The Supreme Court defended the widow of the colonel, claiming the apartment of the deceased spouse
[ad_1]
Officials refused the lady, arguing that she did not need to improve her living conditions
The mother of two children, the widow of a colonel from Vlasikha, near Moscow, managed to defend the right to housing. To do this, she had to go to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.
As it became known to MK, the housing story began back in October 2007, when the colonel’s family of four, who lived in the closed military town of Odintsovo-10 (as Vlasikha was called until 2009), was allocated two apartments. The fact is that in the town there was no three-ruble note for such a family, so the housing commission of the unit in which the military served decided to allocate one-room and two-room apartments. The father of the family was registered in the odnushka, the wife and children in the dvushka.
In September 2020, the colonel died, and the Vlasikha administration refused to conclude an agreement with the widow for a one-room apartment. The authorities motivated their decision by the provision of the Civil Code, according to which the contract of social housing rental is terminated due to the death of the tenant living alone.
Then the woman, on her behalf and on behalf of the children, appealed to the Odintsovo City Court. In December 2020, the court, pointing out that the apartments were shared by all family members, ruled in favor of the mother with minor children and ordered the administration to conclude a social tenancy agreement with the colonel’s son.
But the story did not end there: already in April 2021, the Moscow Regional Court canceled the court order, agreeing with the arguments of the village administration, while specifying that the family already owns the living space and does not need to improve housing conditions. In September, colleagues were supported in the cassation court. Then the woman filed a cassation appeal to the Supreme Court. Having familiarized themselves with the case materials, the judges found that the colleagues had made a mistake. Therefore, their decisions were canceled, and the verdict of the Odintsovo court remained in force.
[ad_2]
Source link
