An administrative claim for forcing those in need of housing from the communal housing stock to be put on the waiting list

No. 6001-23-00-6ap/642 dated October 26, 2023

Plaintiff: J.A.

Defendant: State Institution "Housing and Housing Inspection Department"

The subject of the dispute: the compulsion to queue those in need of housing from the communal housing stock

Review of the defendant's cassation appeal. PLOT:

The plaintiff appealed to the court with the above requirements. The claim is motivated by the fact that since May 15, 2009, there has been a queue of people in need of housing from the communal housing stock by category

"employees of a budget organization." According to the disability certificate dated March 5, 2018, she was diagnosed with a disability of the first group until March 4, 2020. Further, on March 19, 2020, the disability was extended until March 19, 2025. On July 19, 2022, the plaintiff applied to the Department for registration as a "disabled person".

On August 5, 2022, the Department provided a response in which it refused to register the plaintiff in the queue of those in need of housing from the moment the disability was established and informed that if she applied, she would be registered at the end of the queue, that is, from the moment of application..

Judicial acts:

1st instance: the claim is satisfied. The court ordered the State Institution "Housing and Housing Inspection Department" to place J.A. in the queue of those in need of housing from the communal housing stock from March 5, 2018 in the category

"disabled."

Appeal: the court's decision remains unchanged.

Cassation: judicial acts are upheld.

Conclusions: in this dispute, the legal relations of the parties arose on the issue of priority in obtaining housing from the state housing stock and are regulated by the norms of the Law "On Housing Relations" (hereinafter referred to as the Law).

In accordance with article 68 of the Law, socially vulnerable segments of the population include persons with disabilities of the first and second groups.

As established by the case materials, to date, Zh.A. belongs to socially vulnerable segments of the population who have the right to receive housing from the state housing fund.

These circumstances are known to the defendant because on June 19, 2022

The plaintiff applied for registration of those in need of housing in the category of "disabled" from the moment the disability of the first group was established.

The arguments of the defendant's complaint that the plaintiff did not write a separate application for changing the category from "employees of a budget organization" to "disabled" cannot really be grounds for depriving the plaintiff of the right to receive housing and removing her from the list of those in need.

The plaintiff's written application and the provision of a certificate of disability of the first group is another reason for the Administration to register the plaintiff for housing from the state housing fund.

There are no grounds for removing the plaintiff from the register of those in need of housing from the state housing stock or housing rented by a local executive body in a private housing stock, provided for in article 73 of the Law, in this case, and the defendant has not proven otherwise.

The local courts, taking into account the principle of priority of rights, taking into account that the plaintiff has been on the waiting list for those in need of housing from the state housing fund since 2009, correctly concluded that the plaintiff's claims were satisfied.

In addition, the judicial board takes into account that the requirements of legislation in the field of housing relations and the rules for providing housing to persons in need of housing from the state housing stock, the defendant is required to conduct an annual inventory of the priority lists of citizens. Improper fulfillment of these requirements is a violation of the principle of protecting the right to trust, which serves as an additional basis for satisfying the claim.

In accordance with the third part of Article 13 of the CPC, an illegal administrative act adopted through the fault of an administrative body or official, as well as an illegal administrative act (inaction) committed through the fault of an administrative body or official, cannot entail burdensome consequences for a participant in an administrative procedure.

Thus, given the absence of new arguments in the cassation appeal, the judicial board considers that there are no grounds for reviewing the contested judicial acts.

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