1. **Subject Matter of the Dispute:** The plaintiff sought through the court to declare the inaction of the balance holder (the State Audit Service) unlawful and to compel it to initiate the transfer of a service apartment into communal ownership for subsequent privatization.
2. **Court’s Arguments:**
– The Supreme Court emphasized that a claim to declare inaction unlawful is not an independent method of protecting civil rights; therefore, the proceedings in this part are subject to closure.
– The Court noted that an effective method of protecting the right to privatization is a claim for the direct recognition of the right to privatization, rather than compelling a body to perform preparatory actions (initiating the transfer).
– The case must establish the proper scope of defendants, which must include all subjects responsible for the legal status of the property (the owner, the balance holder, and the local self-government body).
– The Court emphasized that formal refusals by authorities to transfer housing cannot deprive a citizen of their constitutional right to privatization if they meet all statutory requirements.
– At the same time, the Court indicated that the method of protection chosen by the plaintiff (compelling the initiation of the transfer) is ineffective, as it does not lead to a direct result — the privatization of the apartment.
– The Supreme Court in this case departed from previous practice, clearly distinguishing between methods of protection and stating that it is the claim for recognition of the right to privatization that constitutes the appropriate instrument, whereas claims for compelling the “initiation of a transfer” are legally untenable.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court set aside the decisions of the lower courts, closed the proceedings regarding the declaration of inaction as unlawful, and denied the claim to compel the initiation of the apartment transfer, while explaining to the plaintiff the right to file a proper claim.
