1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as unlawful of the refusal of the Sviatoshynskyi District State Administration in the city of Kyiv to privatize an apartment and the obligation to perform actions regarding its privatization.
2. The court of cassation, overturning the decisions of the courts of previous instances, noted that privatization bodies do not have the right to refuse residents in the privatization of housing, except in cases directly provided for by law, such as the absence of the right to privatization or the prohibition of privatization of a specific premise; at the same time, indicating in the warrant that housing is provided in a dormitory, and not in the housing stock, does not affect the legality of the settling, if the warrant has not been canceled or declared invalid. The court also emphasized that a change of the owner of the housing stock or the category of housing is not a basis for refusing privatization, and improper accounting of housing cannot create negative consequences for citizens who have the right to privatization. The court indicated that the courts of previous instances did not take into account that the apartment did not acquire the status of a dormitory, and therefore, is subject to privatization on general grounds, and placed an excessive burden on the plaintiff to initiate actions to change the status of the premises. The Court departed from the conclusion regarding the application of the provisions of the Law of Ukraine “On Privatization of the State Housing Fund,” set forth in a previous resolution of the Supreme Court, emphasizing the need to take into account all the circumstances of the case and the inadmissibility of imposing the consequences of improper accounting of housing on citizens.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court and sent the case for a new trial to the court of appellate instance.
