Modification of the right to an apartment as part of succession in modern conditions

The author has revealed the peculiarities of inheriting the right to an apartment. It has been substantiated that the right to an apartment can be included into inheritance in various modifications that have different legal nature: the right of ownership as an absolute right in rem; the right to privatization completion initiated by the ancestor during his/her lifetime; rights under a housing’s hire-purchase agreement; the right to compensation for damaged or destroyed housing. The right to privatization completion is included into succession only if a housing tenant applied to the privatization body during his/her lifetime, but due to the death was deprived of the opportunity to get the relevant property as ownership. In this respect, the period during which the housing tenant died from the moment of submitting properly executed documents has no legal bearing. Due to this fact, modern judicial practice is criticized, according to which, the death of the tenant in order to inherit the right to privatization completion must occur after the expiration of the one-month period established by law for the privatization body to make a decision on transferring the apartment to a citizen’s ownership. An apartment is a complex element of the housing sector. Thus, succession of the right of ownership to an apartment is manifested in the inseparable combination of the ancestor’s personal right of ownership to a particular apartment and the right to a share in the common property of an apartment building, as well as the obligation to bear the costs of maintaining the common property. The right to receive compensation for a damaged or destroyed apartment acquires the properties of an inheritance’s element, if the owner of such an apartment has terminated the right to its ownership during his/her lifetime. The essence of the legal structure of receiving compensation for a damaged/destroyed real estate object has public and legal nature and is limited to the state’s implementation of the constitutional guarantee of the inviolability of the right to private property. The provision of such a compensation by the state is not coverage for the damage caused; and the state itself does not acquire the legal status of a debtor.