of the property;
• Authorized bodies - Rospotrebnadzor, housing and fire inspections.

A corresponding application is submitted to these authorities, and the work of the commission begins. If the house is unfit for use, a conclusion is prepared, and on its basis resettlement is carried out.

This is how the procedure should ideally proceed, but in practice it is significantly delayed. If the owner of the house and the plot underneath it does not agree with the commission’s decision, it is possible to challenge it within three months from the date of its adoption.

To do this, you need to go to court, but you need strong arguments to challenge it. An independent examination of the house and plot that has been privatized should be ordered. The expert’s conclusion will become the main argument in court.

Where to contact

If the owner considers the repair of his residential premises impossible, and its condition is emergency, it is necessary to submit an application to the executive bodies of local government.

Often these are housing or fire inspections, or similar structures. You can address the application to the local administration, and from there it will be forwarded to the place of execution.

After submitting the application, an interdepartmental commission is created, which makes an appropriate decision within a month. The applicant is notified of the results of the work within five days after the decision is made.

The following documents are attached to the application:

• Title documents for the house or their copies certified by a notary;
• Technical passport and floor plan;
• Cadastral number and papers on land privatization;
• Certificate of an independent examination, if any.

If an accident report is received, the owner has three options:

• Receiving material compensation - calculations are based on average market prices per square meter;
• Relocation to a new apartment at municipal expense;
• Purchasing larger housing with an additional payment for excess square meters.

Since land plots are usually small, many owners often choose compensation. In this case, money from the budget is transferred to the owner’s account within a month.

What to do next

If the owner nevertheless chooses to move, the search for a new apartment is carried out by the administration. When it is selected, an agreement is concluded with the municipality on an exchange when moving from a dilapidated house.

If the former owner chose one of the options and then realized that the housing found was much worse or cheaper than the previous one, he will no longer be able to stop the relocation process. In addition, executive bodies have the right to legally oblige a tenant to relocate.

Shared privatization

If the plot was privatized for several people, then when preparing documents for a new apartment, the shared ownership in it will be calculated according to the property in the former plot.

If the site under the house in question is already private property, it does not require privatization. If it is state or municipal land, it must first be privatized. But before this, mandatory privatization of the house is required, even if it is in disrepair. A privatized house is the main reason for privatizing the land underneath it.

Often executive bodies try to delay resolving issues of this nature. This is due, to a large extent, to the fact that the housing stock is not enough to relocate all the residents of dilapidated buildings in Russia.

Now I have a question: on this basis, the city interdepartmental commission should have recognized the apartment building as unsafe and subject to demolition? Or what should we do next? And unsuitable housing is included in the federal program for the resettlement of dilapidated and dilapidated housing? Thank you in advance.

Residential owner no later than one year before the upcoming seizure of this premises must be notified in writing f about the decision taken and registered in the Federal Registration Chamber to confiscate the residential premises belonging to him, about the date of state registration of such a decision by the body that made the decision on confiscation.
Redemption price residential premises, terms and other conditions of redemption are determined a separate agreement with the owner of the residential premises.

Legal advice, legal assistance from a lawyer, legal services, representation in court

Attention! Each of your questions is unique and legal advice is given only on the regulations that were in force at the time the specific question was written! Take the time to ask your unique legal question. We welcome every request for advice from us, but when asking your legal question, try to describe the current legal situation in as much detail as possible without omitting a single legal detail.

1. The tenant of a residential premises of the state housing stock and citizens living together with him, if the residential premises occupied by them are in disrepair or are in danger of collapse, are subject to demolition, and also if, due to emergencies of a natural and man-made nature, military operations and acts terrorism, the residential premises no longer meet the sanitary and technical requirements established for living and are recognized as unfit for habitation; by decision of the local executive and administrative body, they are subject to eviction with the provision of residential premises of standard consumer qualities with a total area not less than occupied at the expense of the owner of the housing stock, in compliance with the type of previously concluded agreement rental of residential premises and its validity period (if the rental agreement for residential premises was concluded for a certain period).
2. If the residential building in which the residential premises of the state housing stock is located is subject to demolition in connection with the seizure of a land plot for state needs or the residential premises of the state housing stock are recognized in the manner established by law as not meeting the sanitary and technical requirements established for living and are subject to transfer to non-residential, state organization, which is provided with this land plot or intended for residential premises to be transferred to non-residential, provides evicted citizens with residential premises of standard consumer qualities that meet the requirements of Article 105 of this Code, in compliance with the type of previously concluded rental agreement for residential premises and the period of its validity ( if the residential rental agreement was concluded for a certain period).
If a residential building in which the residential premises of the state housing stock is located is subject to demolition in connection with the seizure of a land plot for state needs and this plot is provided to an organization of non-state ownership or it is assigned residential premises to be transferred to non-residential premises, then the evicted citizens are provided with standard residential premises consumer qualities, meeting the requirements of Article 105 of this Code, in compliance with the type of the previously concluded residential rental agreement and its validity period (if the residential rental agreement was concluded for a certain period) by local executive and administrative bodies, other government bodies, other government organizations, in whose economic management or operational management is a residential premises subject to demolition or transfer to non-residential, at the expense of the funds of the specified organization of non-state ownership transferred for these purposes, or the gratuitous transfer of residential premises owned by it to republican or communal ownership.
When determining the size of the total area of ​​the provided residential premises of the state housing stock during eviction from residential premises in the cases provided for in parts one and two of this paragraph, subtenants and citizens to whom residential premises are temporarily provided for free possession and use in accordance with Article 69 of this Code are not taken into account , as well as citizens who are granted the right to own and use residential premises after decisions are made to demolish the residential building in which it is located, or to recognize the residential premises as not meeting the sanitary and technical requirements established for living (with the exception of citizens moved in in the prescribed manner, and spouses, minors and adult disabled children, disabled parents of both the employer and members of his family living together in this residential premises).
. 3. The owner of residential premises and citizens living together with him, if the occupied residential premises, due to emergencies of a natural and man-made nature, military operations and acts of terrorism, no longer meet the sanitary and technical requirements established for living, or if the residential premises are subject to demolition due to with the seizure of a land plot for state needs, are subject to eviction without the provision of another residential premises if the owner of the residential premises chooses monetary compensation for the residential premises owned by him, provided in accordance with paragraph three of paragraph 1 of Article 158 of this Code.
. If the owner of a residential premises chooses the right to receive ownership of an apartment of standard consumer qualities or a residential building, this owner and the citizens living with him are evicted from the residential premises they occupy into an apartment of standard consumer qualities or a residential building provided to him in ownership in accordance with paragraph two of paragraph 1, paragraph two of part one of paragraph 2 and paragraph 5 of Article 158 of this Code.

Consultation with a lawyer on issues of uninhabitable housing

Com. the apartment is not suitable for living in. We live in a 5-room non-privatized apartment. Of these, 3 rooms belong to us; we pay for 84 meters (area of ​​3 rooms + common use) sq. m. total area 149 m. In our 3 rooms there are 3 people and my daughter (3 years old), in the 4th room there is a family of 2. person (without children but their room is privatized), in the 5th. The room contains a husband, wife and a disabled child (3 years old). The apartment is unsuitable for living because... has been a dilapidated attic for about 10 years now. Should we queue for new housing? Is it possible that the state will give us housing in exchange for this? And how many years can we stand in this line?

I live in a 4-room apartment. My room (13.5 sq.m.) is in the property. When my daughter was born, she and I got on the waiting list for housing expansion. After some time, a room became available in the apartment (my grandmother died), it was municipal, and no one else was registered. The room was supposed to go to my daughter and I. But our administration is in no way. In general, I filed a lawsuit and we won the case. The court decided to provide the room under a social rental agreement. The room is in a condition unsuitable for habitation (plaster is falling off almost the entire perimeter of the room in a strip about 1 m wide, there are cracks in the ceiling, the door frame needs to be replaced, the window, radiators and the floor need to be painted). A master from our house management drew up a report on this. I went to an appointment with the deputy mayor, asked that they at least do the walls, ceiling and wallpaper, he told me to sign a social rental agreement, and that they would help make repairs, but in the end they only plastered the walls and ceiling. I tell them, help me put up the wallpaper, I can’t do it alone. To which they answered me - they did everything to the minimum, then do it yourself. Today I went to an appointment with the head of the municipal housing department of the Severodvinsk Administration with a question about renovating a room. He told me straight out that he wouldn’t do anything. Supposedly you got what you wanted through the court, be content. I believe that the social tenancy agreement should be fulfilled regardless of how the room was obtained, through the court or not (especially since they should have provided me with this room without the court). The contract states that within 10 days after signing the landlord must provide a room with current repairs carried out (but this did not happen). I read the comments to Article 65 of the RF Housing Code: clause 7. Carrying out major repairs to residential premises transferred under a social tenancy agreement is also the responsibility of the landlord. Please tell me how to act. Go to court again? Will it help?

• Conducting our own surveys and inspections of each and every immovable object that is in the department of the institution, while the form of its ownership does not matter;
• Drawing up conclusions and instructions to property owners and management companies regarding the elimination of any deficiencies;
• Verification of licenses of legal entities to provide certain services to citizens;
• Requesting any documents from owners and organizations;
• Submission of resolutions to cancel the license of legal entities if gross violations are revealed;
• Application and collection of fines for violations of norms and requirements for the operation and safety of housing stock;
• Checking compliance with the rules and regulations regarding the recognition of a house as unfit for habitation by citizens;
• Making proposals regarding bringing officials to administrative and criminal liability.

Since the recognition of a residential building as subject to demolition in no way changes the original intended purpose of the property and does not cancel the requirements for it, it is incorrect to consider it an equivalent exchange with a classifying sign of suitability. This means that the latter only determines the possibility and right to use a house or apartment for permanent residence, and unsuitable housing serves as the basis for excluding the property from the housing stock and transferring it to non-residential use.

How to declare a property unfit for habitation

• the presence of damage and deformations on load-bearing and enclosing structures;
• lack of certain elements of engineering communications (water supply is not functioning, there is no centralized electricity, etc.);
• ventilation integrates the air flows of the kitchen and sanitary areas with the rooms;
• indoor air temperature is below 18 degrees for an extended period of time;
• air humidity constantly exceeds the minimum threshold of 60 percent;
• absence of insolation in the number of rooms established by the standards (for one to three-room apartments, at least one room, for apartments of a larger area - at least two rooms);
• location in the basement or on the ground floor;
• lack of windows in the kitchen or rooms;
• high concentration of toxic substances in the room.

• repeated exceeding of sanitary standards;
• location of the house on the path of landslides, mudflows or avalanches;
• staying at home in areas where the noise level exceeds established standards;
• the presence of damage resulting from earthquakes, floods and other natural disasters.

If the property is unsuitable for habitation

Based on the results of the work, the commission makes one of the following decisions: on the compliance of the premises with the requirements for residential premises and its suitability for living; on the need and possibility of carrying out major repairs, reconstruction or redevelopment in order to bring the characteristics of residential premises lost during operation into compliance with the requirements established in the above-mentioned Regulations and after their completion - on continuing the assessment procedure; about the non-compliance of the premises with the requirements for residential premises, indicating the grounds on which the premises are considered unsuitable for habitation; on recognizing an apartment building as unsafe and subject to demolition.

One of the grounds for declaring a residential premises unsuitable for habitation is the presence of identified harmful factors in the human environment that do not allow ensuring the safety of life and health of citizens due to changes in the environment and microclimate parameters of the residential premises, which do not allow compliance with the necessary sanitary and epidemiological requirements and hygienic standards regarding the content of chemical and biological substances potentially hazardous to humans, atmospheric air quality, background radiation levels and physical factors of the presence of sources of noise, vibration, and electromagnetic fields.

Housing is unsuitable for living, what next?

Does the interdepartmental commission have the right to recognize an apartment building as unfit for habitation (instead of declaring residential premises unfit for habitation)? How important is the correct wording in the conclusion of the interdepartmental commission? Can they be evicted from an “uninhabitable apartment building”?

There is a court decision obliging the city administration to provide, out of turn, residential premises on social rental terms, equivalent in area to those previously occupied in a demolished (damaged) building. The court decision is not being executed, what measures can be taken to ensure the speedy execution of the judicial act?

Grounds for declaring a residential premises unfit for habitation

The eviction of citizens from residential premises provided under a social tenancy agreement is carried out in court with the provision of another comfortable residential premises under the terms of the social tenancy agreement, if the previously occupied residential premises are recognized as unsuitable for habitation. At the same time, the residential premises provided to citizens must be well-equipped in relation to the conditions of the corresponding populated area, equivalent in total area to the previously occupied residential premises, meet established requirements and be located within the boundaries of the populated area.

In situations where living space becomes uninhabitable State authorities and local governments are obliged to take measures to provide citizens with housing at the expense of the relevant budgets. This is especially important due to the fact that further living in a faulty residential building becomes impossible, since there is a threat of harm to the life and health of citizens.

How to recognize a house as unsafe

1. Submit an application to the commission, which will ultimately give an opinion. It will be reviewed by a representative of the authorized body within 30 days. In special cases, the procedure time will be reduced to 1 day.
2. Gather your documents.
3. Order an examination, after which a decision will be made within 5 days.

• the supporting and enclosing structure is damaged or deformed;
• There are no separate elements of engineering communications (the water supply does not work, there is no electricity supply);
• ventilation integrates the air flows of the kitchen, sanitary and living rooms;
• temperature indicators do not exceed 18 degrees for a long time;
• humidity indicators more than 60%;
• there is no insolation in the number of rooms specified by the standards;
• the object is located in the basement or basement;
• there are no windows in the rooms;
• Toxic substances were found in the apartment.

How to declare a property unfit for habitation

If a house does not meet hygienic, sanitary and epidemiological requirements, then it must be declared unfit for habitation. When a building has any damage resulting from a fire, explosion, or subsidence, it may also be included in this category.

You cannot live in a house that poses a danger to your life. Therefore, something definitely needs to be changed. First you need to contact other people who have square meters in such a house. It is necessary to draw up a collective statement, carry out all the examinations and present a package of documents to the commission. To recognize a building as unsafe or dilapidated (in other words, unfit for habitation), the following documents are needed:

15 Jul 2018 1310

of the Russian Federation of December 29, 2004, “a residential premises is recognized as an isolated premises, which is immovable property and is suitable for permanent residence of citizens (meets established sanitary and technical rules and regulations, and other legal requirements).”

In accordance with Article 15 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, “a residential premises may be declared unfit for habitation on the grounds and in the manner established by the federal executive body authorized by the Government of the Russian Federation.”

The Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated January 28, 2006 “On approval of the Regulations on the recognition of premises as residential premises, residential premises unfit for habitation and an apartment building as unsafe and subject to demolition” identifies the following grounds for recognizing a residential premises as unsuitable for habitation and an apartment building as unfit for habitation and subject to demolition:

1. The presence of identified harmful factors in the human environment that do not allow ensuring the safety of life and health of citizens due to: deterioration due to physical wear and tear during the operation of the building as a whole or its individual parts, leading to a decrease in the building’s reliability and strength to an unacceptable level and stability of building structures and foundations; changes in the environment and microclimate parameters of a residential premises, which do not allow compliance with the necessary sanitary and epidemiological requirements and hygienic standards in terms of the content of chemical and biological substances potentially hazardous to humans, atmospheric air quality, background radiation levels and physical factors of the presence of sources of noise, vibration, electromagnetic fields.

2. Residential premises located in prefabricated, brick and stone houses, as well as in wooden houses and houses made from local materials, with deformations of foundations, walls, load-bearing structures and a significant degree of biological damage to elements of wooden structures, which indicate the exhaustion of load-bearing capacity and danger collapse.

3. Residential premises located in residential buildings located in areas where sanitary and epidemiological safety indicators are exceeded in terms of physical factors (noise, vibration, electromagnetic and ionizing radiation), concentrations of chemical and biological substances in the atmospheric air and soil (nitric oxide , ammonia, acetaldehyde, benzene, butyl acetate, distylamine, 1,2-dichloroethane, xylene, mercury, lead and its inorganic compounds, hydrogen sulfide, styrene, toluene, carbon monoxide, phenol, formaldehyde, dimethyl phthalate, ethyl acetate and ethylbenzene), as well as residential buildings located in industrial zones, areas of engineering and transport infrastructure and in sanitary protection zones should be considered unsuitable for living in cases where engineering and design solutions cannot minimize risk criteria to an acceptable level.

4. Residential premises located in dangerous zones of landslides, mudflows, snow avalanches, as well as in areas that are annually inundated with flood waters and in which it is impossible to prevent flooding of the territory using engineering and design solutions. Apartment buildings located in these zones are recognized as unsafe and subject to demolition or reconstruction.

5. Residential premises located in the zone of probable destruction during man-made accidents determined by the authorized federal executive body, if it is impossible to prevent the destruction of residential premises with the help of engineering and design solutions. Apartment buildings located in these zones are recognized as unsafe and subject to demolition or reconstruction. The zone of probable destruction in the event of man-made accidents is understood as the territory within the boundaries of which there are residential premises and apartment buildings that are at risk of destruction due to a man-made accident.

6. Residential premises located in areas adjacent to overhead AC power lines and other objects that create an electric field strength of an industrial frequency of 50 Hz of more than 1 kV/m at a height of 1.8 m from the surface of the earth and an induction of a magnetic field of an industrial frequency of 50 Hz more than 50 µT.

7. Residential premises located in apartment buildings damaged as a result of explosions, accidents, fires, earthquakes, uneven soil subsidence, as well as as a result of other complex geological phenomena, are considered unsuitable for living if restoration work is technically impossible or economically infeasible and The technical condition of these houses and building structures is characterized by a decrease in load-bearing capacity and operational characteristics, which pose a danger to the occupancy of people and the safety of engineering equipment. These apartment buildings are considered unsafe and subject to demolition.

8. Rooms with windows facing highways with a noise level above the maximum permissible standard (55 dB during the day, 45 dB at night) are considered unsuitable for living if, with the help of engineering and design solutions, it is impossible to reduce the noise level to an acceptable value .

9. Residential premises, above or adjacent to which there is a device for flushing and cleaning the garbage chute.

The following cannot serve as a basis for declaring a residential premises unfit for habitation:

1. Lack of a centralized sewerage system and hot water supply in one- and two-story residential buildings.

2. The absence in a residential building of more than 5 floors of an elevator and a garbage chute, if this residential building, due to physical wear and tear, is in a limited working condition and is not subject to major repairs and reconstruction.

3. Non-compliance of the space-planning solution of residential premises and their location with the minimum area of ​​rooms and auxiliary premises of the apartment in an operating residential building, designed and built according to previously valid regulatory documentation, with currently adopted space-planning decisions, if this solution satisfies the ergonomic requirements in terms of placement of the necessary set of furniture and functional equipment.