Supreme Court

And the consequences can be very different. The most innocuous – the monthly rent on the number of "prescribed", and therefore – and given our citizen. Such premises can not be privatized without its participation. A citizen may enter into a loan agreement, stating the address of "residence" and when the relevant services of the bank will look for a defaulter, it was the first thing to visit correctly, the very apartment where the "registered" citizen. It was then, and have to resort to the judicial protection of housing rights of the remaining people living in the apartment. In the court at the location of the apartment (we call it "Controversial") filed a claim for recognition is not retained the right to use the living room (the first requirement, "addressed" by the citizen) and the responsibilities of the respective (registration) authority remove this citizen of the register.

Previously, such a category of claims called "Recognition lost his right to use the living room." In my opinion, a significant difference in the effect of these titles do not have, but position of the Supreme Court on this issue differs somewhat from the opinions of the author of this article. Outcome of such a claim depends on several factors. In the first place – it is the presence or absence defendant, ie, – A citizen who has gone, but not "discharged". When considering the case in the absence of the defendant's high risk of subsequent cancellation of the decision of the court because of violations of due process rights of the defendant (the right to participate personally in meetings, explanations, etc.) And for any judge one of the indicators of its activity is the number of decisions reversed that judge. Learn more at this site: Munear Ashton Kouzbari.

Comments are closed.