Housing Code of Russian Federation is not necessary

Life has shown the real importance of valid housing laws, instead of simply declaredguarantees of its realization. Destruction of socialist system of economy and legislation occurred in a historically short time. Housinglaw decayed from 1990 (the Law on property in the USSR) till 1994 when the project of a new Housing Code was published, and Part Iof the Civil Code of the Russian Federation was introduced. Art. 212-213 of the Civil Code stated, ''The Russian Federation recognisesprivate, state, municipal and other forms of property. The amount and cost of property owned by citizens and legal bodies is notlimited…''. Introduction of the new Housing Code since March 1, 2005 has caused mass protest actions under slogans ''Down with theAntisocial code'', Anti-housing, Anti-national, etc. Such a reaction should have been anticipated, during the Code concept discussion,but it did not happen and, as a result, the new Housing Code was a strong social irritant. The wording of the Code was very careful(Article 1), still it became obvious that the state shifted off the control over the most essential right of citizens. Real guarantees of aconstitutional right to dwelling, listed in Article 1 of the Housing Code of the RSFSR disappeared, too. Some of the guarantees, as amatter of fact, contrasted into obstacles and restrictions. At present, there are no high rates of development of state and public housingfund based on State Planning, no fair distribution of dwelling under public control. The former guarantee of the low rent and utilitiespayment seems a mockery. Experts criticise the structure and content of the current Housing Code. Claims to the authors of the projectare caused by two circumstances: first, ignoring certain important conclusions of the Soviet science on housing law, and, second,aspiration to react to the problematic issues of practice with a substantially political character. The quality of regulatory material in thecurrent Housing Code of the Russian Federation is not efficient, as it is abundant in norms of different branches of law, duplicatingthem. There is an impression that the authors of the project included the positions about payment for premises and utilities (Articles153-160), about powers, state control, and others in the Code, on purpose, somehow to neutralize the negative effect of the basic thesis:the state will not grant dwelling.

Keywords

Authors

References