Amendments to the Housing Code of the Republic of Belarus concerning the eviction of citizens

The Law of the Republic of Belarus of 04.05.2019 "On Amendments to Laws on Legal Regulation of Housing Relations" introduced a number of changes to the Housing Code of the Republic of Belarus of 2012, including those concerning the eviction of citizens from residential premises.

Paragraph 3 of Article 89 of the Housing Code includes a provision stipulating that adult family members of a residential premises owner, living together with him and not having a share in the common ownership of this residential premises, former family members of a privatized residential premises owner, who lived together with him at the time of privatization but did not participate in privatization, as well as members, former members of the family of a residential premises owner, which was built (reconstructed) or acquired with state support provided to the owner, whose family included these members, former family members, are subject to eviction at the owner's request to another residential premises owned by them or the owner in the given locality and meeting the sanitary and technical requirements established for residence.

The new legislation is applied in appellate practice.

Thus, A. appealed to the court with a claim against E., in which he asked to remove obstacles to the use of the apartment by evicting him.

E., in her counterclaim, asked to evict A. from the apartment to a residential premises acquired into ownership, which meets the sanitary and technical requirements established for residence.

By the decision of the district court, obstacles to the use of the disputed apartment were removed, and A. was evicted there. The claims for eviction with the provision of another residential premises were denied.

From the case materials, it followed that A. has been registered in the disputed apartment for more than twenty years, has not lived there for eighteen years and did not live there during the privatization period, and his personal belongings and other items are not in the apartment.

Granting A.'s claims and denying E.'s claim, the court pointed out that A. has been registered in the disputed residential premises for a long time and, according to the privatization agreement, he

the right of ownership and use was retained, in connection with which he is subject to eviction, and E.'s claims for eviction with the provision of another residential premises to A. on the grounds of para. 3 of Art. 95 of the Housing Code are not subject to satisfaction, since the disputed residential premises are privatized.

The Judicial Chamber for Civil Cases of the Vitebsk Regional Court disagreed with the conclusions of the court of first instance and indicated that the payment under the privatization agreement and payment of utility bills is made by E.

A. did not provide evidence of incurring these expenses, did not participate in the improvement of these premises. E. stated in the courts of first and appellate instance about the impossibility of living with A. in the same residential premises due to his lifestyle, consumption of alcoholic beverages and commission of administrative offenses, the presence of adjacent living rooms in the disputed residential premises, and the residence of a minor daughter therein. In addition, she pointed out that despite the long period of the plaintiff not living in the disputed residential premises at the time of privatization and afterwards, she did not raise the issue of losing his right of use, wishing to resolve the situation voluntarily.

E. was offered an apartment by A. for residence, which she rented and paid for. However, A. refused to live in it without stating reasons. Subsequently, E. acquired a one-room apartment in this same settlement as her property under a sale and purchase agreement, which meets the established sanitary and technical requirements for residence.

Under the specified circumstances, taking into account that A. does not have a share in the right of common ownership of the disputed residential premises, the impossibility of the parties living in the same residential premises, the interests of the minor child, and the owner having another residential premises that meets the established sanitary and technical requirements for residence, the judicial chamber concluded that there are legal grounds for evicting A. from the disputed residential premises at the request of the owner E. to another residential premises owned by her.

A new decision was made in the case,which A. in a lawsuit against E. for the removal of obstacles to the right to use residential premises was denied. E.'s claims were satisfied.

Deputy Head of the Department for Supervision of Legality of Judicial Decisions in Civil Cases
of the Regional Prosecutor's Office
Alla Sashcheko