Civil cases arising from housing legal relations concerning the demolition of housing (buildings)

Housing according to the Law "On Housing Relations" is recognized as a separate residential unit (an individual apartment building, apartment, dormitory room), intended and used for permanent residence, meeting established sanitary-epidemiological, technical and other mandatory requirements.

In accordance with paragraph 1 of Article 6 of the CPC, when resolving cases in civil proceedings, the court must strictly comply with the requirements of the Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan, this Code, and other regulatory legal acts.

By the decision of the Zyryanovsky District Court of the East Kazakhstan region dated 04.09.2015, the claim of Mitrofanova Nadezhda Mikhailovna to Inna Nikolaevna Kiseleva for the elimination of violated rights by vacating the adjacent territory to the house in accordance with the technical regulations "General requirements for fire safety" was dismissed.

Leaving the claim without satisfaction, the court was based on the fact that, by virtue of Article 188 of the Civil Code, the right of ownership is the right of a subject recognized and protected by legislative acts to own, use and dispose of his property at his discretion.

The plaintiff's rights in the case were not violated, as the defendant's canopy was located on a plot of land owned by the defendant on the basis of a land deed. And there were only violations of fire safety standards by the defendant, for which administrative liability and other measures are provided.

During the trial, from the explanations of the plaintiff and the defendant, the written evidence provided, as well as at an on-site court hearing, the court established that the plaintiff's apartment building and the defendant's canopy were located on the boundary of the parties' land. The defendant was brought to administrative responsibility for violating fire safety standards.

The State Institution "Department of Emergency Situations of the Zyryanovsky district of the East Kazakhstan region of the Ministry of Emergency Situations of the Republic of Kazakhstan" issued an order to eliminate violations dated 05.11.2014, this order was not executed by the defendant, no measures were taken. From the land management project with the definition of the boundaries of the land plot dated 04.09.2015 and the explanation of the specialist of the Department of Land Relations S.V. Okhremenko, it follows that the plaintiff's apartment building is located on the boundary of the land plot.

According to Article 264 of the Civil Code, the owner has the right to demand the elimination of any violations of his right, even if these violations were not connected with the deprivation of possession.

In accordance with clause 8), clause 1, Article 65 of the Land Code, land owners and land users are required not to violate the rights of other owners and land users. The plaintiff's arguments that the defendant is obliged to eliminate the violation of his right by vacating the adjacent territory to his apartment building in accordance with the Technical Regulations "General Requirements for Fire Safety" were declared untenable by the court, since during the court session, according to the land management project defining the boundaries of the land plot dated 09/04/2015, it was established that the defendant's built canopy was not located on the adjacent territory of the plaintiff's apartment building, and on the land owned by the defendant, in this regard, the court considered the plaintiff's claims of violation of his rights to be unjustified.

Regarding the violations of the technical regulations "General requirements for fire safety" established by the defendant, the court considers that these violations should be eliminated by the defendant in accordance with the legislation on fire safety and administrative responsibility.

When considering the dispute, the court concluded that violations of the technical regulations "General requirements for fire safety" by the defendant, in itself, cannot be the basis for the satisfaction of the claim, if the plaintiff's rights are not violated. To eliminate the violation of the plaintiff's rights, it is necessary to establish a violation of building codes and regulations that led to the violation of his rights.

During the court session, the court did not establish any violations of the plaintiff's rights during the construction of the canopy by the defendant, since, as indicated, the plaintiff's apartment building and the defendant's canopy are located on the boundary boundary of the parties' land.

We believe that when people build neighboring plots, the issue of demolishing such buildings can be resolved provided there is a threat to security, access and lighting violations, and other violations that directly harm the interests of another owner.

The plaintiff's claims for the demolition of an illegally erected building erected on a land plot on which the defendant's title documents have become invalid.

On July 09, 2015, the Talgar District Court of the Almaty region considered a case on the claim of Bayserke-Agro LLP against Tazhibayev Eldar Eldaniz-ogly, a third person, the akim of Panfilovsky rural district, for the demolition of an illegally erected building.

The plaintiff, Bayserke-Agro LLP, filed a lawsuit with the court, arguing that, based on the decision of the akim of the Talgar district dated 05/18/2009 and the purchase and sale agreement dated 06/19/2009 No. 199, Bayserke-Agro LLP is the owner of land plots with a total area of 3583.76 hectares. On 08/18/2014, the akim of Panfilovsky Rural District ordered No. 297 secured the land plot of 0.0700 hectares belonging to the plaintiff for E.E. Tazhibaev, thereby violating the rights of Bayserke-Agro LLP.

As a result of the written statements of Bayserke-Agro LLP, the resolution on the initiation of a criminal case dated 19.10.2014, the Akim of the Panfilovsky rural district on 22.09.2014 canceled his order on the transfer of the land plot to E.E. Tazhibaev. based on the order of Akim of Panfilovsky rural district No. 297 dated 08/18/2014, without registration of the relevant documents, he began construction of a residential building in the grain field of the farm, the purpose of this land plot is agricultural land, and the construction of the house prevents the owner from using the land plot according to its intended purpose.

Under such circumstances, by a decision of the Talgar District Court of the Almaty region dated 07/09/2015, the court ordered E.E. Tazhibayev to demolish at his own expense an apartment building erected on a plot of land owned by Bayserke-Agro LLP, located inKyzyl-Tu 4 on Molodezhnaya St., 104.

When considering disputes over claims for the demolition of housing and other buildings, the courts need to clarify the following issues: The reliability of the fact that the defendant violated the rights and interests of the plaintiff. To do this, it is necessary, first of all, to establish whether the plaintiff has any property rights or other legitimate legitimate interest.

Confirmation of the fact of violation of the plaintiff's rights may be the construction by another person of buildings in violation of the boundaries of the land plot or the construction of buildings in gross violation of construction standards.

The plaintiff's claims regarding the defendant's obligation to carry out the transfer of a part of the building wall were rejected

Based on part 2 of Article 68 of the CPC RK. District Court No. 2 of the Kazybekbiysky district of Karaganda on 04/22/2015 ruled to dismiss the claim of Ilyas Mirgaziyanovich Galyamov to Dey Regina Klimentievna to oblige the transfer of part of the wall of the Urartu restaurant building.

The court found that the plaintiff, Galyamov I.M., under a land purchase and sale agreement dated 07/23/2014, acquired from Planer LLP the right of private ownership of a divisible land plot with an area of 0.0068 hectares, with the following purpose: construction and further operation of a shopping mall with a guest parking lot, construction and further operation of a residential center building located at Karaganda, Kazybekbi district, S.Seifullin avenue, uch.21, cadastral number 09-142-158-1561.

After the acquisition of the land plot, the plaintiff became aware that part of the Urartu restaurant building, owned by the defendant, Day R.K., is located on the plaintiff's land plot with an area of 0.0068 hectares. This circumstance was not disputed by the parties and was established during the control measurement. The plaintiff asked to oblige the defendant to move part of the wall of the Urartu restaurant building from the land he occupies. However, the court did not agree with the plaintiff's claim on the following grounds.

From the requested materials of the cadastral file, as well as credit dossiers in the name of Mikoyan K.V., Day R.K., inventory file for the building of the restaurant "Urartu" (formerly cafe "National dishes", it follows that the construction of the building of the restaurant "Urartu" was preceded by the construction of a cafe.

Further, the disputed object of the defendant belonged to Mikoyan R.K., who acquired land plots with an area of 0.0557 hectares cadastral No. 09-142- 158-287 with the intended purpose: operation of the building of the cafe "National Dishes", as well as the right of temporary long-term land use for a divisible land plot with an area of 0.0720 hectares cadastral No. 09-142-158- 288 for building maintenance and landscaping in the area to them. Kazybekbi on the ave. Sakena, 7, located in Karaganda, Kazybekbi district, S.Seifullin ave., 7 (formerly ave. Sakena, 7). The unfinished cafe "National Dishes", according to the land plot plan reflected in the Act on Ownership of the land plot dated 08/12/2002 and the decision card on urban planning and land management dated 05/29/2002, was located within the boundaries of the land plan cadastral No. 09-142-158-287 with an area of 0.0557 hectares and cadastral No. 09-142-158-288 with an area of 0.0720 hectares. Mikoyan K.V. Permission was obtained from the Territorial Administration of Architectural and Construction Control and Licensing of the Karaganda region No.145 dated 07/30/2002 for the reconstruction of a cafe with a summer playground in accordance with the architectural design of the Urartu restaurant.

It follows that the Urartu restaurant fully complies with the architectural design of 2002. For the construction of an extension and additional premises to the existing cafe building, Mikoyan R. acquired a land plot with an area of 0.0346 hectares, cadastral number 09- 142-158370, which is confirmed by the act of private ownership of the land plot No. 23335 dated 29.10.2003.

This circumstance was confirmed at the court hearing by explanations from specialists of the Karaganda branch of NPCEM, the Emergency Department of the Karaganda region and the State Institution "Department of Architecture and Urban Planning of the city of Karaganda".

Based on the plans of the land plots cadastral No. 09-142-158-287 with an area of 0.0557 ha, cadastral No. 09-142-158-288 with an area of 0.0720 ha and cadastral No. 09-142-158-370 with an area of 0.0346 ha and their intended purpose, the construction of an extension with an additional room was carried out from the back of the Urartu restaurant. Therefore, the exit of the restaurant building to the land currently owned by Galyamov (formerly Planer LLP) is excluded, since the cadastral land plot No. 09-142-158-370 with an area of 0.0346 ha is located behind the cadastral land plots No. 09-142-158-287 with an area of 0.0557 ha and No. 09142- 158-288 with an area of 0.0720ha.

Upon completion of reconstruction and construction, the Urartu Restaurant was put into operation on 25.08.2004 on the basis of the Act of the State Acceptance Commission on the commissioning of the completed facility. The act of the state acceptance Commission on the commissioning of the completed construction of the Restaurant Urartu facility with an area of 1,417.6 square meters was approved by the Orders of the Akim of the city. Karaganda No. 368-r dated 08/27/2004 and No. 494-r dated 10/26/2004 and registered with the authorized state registration authority for No.04/40533 dated 12/08/2004 cadastral No. 09-142-158-370-1.

According to the Certificate of acceptance of the facility into operation by the owner of the building dated 03/14/2007, the existing building of the Urartu restaurant was dismantled with plasterboard partitions.

The specified Act was also registered with the authorized state registration authority dated 16.03.2007 for cadastral No. 09-142158-370- 1. During the consideration of this case, the court found that the boundaries of the land plots were cadastral No. 09-142158-370 with an area of 0.0346 hectares, cadastral No. 09-142-158-287 with an area of 0.0557 hectares and No. 09-142158-288 with an area of 0.0720 hectares. They comply with state acts on the right of private ownership of land, and when issuing state acts, the order of the land management process was observed, which is confirmed by the materials of the cadastral case.

In accordance with paragraph 8 of the Regulatory Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 07/16/2007 No. 6 "On certain issues of the application of land legislation by courts", when resolving a dispute over the emergence of ownership rights to the same land plot from two or more owners (land users), as well as violations of the boundaries of adjacent land plots, courts should take into account attention to the requirements established by Article 43 of the Land Code.

According to paragraph 10 of Article 43 of the Land Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, the use of a land plot before its boundaries are established in kind and the territorial land management authority issues documents certifying the right to a land plot is not allowed, unless otherwise provided for in the decision of the executive body on the provision of land. A similar requirement was contained in the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated January 24, 2001 No. 152-N "On Land" (paragraph 9 of Article 34), which was in force during the period of registration of rights to the above-mentioned land plots for Mikoyan K.V., Mikoyan R.K. Considering the above and taking into account the title and identification documents, as well as the materials of the cadastral case of the land plots belonging to Mikoyan R.K., and currently Day R., it is obvious that the restaurant "Urartu", and previously the cafe "National Dishes" was located and is located within the boundaries of the allotted land for a long period of time.

Also, the cafe "National Dishes" previously belonged to the Ministry of Emergency Situations "Aragats", which is confirmed by the Act of Acceptance and Transfer dated 09/10/2001, to which is attached the plan of the cafe "National Dishes" dated May 1997, which has not significantly changed from the actual plan of the restaurant "Urartu".

The title, technical and identification documents for the Urartu restaurant with the land plots adjacent to it refuted the plaintiff's arguments about the location of the restaurant on its land plot cadastral No. 09-142-1581561. The plaintiff's arguments that the acts of measuring the land plot indicate the self-seizure of the plaintiff's land plot are inconsistent with the documents on the allotment and provision of land, as well as with documents for the construction and commissioning of the state acceptance commission of the restaurant "Urartu".

In addition, measurements of the land plot were carried out narrowly without simultaneous measurements of land plots belonging to Dey R.K., Planer LLP and Galyamov I.M. and without comparing the information obtained with title and identification documents and materials of cadastral affairs.

Moreover, in order to obtain an objective result, it is necessary to take into account the method and method of measurements, as well as the technical means used in the initial allocation of land boundaries to former owners in relation to the measurement referred to by the plaintiff conducted in 2014 without involving the Bank as an interested party whose rights and interests as a creditor and mortgagee are directly affected.

The court declared untenable the plaintiff's reference to the fact that the filing of a claim against Day R.K. complies with the requirements of the legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan, since Day R.K. did not carry out the construction of the restaurant building, did not put it into operation and did not approve the relevant documents, i.e. she acquired real estate registered with the authorized registration authority, erected on the site designated for these purposes land plots in accordance with the procedure established by law.

At the time of the transaction, the restaurant building had already been built, and all documents confirming the seller's right to both the building itself and the land plots being sold were executed in accordance with the procedure established by law. After acquiring the disputed property since 2007, Day R.K. openly and conscientiously uses it, pays taxes.

The restaurant building was not completed after the acquisition, and it is located on the land plot within the limits that it was acquired by Day R.K. These circumstances were established by the effective decision of the district court no.2 Kazybekbiysky district of Karaganda dated 10.27.2014 in the case of the claim of Galyamov I.M. to Dey R.K. for the recovery of property from someone else's illegal possession. According to the Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan, the circumstances established by a court decision that entered into force in a previously considered civil case are binding on the court and are not proven again in other civil cases involving the same persons.

Taking into account the case materials, Part 2 of Article 71 of the CPC, the court found the plaintiff's arguments not proven and dismissed the claims. It is important when considering disputes about the demolition of housing and buildings to clarify such circumstances as the ownership of the land, including the disputed structure, and compliance by the defendant with the boundaries of his land during construction.

If the defendant erected a structure within the boundaries of his land plot, the satisfaction of the demolition requirement may be unjustified.

At the same time, there are disputes about the demolition of buildings erected on a plot of land, placed with initially incorrect coordinates on someone else's territory (overlay). In this case, the courts need to find out in relation to which land plot (plaintiff or defendant) an error was made in the coordinates of the location.

If there are "overlays" of the boundaries of the land plots, the satisfaction of the plaintiff's claims for the demolition of the building without revoking the defendant's title documents will be unjustified.

             In accordance with article 40 of the Law "On Housing Relations", the alteration of premises by the owner, including redevelopment and re-equipment related to the production of works that threaten or worsen the common property, is prohibited.

             The District court No. 2 of the Kazybekbi district of Karaganda, by a decision dated 18.03.2015, satisfied the claim of Arndt Eduard Alexandrovich to Tezekbayeva Aigerim Kairatovna for the removal of obstacles in the use of a common corridor.

On the basis of the apartment purchase and sale agreement dated 12/15/2000, Arndt E.A. is the owner of the apartment located at the address: Karaganda, Mr. Gulder 1, house 14, apartment 76.

On the basis of the apartment purchase and sale agreement dated 02.12.2014, A.K. Tezekbayeva is the owner of the neighboring apartment 77. According to Article 4 of the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On Housing Relations", when changing (re-equipment, redevelopment) of premises (apartments), the mandatory written consent of at least two thirds of the total number of owners of premises (apartments) of a residential building is required in the following cases: changes affect load-bearing structures; changes affect common property.

According to paragraphs 2, 3 of Article 41 of the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On Housing Relations", the boundaries between neighboring (adjacent) premises can be changed by mutual agreement of the owners of these premises. The boundaries between the premises and the common property can be changed only with the consent of the other owners and the management body of the condominium facility.

As it was established at the hearing and was not denied by the defendant, the defendant, in violation of the requirements of the housing legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan, without obtaining the consent of other owners of the condominium and the management body of the condominium facility, built a vestibule with the seizure of the common corridor of the apartment building by 1 meter 48 cm.

According to the technical passport and explanations of the representative of the head of the department of the Karaganda regional branch of the RSE on the right of economic management "Center for Real Estate of the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Kazakhstan", the area of the built vestibule is not included in the area of the defendant's apartment.

Thus, the court, satisfying the plaintiff's claims, justified the defendant's lack of consent from other owners of the condominium and the management body of the condominium facility for the construction of a vestibule with the seizure of a common corridor of an apartment building by 1 meter 48 cm.

The right of ownership and the right of land use are protected in accordance with the procedure provided for by the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan and other legislative acts of the Republic of Kazakhstan. The owner of a land plot or a land user has the right to claim his land plot from someone else's illegal possession.

             By the decision of the Abai District Court of Shymkent, South Kazakhstan region, dated 04/02/2015, the claim of SHUGYLA PROJECT LLP to A.N. Yusupov was satisfied on the obligation to vacate the land and demolish at his own expense a residential building built on the land.

The plaintiff, SHUGYLA PROJECT LLP, filed a lawsuit against the defendant, A.N. Yusupov, for the obligation to vacate an illegally occupied land plot and demolish at his own expense a residential building built on the land plot, cadastral number No. 19-309-072-3956, located in Shymkent, MD.Samal-2, building 2169/1.

SHUGYLA PROJECT LLP indicated that it had acquired ownership of a land plot cadastral number No. 19-309- 072-3956, but could not use the land plot belonging to it, as it had a residential building.

Earlier, by the decision of the Alfarabiysky District Court of Shymkent dated 03/06/2013 and an additional decision dated 07/22/2013, the title documents for the land plot previously issued in the name of the defendant were canceled in full.

Accordingly, the plaintiff believed that the building erected by the defendant was illegal and, by virtue of the norms of law, was subject to demolition at the expense of the defendant.

By the decision of the Al-Farabi District Court of Shymkent dated 06.03.2013, the claims of SHUGYLA PROJECT LLP against A.N. Yusupov and others on invalidation of the decisions of the Akim of Shymkent, the decisions of the commission on the legalization of real estate, purchase and sale agreements and their state registration have been satisfied.

During the consideration of this case, it was reliably established that a land plot measuring 0.0800 hectares, cadastral number No. 19-309-072-1941, owned by A.N. Yusupov on the basis of a purchase and sale agreement, was overlaid on the plaintiff's plot with the entire area.

By an additional decision of the same court dated July 22, 2013, the court decided to invalidate and cancel the resolution of the Akimat of Shymkent No. 335 dated July 09, 2006 regarding the allocation of a land plot for individual housing construction with an area of 0.0800 hectares to Dildabaev A.N. cadastral number (19-309-072-1941), as well as to cancel the state registration.

The act on the right of private ownership of the land plot No. 67583 dated 31.01.2012 in the name of A. Yusupov was declared invalid and cancelled. Their state registration has also been canceled.

Thus, the court reliably established the fact of the defendant's land plots being overlaid on the plaintiff's land plot. Thus, the court decided to invalidate and cancel, as well as cancel their state registration.:

Purchase and sale agreement No. 1-1650 dated 07/08/2010, concluded between Dildabaev A. and Yusupov A., an act on the right of private ownership of a land plot in the name of Yusupov A. The counterclaim of Yusupov A.N. to SHUGYLA PROJECT LLP and others was left without satisfaction. Taking into account the requirements of Articles Parts 1, 2 of Articles 188, 260, Parts 1,2 of Articles 244 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, 164, 164-1 of Part 1 of the Land Code, the court satisfied the claim of SHUGYLA PROJECT LLP in full, deciding to demolish the building as erected on illegally obtained land.

When resolving disputes about the cancellation of title documents and the demolition of buildings, the courts need to establish not only the emergence of the rights of the parties to immovable property, but also the priority of these rights.

At the same time, following the provisions of the law, it is necessary to keep in mind the priority by the date of the initial occurrence of the rights of the parties to the land.

To do this, courts should check the time when the rights of previous owners arose, and demand information from registration and land authorities.

In accordance with Article 118 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, rights to immovable property arise from the moment of their state registration.

             The plaintiff, E.F. Krivosheeva, appealed to the court to the defendant, G.M. Podlobko, with claims that the plaintiff owns a house and a land plot with an area of 0.0456 hectares for the purpose of servicing an apartment building located at 27 Ishim Street, Petropavlovsk, considering that the acquired house is located behind the red line, was built illegally.

The defendant categorically objected to the construction, while she arbitrarily erected a veranda directly adjacent to the plaintiff's land plot.

The plaintiff asked the court to eliminate violations of the law by demolishing an unauthorized building and collecting court costs. By the decision of the Court No. 2 of Petropavlovsk, North Kazakhstan region, dated 05.05.2015, the claim was dismissed.

At the same time, it was established that according to the purchase and sale agreement dated 09/22/2011, the act on the right of private ownership, cadastral number 15- 234-005-164, the owner of the house and land located at 27 Ishimskaya Street is E.F. Krivosheeva. The owner of the neighboring land plot and housing construction located at the address: Petropavlovsk, Ishimskaya St. 25, is Podlobko G.M., which is confirmed by the decree of the Akimat of Petropavlovsk dated 29.10.2010 No. 1555, the act of private ownership of the land plot, cadastral number 15-234-005-435, the act of acceptance of the built facility into operation by the owner independently dated 11.10.2012 and other case materials.

In accordance with paragraph 1 of Article 188 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, the right of ownership is the right of a subject recognized and protected by legislative acts to own, use and dispose of his property at his discretion. In accordance with Articles 12, 13 of the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On Architectural, urban planning and construction activities in the Republic of Kazakhstan", the use of land by owners or land users for development (including laying communications, engineering preparation of the territory, landscaping, landscaping and other types of site arrangement) can only be carried out in accordance with the procedure approved by law. project documentation and compliance with the intended purpose or easement, zoning of the territory, red lines of building regulation, rules of building and operation.

In accordance with clause 7.2 of the SNiP of the Republic of Kazakhstan 3.01-01-2008 "Urban planning" -in areas of estate development, the distances from the windows of residential premises (rooms, kitchens and verandas) to the walls of houses and outbuildings (sheds, garages, baths) located on neighboring land plots should be at least six meters.. At the moment, the distance between the buildings is 1 meter 20 centimeters.

However, the note to the SNiP states (note: it is allowed to block residential buildings, as well as outbuildings on adjacent household plots by mutual agreement of the homeowners).

The plaintiff submitted an application from Kushner A.V., the owner of an apartment building and land plot at 27 Ishim Street, Petropavlovsk, according to which he agrees to G. M. Podlobko to build a new apartment building with outbuildings at 25 Ishim Street, Petropavlovsk, and also agrees that the wall of the house under construction will be be part of a fence between land plots.

The application is dated 17.02.2011. In addition, when buying a house and a land plot, the plaintiff agreed with an already built residential building with a veranda, which at the time of her purchase of the house had already been put into operation, which is confirmed by the act of acceptance of the built facility into operation by the owner independently dated 11.10.2012. This act has not been challenged by anyone.

According to the SNiP of the Republic of Kazakhstan 3.01-01-2008 G. "Urban planning", the distance from the boundary of the plot should be at least: 3 m. – to the wall of an apartment building; 1 m. – to outbuildings (note: it is allowed to block residential buildings, as well as outbuildings on adjacent household plots by mutual agreement of the homeowners).

According to the expert's conclusion, on the north side, the land plot of E.F. Krivosheeva overlaps with the land plot of G.M. Podlobko, the area of the overlay is 0.0006 hectares. On the south side, the land plot of G.M. Podlobko overlaps with the land plot of E.F. Krivosheeva, the area of the overlay is 0.00013 ha.

In accordance with paragraph 5 of Article 8 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, actions of citizens and legal entities aimed at harming another person, abusing the right in other forms, as well as exercising the right in contradiction with its purpose are prohibited.

In case of non-compliance with the requirements provided for in paragraphs 3-5 of this article, the court may refuse to protect the person's right. Thus, the court correctly concluded that the claims were unfounded and could not be satisfied, since no rights of the plaintiff had been violated.

Regulatory legal framework

The main legislative acts regulating relations related to the demolition of housing and outbuildings are:

The Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan,

The Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan,

The Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan,

The Land Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On Architectural, Urban planning and Construction activities in the Republic of Kazakhstan",

The Law "On Individual Housing Construction" No. 213 dated 03.11.1994,

The Law "On State Registration of Rights to immovable Property and transactions with it" No. 310-Sh dated 26.07.2007.

Also, the courts, when resolving cases, are guided by the regulatory rulings of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan - No. 3 dated 04/20/2006 "On the practice of judicial review of disputes on the right to housing abandoned by the owner",

No. 6 dated 07/16/2007 "On some issues of the application of land legislation by courts",

No. 5 dated 07/16/2007 "On some issues of dispute resolution related to the protection of the right of ownership of housing",

No. 9 dated December 25, 2006 "On the application by the courts of the Republic of Kazakhstan of legislation on court costs in civil cases",

and besides that, there are SNIPS regulating technical issues that arise in the process of individual housing construction.

Attention!

      The Law and Law Law Firm draws your attention to the fact that this document is basic and does not always meet the requirements of a specific situation. Our lawyers are ready to assist you in drafting any legal document that suits your situation.

     For more information, please contact a Lawyer/Lawyer by phone; +7 (708) 971-78-58; +7 (700) 978 5755, +7 (700) 978 5085.

 Constitution Law Code Standard Decree Order Decision Resolution Lawyer Almaty Lawyer Legal service Legal advice Civil Criminal Administrative cases Disputes Defense Arbitration Law Company Kazakhstan Law Firm Court Cases