In 2018, Murmansk, convicted to deprivation of liberty, asked the court to protect his property. This obligation the court placed on the municipality, but local officials demanded an explanation – what service of housing and communal services housing should be placed under supervision and how to provide it. To resolve this issue in the courts of appeal failed and he was put to the judges of the constitutional court of the Russian Federation.
According to representatives of Murmansk applied in the present case, the approach admits the possibility of ambiguous interpretation of the concept of “measures for the protection of property” and, consequently, their arbitrary application. In addition, the normative acts stipulate what structure should take responsibility for the protection of premises owned by the convicted person, that is, there is legal uncertainty.
the COP with these arguments agreed. The provisions of article 313 of the criminal procedure code of the Russian Federation recognised not corresponding Constitution of the Russian Federation insofar as they do not perpetuate specific measures to protect remaining unattended premises convict, “and do not identify the subjects on which a court may be obliged to adopt such measures, and do not define, for what account of sources of funding for the measures.”
In its decision, the court, in particular, reminded that the Constitution guarantees everyone the right to housing, and therefore the state is obliged to take measures for its preservation, if the individual due to objective reasons, temporarily unable to take care of this issue. The court’s ability to appoint security measures aimed at protecting the interests of the convicted and the exclusion of wasteful treatment of residential premises. At the same time, no Housing, no Criminal-Executive codes, no FZ “On General principles of organization of local self-government in the Russian Federation” does not stipulate the obligation to provide these measures. Thus questioned the effectiveness and the real execution of a judgment, as repeatedly specified the constitutional court, can not testify about the effectiveness of judicial protection.
– the Uncertainty cannot be eliminated through the constitutional-legal interpretation the second part of article 313 code of criminal procedure because it does not allow to identify the will of the Federal legislator regarding the decision about which specific measures for the protection of remaining unattended premises owned by the convict, may be determined by the court, on any subjects they may be required to adopt data protection measures and by what sources of funding are the costs for the execution of these measures – said the COP.
the Federal legislator is tasked to eliminate the detected gap. Up to this point, the obligation to seal residential SIP��absorption and to periodically review its safety entrusted to the municipal authorities, the prohibition of registration in the home will control the interior Ministry, and the inability to deal with secured property – territorial bodies rosreestra. Judicial decisions in regard to administration MO “the City” Murmansk subject to revision.
