An unauthorized construction is not property belonging to the testator on legal grounds and cannot be included in the inheritance estate
A claim for the recognition of the right to an unauthorized construction is considered in a lawsuit, since the interested person files a claim for the protection of the violated or disputed right or legitimate interest by resolving a dispute about the right.
Paragraph 11 of the regulatory resolution "On Certain Issues of Resolving Disputes Related to the Protection of Ownership of Housing" provides exhaustive explanations on this issue.
Thus, claims for the recognition of the right to an unauthorized construction are brought and considered by the courts in all cases in the action proceedings.
A claim for the recognition of ownership of an unauthorized construction, where the land belongs to the owner and the developer in one person, cannot be used to simplify the registration of rights to a newly created real estate object in order to circumvent the norms of special legislation.
The refusal to satisfy the claim for recognition of the right to an unauthorized construction (when the plaintiff in one person is the owner or permanent land user of the land plot and the developer of the unauthorized construction) is justified.
The Pavlodar City Court ruled on February 26, 2021 to dismiss the claim of T.V. against A.S. for the recognition of ownership of the unauthorized construction and the recovery of a sum of money.
The lawsuit states that during the lifetime of the plaintiff's spouse S.S., garages were erected on the land plot at the place of residence without the necessary permits, a shed was converted into a square, and a cold extension to a residential building was erected. Economic and residential construction facilities have signs of unauthorized constructions, while the purpose of the land plot allows construction in accordance with the act of private ownership of the land plot. These buildings do not violate the rights and interests of other persons, meet the requirements of construction and urban planning standards, the preservation of unauthorized construction does not pose a threat to the life and health of citizens. The defendant refuses to voluntarily register these buildings, since the value of the property to be divided and allocated to her share in monetary terms will increase significantly.
The court, dismissing the claim, was motivated by the fact that, according to paragraph 1 of Article 244 of the Civil Code, an unauthorized construction is a residential house, other structure, structure or other real estate created on land owned by the state that has not been formed into land plots, on a land plot that does not belong to the person who carried out the construction, as well as created without obtaining permits required in accordance with the land legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan. the legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan on architectural, urban planning and construction activities in the Republic of Kazakhstan and other legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan.
The court found that the buildings erected by the testator S.S. were not put into operation and the ownership of them was not registered, therefore, they were not included in the inheritance estate. The act of acceptance of the constructed object for operation by the owner independently dated September 25, 2020 was issued by T.V. after the death of the testator. At the same time, according to the response of the authorized body in the field of architecture, this object is recorded in the logbook.
However, when applying to the authorized body, T.V. was refused to register the act of acceptance of the constructed facility for operation due to the lack of consent of the second co-owner. The plaintiff, filing a claim against the defendant A.S., pointed out in support that according to paragraph 23 of the regulatory resolution "On Certain Issues of Application of Inheritance Legislation by the Courts", the inheritance of real estate erected without authorization (on a land plot not allocated for these purposes, without obtaining the necessary construction permits, etc.) can only take place in court. A notary is not entitled to issue a certificate for registration of ownership of such property in the name of the testator.
In this regard, he believes that an unauthorized construction is not property belonging to the testator on legal grounds and cannot be included in the inheritance estate. At the same time, the heirs who have accepted the inheritance are not deprived of the right to demand recognition of their ownership of the unauthorized construction.
The court concluded that the disputed legal relations can be resolved with the joint application of all heirs, while the claim is brought against the local executive body in accordance with the Law "On Local Government", since the akim represents the interests of the relevant administrative-territorial unit in relations with state bodies, organizations and citizens, therefore, the proper defendant in such cases is the akim of the relevant administrative-territorial unit.
At the same time, it was noted that the recognition of ownership of an unauthorized construction in court is an exclusive way to protect the right and cannot be used to avoid the procedures established by law in order to simplify the registration of rights to a newly created real estate object.
Applying to the court for the purpose of legalizing unauthorized constructions is closely related to the category of disputes on claims for the demolition of unauthorized constructions.
Such claims are filed by authorized bodies in the field of urban planning control or by persons whose rights are violated by unauthorized construction objects, and when it is impossible to bring the building in line with the established requirements.
Thus, along with claims for the recognition of ownership of an unauthorized construction, claims for the demolition of buildings are one of the types of protection of a violated or disputed right.
Circle of persons participating in the case.
Claims for the recognition of ownership of an unauthorized construction are considered by the courts in the course of action proceedings and are brought against the local executive body. The defendant in such cases should be the akims of the relevant administrative-territorial unit heading the local executive body. Depending on the category of the dispute, such claims may be brought against the owner of the land plot or against the developer (the person who erected the unauthorized construction)
It should be borne in mind that if an unauthorized construction was created by contractors, the defendant will be the customer as the person on whose instructions the unauthorized construction was carried out.
In each specific case, the composition of third parties, whose participation is necessary for the correct resolution of the case, is determined by the court by the content of the subject and grounds of the plaintiff's claims, the defendant's objections and the applicable laws.
It should be borne in mind that the decision made in the case may affect the scope of the rights and obligations of these persons.
Replacement of an improper defendant is permissible at the request of the plaintiff himself, any other participant in the process, or at the initiative of the court, but such replacement is possible only with the consent of the plaintiff.
Paragraph 11 of the regulatory resolution "On Certain Issues of Resolving Disputes Related to the Protection of Ownership of Housing" clarifies that a claim for the recognition of ownership of an unauthorized housing is filed against a local executive body.
The plaintiffs are basically correctly indicated as the defendant, and at the same time there are claims when claims for recognition of the right to unauthorized construction by the plaintiff are made against an improper defendant.
Article 50 of the Civil Procedure Code provides that in the event of filing a claim against an improper defendant, the court, in order to prepare the case for trial, shall explain to the plaintiff his right to file an application for the replacement of the improper defendant with an appropriate one.
Replacement of an improper defendant is permissible at the request of the plaintiff himself, any other participant in the process, or at the initiative of the court, but such replacement is possible only with the consent of the plaintiff.
Jurisdiction
In accordance with Part 1 of Article 31 of the Civil Procedure Code, claims for rights to land plots, buildings, premises, structures, other objects firmly connected with the land (real estate) and others are filed at the location of these objects.
That is, disputes related to the recognition of ownership of an unauthorized construction are considered at the place of territorial location of the disputed real estate. If one of the parties to the case is a citizen, then such claims are considered by district courts.
In cases where the parties to the case are individuals carrying out individual entrepreneurial activity without forming a legal entity, and legal entities, the claim is subject to the jurisdiction of specialized economic courts in accordance with Part 1 of Article 27 of the Civil Procedure Code.
When determining the jurisdiction of cases related to the application of the provisions of Article 244 of the Civil Code, the courts must take into account the subject composition of the parties to the dispute and the nature of legal relations in their totality.
In order to become the object of relations regulated by Article 244 of the Civil Code, the construction made by a person must be unauthorized.
When accepting a claim for the recognition of ownership of an unauthorized non-residential premises, as well as a claim of an authorized body for the demolition of such a structure, questions of jurisdiction often arise, when the plaintiffs in the first case or the defendants in the second case are individuals who are not registered as an individual entrepreneur, but the disputed real estate object is used or will be used for the purposes of entrepreneurial activity.
Thus, in the absence of state registration of an individual as an individual entrepreneur, a dispute with his participation is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of general jurisdiction.
The fact that the subject of the claim is an industrial premises that can be used for business activities does not affect the jurisdiction of the dispute, since the law does not restrict the rights of individuals to own any property, including non-residential/industrial premises.
Thus, under the above circumstances, there are no grounds for refusing to accept for consideration by the court of general jurisdiction a claim for recognition of ownership or demolition of such an unauthorized construction.
State duty
In accordance with Article 607 of the Tax Code, the state duty is a mandatory payment charged for the performance of legally significant actions and (or) the issuance of documents by authorized state bodies or officials.
By virtue of Article 149 of the Civil Procedure Code, a document confirming the payment of the state duty is attached to the statement of claim.
Subparagraph 11) of Part 1 of Article 104 of the Civil Procedure Code stipulates that in claims for the right of ownership of immovable property, the amount of the claim is determined by the market value of such objects in the places of their location on the day of filing the claim.
Civil law disputes on the right of ownership to unauthorized constructions are related to property claims, respectively, subject to assessment. The disputed object is material and has a value in monetary terms, therefore, its price is determined by market value.
In accordance with sub-paragraph 1) of paragraph 1 of Article 610 of the Tax Code, unless otherwise provided by this paragraph, the state duty is charged on statements of claim of a property nature: from individuals - 1 percent, from legal entities - 3 percent of the amount of the claim.
The state duty when filing a claim for the recognition of ownership of an unauthorized construction is subject to payment based on the value of the property with the attachment to the application of documents on its market value (appraisal report, information statements on the market value of real estate).
The rules of Part 1 of Article 109 of the Civil Procedure Code on the distribution of legal costs with their award to the party in whose favor the decision was made, do not apply to the category of cases on claims filed against the local executive body for the recognition of ownership of an unauthorized construction, and the courts should not recover from local executive bodies in favor of the plaintiffs the costs of payment of the state duty.
It should be assumed that the plaintiff has chosen judicial protection of his rights, while the defendant in such cases does not violate the material rights of the plaintiff.
Earlier, the Supreme Court gave clarifications on this issue, including in the regulatory resolution "On the application by the courts of the Republic of Kazakhstan of the legislation on legal costs in civil cases".
These clarifications are reflected in the generalizations of the regions, which may indicate their widespread use in judicial practice and the absence of difficulties for the courts in this matter.
At the same time, there are cases when the courts accepted claims for proceedings and considered cases without assessing the market value of the real estate object or in the presence of only the title page of the real estate valuation report, while its research part, containing approaches and methods, description, technical and design characteristics and other information about the object of research was absent in the case materials.
The absence of a document confirming the market value of the erected object prevents the determination of the amount of the state duty to be paid when filing a claim.
Regulatory framework
The main regulatory legal acts governing the recognition of the right to unauthorized construction and subject to application in the consideration of cases of this category are:
- Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan; - Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (hereinafter referred to as the Civil Code); - Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (hereinafter referred to as the CPC);
- Land Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (hereinafter referred to as the Land Code);
- The Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On Architectural, Urban Planning and Construction Activities in the Republic of Kazakhstan" (hereinafter referred to as the Law on Architecture);
- the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On Local Government in the Republic of Kazakhstan" (hereinafter referred to as the Law on Local Government);
- Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan on Administrative Offenses (hereinafter referred to as the Code of Administrative Offenses);
- Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On Taxes and Other Obligatory Payments to the Budget" (Tax Code) (hereinafter referred to as the Tax Code);
- Regulatory Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On Certain Issues of Application of Legislation on the Right of Ownership of Housing" dated July 9, 1999 No. 10 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulatory Resolution "On Certain Issues of Application of Legislation on the Right of Ownership of Housing");
- Regulatory Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On Certain Issues of Resolving Disputes Related to the Protection of Ownership of Housing" dated July 16, 2007 No5 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulatory Resolution "On Certain Issues of Resolving Disputes Related to the Protection of Ownership of Housing");
- Regulatory Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On Certain Issues of Application of Land Legislation by the Courts" dated July 16, 2007 No 6 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulatory Resolution "On Certain Issues of Application of Land Legislation by the Courts");
- Regulatory Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On the Application by the Courts of the Republic of Kazakhstan of the Legislation on Legal Costs in Civil Cases" dated December 25, 2006 No. 9 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulatory Resolution "On the Application by the Courts of the Republic of Kazakhstan of the Legislation on Legal Costs in Civil Cases");
- Regulatory Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On Certain Issues of Application of Inheritance Legislation by Courts" dated June 29, 2009 No5 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulatory Resolution "On Certain Issues of Application of Inheritance Legislation by Courts");
- Rules for the organization of development and passing licensing procedures in the field of construction, approved by the Order of the Minister of National Economy of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated November 30, 2015 No750 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules for the organization of development)
- SNiP of the Republic of Kazakhstan, regulating relations in the field of architecture, urban planning and construction. When considering disputes, regulatory legal acts in force at the time of the emergence of the relevant legal relations are subject to application.
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
