Today, the list of documents that a real estate seller must collect has been reduced to a minimum. Nevertheless, it is better to prepare these papers, and possibly some other “optional” documents in advance.
BN figured out which papers are mandatory to have on hand, which are desirable, and which are this moment are not required at all.
Everything is as simple as shelling pears
The list of documents that must be submitted to Rosreestr to register the transfer of ownership rights today may consist of only a few items.
List of documents for submission for registration to Rosreestr
Application for registration (its form with tips for filling it out is on the official website of Rosreestr)
- Identity documents of the parties to the transaction (passports)
- Contract of sale of an apartment
- Document confirming payment of the state duty - a bank receipt (by the way, since 2015, the amount of the state duty for individuals who do not have benefits when registering ownership of housing has increased to 2 thousand rubles)
Here, in fact, are all the documents that will be required to register property rights in an “ideal” situation.
However, in reality, such situations are extremely rare, so in the vast majority of cases the seller should take care of obtaining other documents. Some of them will most likely be asked to present the same Rosreestr, which reserves the right to request “other documents that, in cases established by law, are necessary for state registration, including to verify the legality of the transaction.” And the buyer (or his agent) will insist on presenting others.
“The number of documents required by the seller depends on the specifics of the transaction and the property itself. It would take a very long time to list all the papers that might be required in a given situation,” says Ekaterina Romanenko, Chairman of the Board of the St. Petersburg Chamber of Real Estate.
IMPORTANT
In addition to the documents listed on the Rosreestr website, the registrar, at its discretion, may request various other certificates
Do you have the right?
Naturally, first of all, the buyer will be interested in the title documents for the apartment. That is, those on the basis of which the seller received ownership of the object.
Their most common types are purchase and sale agreements, transfer of ownership during privatization, exchange, donation - or inheritance rights. There are also such “exotic” title documents as judgment, if it was as a result that the seller became the owner of the apartment.
Another document that the buyer will probably check is a certificate of registration of ownership in Rosreestr. It is worth considering that Federal Law No. 122 “On the registration of rights to real estate and transactions with it” came into force only in 1998, so a number of owners who acquired their rights before that time (for example, who privatized an apartment earlier) simply do not have such a document will. Moreover, in Rosreestr itself there may be no information about the privatized object.
If the seller has the privatization document in his hands, then there will be no special problems; it is not even necessary to obtain a certificate of registration of the right in advance - the registering authority will issue it to the buyer as the new owner of the apartment. True, in this case, our “ideal” package of documents submitted to Rosreestr will increase by at least one point: it will have to include that same privatization certificate.
The procedure will become significantly more complicated if this document is lost. Then you will have to contact the authorities local government for a duplicate, the processing of which may take a month or more.
IMPORTANT
If a document on privatization that took place before 1998 is lost, then the owner must first begin to restore it
The family doesn't mind
According to the president of the St. Petersburg Chamber of Real Estate, Dmitry Shchegelsky, the seller, who is married or was at the time of taking ownership of the apartment, is required by law to submit, among other documents, to the registration authority the notarized consent of the spouse to sell the property. The form of this document can be found on the website of any notary, and the cost of a notarization today is one thousand rubles.
However, even if the seller has never had a spouse, a visit to the notary still cannot be avoided: Rosreestr will require a certified statement that the seller was not married at the time of obtaining ownership rights.
"By obtaining consent from the present or ex-spouse It's worth taking care of in advance. There are often situations when a deal falls apart precisely because the buyer is not ready to wait for the seller to come to an agreement and execute this document,” notes Dmitry Shchegelsky.
It should be taken into account that the spouse who will issue consent will have to personally appear before the notary with a passport and marriage certificate. The last document is required at this stage - the stamp in the passport will not be taken into account.
The consent of the spouse (or the notarized statement indicated above) is not required only in a few cases: when the apartment was received by inheritance or as a gift and when the sole owner sells the privatized property.
Theoretically, it is not necessary even if the property relations of husband and wife were regulated by a marriage contract, which stated that the rights to the apartment belong to the current seller. In practice, according to experts, even if there is such an agreement, Rosreestr may require that not only this document, but also the notorious consent of the spouse be attached to the package.
If the apartment being sold is partially or fully owned by a minor, then the seller will have to obtain permission from the guardianship and trusteeship authorities of the Moscow Region administration. It can be extremely difficult to draw up this document, and the package of certificates, which in turn can be requested by the POO, sometimes significantly exceeds the volume of all other papers required for the transaction. Requirements vary in different departments of the PLO, so the seller for whom this issue is relevant should first of all pay a visit to the administration of the municipal district and find out in what time frame and under what conditions he can obtain this permit.
IMPORTANT
Obtaining by the seller a notarized consent to sell an apartment from a spouse is now necessary in most transactions
Demanding buyers
“Since today the buyer does not have to waste money, sellers are often forced to put up with the need to collect extra papers, which the other party to the transaction insists on providing,” says Ekaterina Romanenko.
Representatives of Rosreestr never tire of reminding that today, when submitting a package of documents for registration, neither an extract from the Unified State Register of Rights (USRE) nor a cadastral passport are required. But at the same time, buyers will most likely ask the seller for these documents.
Since the end of last year, banks Insurance companies and notaries lost the right to demand an extract from the Unified State Register from clients; now they must receive it themselves.
The relevance of such a document is generally questioned by most experts. The extract contains information about all the owners of the apartment and the encumbrances that apply to the property, however, this information is actually relevant only at the time of the direct receipt of the extract. The document does not give the buyer any guarantees that the seller, for example, did not take out a loan secured by the apartment immediately after receiving the extract.
However, many agents representing the buyer will insist that this statement be shown to them. Obviously, the closer to the day the transaction is concluded, the more relevant the information it contains is.
A cadastral passport is a much more informative document. It contains general technical information about the apartment, thanks to which the buyer can make sure that the object complies with the declared parameters. This document is definitely best to have on hand.
Another passport for the apartment - technical, containing much more full list characteristics of the apartment, according to experts, are rarely required today, so there is no need to order it in advance.
But the seller will probably have to receive an information certificate “On Registration,” the so-called Form No. 9. It contains information about the persons registered in the residential premises.
Vice-President of the St. Petersburg Chamber of Real Estate Nailya Berestovaya warns that if the title document for the apartment is a privatization agreement, then Rosreestr will require form No. 9 to be attached to the package of documents without fail. However, receiving it at the passport office will take very little time, and given that the validity period of the certificate is limited, there is no point in ordering this document in advance.
When visiting the passport office, it would be a good idea to take form No. 12. This document, in particular, contains information about those previously registered. On its basis, the buyer will be able to make sure that a stranger (missing person, serving a sentence in a penitentiary, etc.) who has the legal right to live here will not suddenly appear in the apartment, which has already become his property.
IMPORTANT
Despite the fact that Rosreestr today does not require the provision of an extract from the Unified State Register and a cadastral passport, the buyer of the apartment will most likely want to see these documents
Instead of a resume
Of course, all of the above does not fully reflect the list of securities that may be required for a specific transaction. Thus, according to Ekaterina Romanenko, when purchasing an apartment using a bank loan, the list of documents will significantly expand.
If we are talking about the old stock and dilapidated houses, then a qualified agent will most likely ask the buyer to provide a certificate of the technical condition of the building, which is issued by PIB, notes Dmitry Shchegelsky. The certificate is needed in order to find out the wear rate of the object, the presence of price-reducing factors in the building, such as wooden floors.
“And if the seller is an elderly person, then with a high degree of probability the buyer will ask him to provide a certificate from a psychoneurological dispensary in order to insure himself in case of attempts to declare the transaction invalid due to the incapacity of the counterparty,” says Nailya Berestovaya.
BN Help
An approximate list of documents that are often required by the seller
– Document of title for the apartment (purchase and sale agreement, transfer of ownership during privatization, exchange, donation, etc.)
– Certificate of registration of property rights in Rosreestr
– Notarized consent of the spouse to sell the property or a certified statement that at the time of obtaining ownership rights the seller was not married
– Permission from the guardianship and trusteeship authorities, if the apartment being sold partially or fully belongs to a minor
– Extract from the Unified State Register of Rights (USRP)
– Cadastral passport
– Information certificate “On registration” (form No. 9) and form No. 12
According to experts, if the seller understands that his situation is complicated in some way, then it makes sense to first consult with a specialist who will tell you exactly what documents will be required for the transaction.
By the way, we have started a channel on Telegram, where we publish the most interesting news about real estate and real estate technologies. If you want to be one of the first to read these materials, then subscribe: t.me/ners_news.
Subscribe to updates
Question for a lawyer:
Good afternoon
In 1991 My mother and I privatized an apartment without defining shares, my daughter was 2 years old at that time, she was not among the owners.
How can my daughter use the apartment after us? and is she the owner of it?
if not, how can this situation be corrected now?
Lawyer's answer to the question:
You can give your daughter part of your share. As of 1991, children were not mandatory participants in privatization; changes to the law were made later.
———————————————————————
Lawyer's answer to the question: privatization of the apartment until when
Ekaterina, hello! You were answered incorrectly. And in 1991, the inclusion of children in the transfer agreement was mandatory. It’s just that the law was violated very often (Article 133 of the Code on Marriage and Family, which was in force at that time).
Your daughter can go to court and try to include herself among the co-owners (so that the shares are equal). Or, if there is no dispute, you can give your daughter part of your share (the shares must first be determined by the Agreement).
As for the use of the apartment, “after you” she will inherit the apartment. And she can use it now, since she has the right to unlimited, lifelong use of this apartment, in any case. Since at the time of privatization she was registered (registered) in the apartment.
Sincerely,
Kharchenko O.V.
———————————————————————
Lawyer's answer to the question: privatization of the apartment until when
Relatives of the owner of the residential premises have equal rights and obligations with him. Those. the daughter has full right to use the living space. She is not the owner, because did not participate in privatization, but is a user (if she moved into the apartment as a family member and is registered at the place of residence in this apartment).
If you want to transfer ownership of an apartment or a share in a common property to your daughter, there are several ways to do this (donation, purchase and sale, etc.).
———————————————————————
Will the privatization of apartments be extended until 2018?…
Question for a lawyer:
Will the privatization of apartments be extended until 2018?
Lawyer's answer to the question: privatization of the apartment until when
Judging by the fact that the State Duma has already adopted the extension law in the first reading, privatization will be extended.
———————————————————————
Lawyer's answer to the question: privatization of the apartment until when
At the moment, Gos. The Duma is considering extending privatization until March 1, 2016. Follow the information on the Internet or television.
———————————————————————
What is the difference between apartment privatizations before 1998 and after 1998?...
Question for a lawyer:
Good afternoon Please explain the difference between the privatization of apartments before 1998 and after 1998? And minor children included in the privatization agreement of 1993 and who did not receive a certificate of ownership upon reaching 18 years of age do not have a share in the apartment?
Lawyer's answer to the question: privatization of the apartment until when
Apartments that were privatized in 1998 and later are registered with the Federal Registration Service. The owners of these apartments were issued new certificates of ownership.
Minor children are required to be included in the number of privatization participants after August 1994 due to changes in legislation.
———————————————————————
Lawyer's answer to the question: privatization of the apartment until when
Elena, hello! Almost nothing. At the dawn of privatization, foreign citizens who were permanently registered in residential premises, as well as stateless persons, could take part in it, since the very first edition did not indicate that only citizens of the Russian Federation could participate in it.
As for minors, my colleague is wrong. Their participation was always mandatory. Non-participation is only with the permission of the guardianship and trusteeship authorities. This provision of the law was simply ignored.
It’s not very clear why you are talking specifically about 1998. BEFORE 1998 state. Registration of contracts was carried out in BTI and DZhP and ZhF (in Moscow). Later, the Federal Registration Service appeared (now Rosreestr).
Sincerely,
Kharchenko O.V.
———————————————————————
On November 20, 2012, an application and documents were submitted for the privatization of the apartment. Until now there is no answer...
Question for a lawyer:
On November 20, 2012, an application and documents were submitted for the privatization of the apartment. So far there is no answer, the fate of the documents is in the administration municipality The Crimean region is not known. What to do?
Lawyer's answer to the question: privatization of the apartment until when
Hello, Fedor!
Contact the court with your question, do not delay time until it ends for you on February 28, 2013.
———————————————————————
Good afternoon? Please tell me, Can I participate in the privatization of an apartment (I have never participated before) if I have received a housing certificate...
Question for a lawyer:
My husband served in the Ministry of Emergency Situations and retired due to limited health conditions. He received a State Housing Certificate for himself and for me as a family member. Before marriage and until now, she is registered with her parents in an apartment that is not privatized. Can I privatize my parents’ apartment (I have never participated in privatization before) having property as a result of the sale of a state housing certificate. My parents have already used the right to privatize housing
Lawyer's answer to the question: privatization of the apartment until when
Polina, hello! You can. Receiving a civil housing contract does not deprive you of the right to one-time privatization.
Sincerely,
Kharchenko O.V.
———————————————————————
privatization of land until when...
Question for a lawyer:
Hello. privatization of land until when?
Lawyer's answer to the question: privatization of the apartment until when
The period is not limited, but the opportunity exists in strictly defined situations - the status of the land, the date of provision...
———————————————————————
Lawyer's answer to the question: privatization of the apartment until when
This period is not established by law
———————————————————————
privatization of an apartment received as a war veteran (on social rent)…
Question for a lawyer:
I received an apartment as a war veteran. I want to privatize it for someone (my wife and I do not have the right). The son's family (he, his wife and 2 minor children, 1 year and 13 years old) has 9 m2 per person in the remaining apartment. My son took part in privatization. A 13-year-old child is not my son’s family, but his own father has been deprived of parental rights and the child has our last name. The son's wife and both minor children can participate in privatization. Which of them can I register in the new apartment, taking into account the fact that the children are minors and the area new apartment 42 m (I can only register two, otherwise there will be a deliberate deterioration of conditions).
Lawyer's answer to the question: privatization of the apartment until when
It’s better, of course, to privatize for your relatives. Did your son participate in privatization as an adult or as a minor? If the second option, then he has the right to participate in privatization again. And so you have the right to register at least one grandson and privatize it for him
———————————————————————
What share will I have in the privatization of the apartment, since after the privatization of the apartment we want to divide it?...
Question for a lawyer:
Hello! Please answer my question:
Four people live in a 3-room apartment, ex-wife and two children under 13 years of age. The warrant was issued for a father who died, I am the only one included in the warrant - my ex-wife and children are only registered. What share will I have in the privatization of the apartment, since after the privatization of the apartment we want to divide it?
Lawyer's answer to the question: privatization of the apartment until when
Each of you has 14 shares. The fact that you are written off as a warrant will not increase your share.
———————————————————————
Lawyer's answer to the question: privatization of the apartment until when
You will have 1/4 share in the ownership
———————————————————————
Please tell me what documents should be received after privatization of the apartment. Before privatization, the apartment was...
Question for a lawyer:
Hello! Please tell me what documents should be received after privatization of the apartment. Before privatization, the apartment was rented.
Lawyer's answer to the question: privatization of the apartment until when
— Agreement on the transfer of ownership of the apartment.
State certificate registration of rights.
GOOD LUCK TO YOU
———————————————————————
Lawyer's answer to the question: privatization of the apartment until when
Hello. certificate of ownership
———————————————————————
How to correctly write a lawsuit to force a husband to privatize an apartment, since he is kicking his 17-year-old daughter out of the apartment...
Question for a lawyer:
I am interested in the question: will the privatization of apartments be extended after 03/01/2015?... Question for a lawyer: Hello! I am interested in the question of whether the privatization of apartments will be extended after 0...
Please tell me. I am registered in the apartment, but I am not the owner. The owner rents out the apartment through an agency…. Question to the lawyer: Please tell me. I am registered in the apartment, but not me...
Is it planned to extend the possibility of free privatization of housing ownership after March 1, 2016?... Question to a lawyer: Is it planned to extend the possibility of free privatization of housing...
Until what period is the free privatization of the plot adjacent to the house valid... Question to a lawyer: Until what period is the free privatization of the plot adjacent to the house valid Lawyer's answer to...
Good evening, tell me until what year and date the privatization of apartments has been extended?... Question to the lawyer: Good evening, tell me until what year and date the privatization of apartments has been extended? Lawyer's response to...
The financial and political crisis of 1998 brought an end to that stage of privatization policy, which with some degree of convention is usually called “monetary privatization” in Russia. As in 1995-1997, privatization policy in 1998 was focused exclusively on ensuring budget revenues (Table 4.1). At the same time, single large transactions were considered as the main source of income. No holistic approach was visible in the privatization process.
By June 1, 1998, the approved target for sales income (8.1 billion) was only fulfilled by 12.2%. Based on the results of 11 months of 1998, the total federal budget revenues received from the sale and use of state property amounted to 2.3 billion rubles, or 25% of the amount provided for in the budget. The final income from sales in 1998 formally complies with the requirements of the budget law for 1998 and the adjusted government assignment, but the bulk of it was received from the sale of shares in RAO Gazprom (12.5 billion rubles). Income from all other sales amounted to only 1.5 billion rubles.
Table 4.1. Federal budget revenues from privatization, 1995-1998.
|
1995*, trillion. rub. |
1996, trillion. rub. |
1997, trillion. rub. |
1998***, billion rubles |
|
|
Approved Budget |
4,991 |
12,3 |
6,525 |
8,125**** |
|
Actually |
7,319 |
1,532 |
18, 654** |
14,005***** |
* - the approved budget was adjusted in December 1995, 70.8% of the actual income was provided by loans-for-shares auctions.
** - including $1.875 billion from the sale of shares in the Svyazinvest holding.
*** - only from the sale of property.
**** — adjusted to 15 billion rubles. in April 1998 (at government level).
***** — incl. 12.5 billion rubles. from the sale of 2.5% shares of RAO Gazprom.
As for other income from state property, then, in accordance with the federal budget for 1998, dividends on shares owned by the state should have amounted to 1.09 billion rubles; proceeds from the rental of federal real estate - 0.301 billion rubles. Although in April 1998, by government decision, these sources were increased to 1.35 and 1.6 billion rubles, respectively, the result in 1998 turned out to be different: dividends - 1.2 billion rubles (540 million from Russian corporations and 76 million dollars from a joint venture, where Russia has shares in the capital), rent - 0.54 billion rubles.
The fact that progress in the receipt of rental income turned out to be insignificant is due to numerous problems with inventory of used space and the conclusion of new contracts on a competitive basis. At the same time, the increase in dividend income is due to the abolition of the corresponding benefits (Decree of the President of the Russian Federation No. 396 of April 16, 1998 “On invalidating Presidential decrees Russian Federation, relating to benefits for the use of dividends on shares in federal ownership").
Initially, the forecast list of large enterprises whose shares were to be put up for sale in 1998 included 61 objects: Rosneft, Svyazinvest, LUKoil, TNK, NORSI-Oil, VNK, Slavneft, Sibur”, Novosibirsk Electrode Plant, “Electrosvyaz”, etc. Almost all of the largest sales did not take place for two generally coinciding reasons:
- at the initiative of the state - due to the devaluation of the ruble (starting prices were fixed before the crisis in national currency, which meant a 3-fold decrease in budget revenue in dollar equivalent in the post-crisis period);
- due to the lack of investor interest in cases where even the reduced starting price of the packages seemed inflated against the backdrop of the stock crisis or the ownership structure was relatively fixed (accordingly, there was no interest either from portfolio investors or from large shareholders who had already established control in the joint-stock company ).
The government pinned its greatest hopes on the sale of shares in Rosneft (after lengthy discussions in 1997-1998 - a competition of 75% plus 1 share). The first (closed on May 26) and second (closed on July 17) failed tenders in 1998 did not become a sensation in the context of a general decline in exchange rates, a significant decline in oil prices, disagreements in the government and problems with the company’s management. Already for the second competition, the cost conditions were changed (the price of the package was reduced from 2.1 billion to 1.6 billion dollars, i.e., the 30 percent premium for qualified control was removed). The third competition, the results of which were to be summed up on October 30, 1998, was canceled on November 4, 1998 due to its obvious lack of prospects.
The second package (25% minus 2 shares) of the Svyazinvest holding was supposed to be sold at a commercial competition with investment conditions in October 1998. The terms of the competition provided for a starting price of the package of 1.035 billion dollars (6492 million rubles at the Central Bank exchange rate as of August 14 1998) and investment (including license cost cellular communication) 516 million dollars. Taking into account the preservation of state control (until mid-1999 - 50% plus 1 share), foreign investors were allowed to participate in the competition. As in the case of Rosneft, one of the important reasons for the cancellation of the competition on October 13, 1998 was the actual reduction in the starting price of the proposed packages, established in rubles at the time of the announcement of the competitions.
As noted above, the only transaction that brought significant budget income was the sale of shares in RAO Gazprom. Autumn 1997 - spring 1998 RAO proposed that the government sell 1-3% of shares in the form of convertible bonds directly to strategic partners. By Decree of the President of the Russian Federation No. 887 of July 25, 1998 “On the sale of shares of the Russian joint-stock company Gazprom”, the state’s share in RAO was reduced from 40.87 to 35%, the government was asked to determine the method of privatization and the size of the stake being sold - a maximum of 5.87%.
The budgetary interest of the state is obvious, while for RAO Gazprom the problem was different: to avoid the immediate release onto the market of a package that exceeds the total number of shares freely traded on the foreign market (up to 3% of all shares of RAO), to take into account the interests of ADR holders, and also, RAO managers are estimated to control about 7% of the shares, and RAO itself controls about 15% of its shares.
Order of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 1587-r dated November 4, 1998 provides for the sale of 2.5% of shares in a single lot at a starting price of 651 million dollars. There were no restrictions on the participation of non-residents, however, if a non-resident wins, he, according to the conditions, did not have the right to resell shares or issue derivative instruments for this underlying asset for 5 years. In fact, this meant a direct sale of the stake to one of RAO's strategic partners. On December 20, 1998, the German concern Ruhrgas became one of them, paying $660 million (thus formally determining the capitalization of RAO at $26.4 billion). Although the concern paid a price 20% above the current market, it cannot yet appoint a representative to the Board of Directors (about 8% of shares are required) and does not have the right to sell these shares, but perhaps as compensation it will receive an informal option to purchase the next 2 .5% shares in 1999
As in previous years, standard privatization transactions did not bring significant income to the budget. At the same time, in 1998 the situation became more complicated as a result of the influence of new factors associated with the financial crisis.
Firstly, the devaluation of the ruble and the general decline in the capitalization of the Russian stock market (by 90% from October 1997 to September 1998) deprived even the most promising Russian issuers of price targets.
Under these conditions, the state, as a seller, faces the temptation to go beyond the formal legal field. An example would be the cancellation of the results of a transaction for the sale in September 1998 of 15% of the shares of the oil trading company NAFTA-Moscow, which in 1995 were pledged to the company itself and to Unibest Bank for a loan of 20 million dollars with the right to sell package in case of loan non-repayment. The formalities were complied with (two applications, payment of a deposit, correct execution of documents, the winner of NPF "Zabota", representing NK "Surgutneftegaz", offered 124.511 million rubles against the starting price of 124.5 million), but the competition commission did not recognize the deal, motivating its decision due to the discrepancy between the proposed price and the currency equivalent for that period (although in the conditions of the competition that were not changed by the commission, the price was fixed in rubles).
Apparently, the possibility of canceling the deal similar reason prompted the actual commission agent (MFK-Renaissance) to maintain the same currency equivalent when determining the price of 14.84% of the shares of the Novolipetsk Metallurgical Plant (NLMK). If at the collateral auction in 1995 the loan to the government amounted to 24.2 million ECU, then in December 1998 this last of the pledged packages with a starting price of 25 million ECU was sold for 26.1 million ECU ($30.8 million). despite the fact that the market value of the package at the time of the transaction was about $8 million). Of course, it is difficult to suspect the MFK-Renaissance group of philanthropy: according to the collateral agreement, the starting price simply could not be lower than the loan amount. There was also a more compelling reason - the threat of seizing control over NLMK both from the old competitor TWG (36% of NLMK shares) and from the former ally in the fight against TWG and NLMK managers - the investment fund Cambridge Capital Management (about 25% of NLMK shares) .
Secondly, the conditions of the struggle for the redistribution of property have changed. In the situation of a chronic crisis in financial markets in Russia since October 1997, the mobilization of free financial resources (own and borrowed) to establish control over new objects is becoming increasingly problematic even for the largest domestic financial groups. As for potential foreign investors, the best evidence of their assessment of the situation was the massive outflow of corporate valuable papers in 1998. According to estimates, already in the spring of 1998. Russian market was perceived by them as an area of increased systemic risk.
The situation is clearly unfavorable from the point of view of budget revenues, but it may contribute to the intensification of privatization sales in cases where a sharp drop in prices on the market makes it possible to complete the process of consolidating corporate control at minimal cost. So, if at the stage rapid growth market, many holders of share blocks were forced to limit themselves only to portfolio investments, blocking or best case scenario controlling stake, then in a crisis, further concentration of share capital becomes logical.
The current situation means a continuation and, possibly, acceleration of the mass dumping of the remaining packages. In general, according to the Ministry of State Property (MGI), in 1998 it was possible to sell about 2 thousand “unbundled” blocks of shares. It was also assumed that packets less than 25% would be unconditionally dropped. As the practice of previous years shows (especially in conditions of the deepest crisis financial market), we may not be talking so much about a sale as about the actual transfer of these blocks of shares to certain existing private or institutional shareholders.
As a result, the privatization process returns to the stage of spontaneous non-economic development: on the one hand, due to the government’s disinterest in organizing standard transactions within the framework of residual privatization, on the other, due to the cheapness of assets and, accordingly, the disappearance of market criteria for transactions. This also means the possibility of increasing legal nihilism in relation to participants in the privatization process, which generally leads to further destabilization of property rights. Some legal decisions in the field of shareholder rights have a destabilizing effect on the overall investment climate and impede its recovery.
Most shining example in this regard - acceptance Federal Law dated 05/07/98 No. 74-FZ “On the specifics of disposing of shares of the Russian Joint-Stock Company of Energy and Electrification “Unified Energy System of Russia” and shares of other joint stock companies electric power industry under federal ownership." Art. 3 of the said document establishes that the property of foreign states, international organizations, foreign legal entities, as well as their affiliated Russian legal entities, foreign individuals may hold up to 25 percent of all types of shares of RAO. Moreover, at the time the law was adopted, about 30% of RAO shares were already in foreign ownership.
According to some estimates, the adoption of this quota, hypothetically meaning the requirement for the nationalization of a certain block of shares, became one of the key factors in the fall of the Russian stock market in May 1998. It is significant that this factor was essentially psychological, because it was legal to reduce the share of foreigners to the limit fixed by this law unrealistic. There is only one legal way to achieve this - an additional issue, which is possible only after a decision of the general meeting (foreigners have a blocking stake, the government has a controlling stake), then - registration of this issue with the Federal Commission for the Securities Market, which has every reason to refuse based on Civil Code RF.
In January 1999, at the proposal of the Prosecutor General's Office of the Russian Federation, the government instructed MHI to consider the legality of the sale at a special auction in 1996 of 8.5% of the shares of RAO UES of Russia. The buyer was National reserve bank, which used this package as collateral to obtain foreign loans and in the fall of 1998, according to available data, transferred 7% of the shares to cover the debt. During the auction itself, accusations were made of using insider information about the price of the package and receiving a Central Bank loan to purchase the package, but no lawsuits followed. At the same time, there were no restrictions on the sale of the package to non-residents. In fact, the cancellation of this transaction would mean giving the above law retroactive effect, and would also entail the termination of all subsequent bona fide transactions and, possibly, the need to return money (about $300 million) to the buyer from the budget. It is obvious that even the very formulation of such a problem is a strong destabilizing factor not only for the image of the issuer, but also for the recovery of the market as a whole.
A serious destabilizing factor remains the annual failure of the State Duma to adopt the draft law “On approval state program privatization of state property in the Russian Federation" (formally - 10 days after budget approval). The reason is that this document must include a forecast list of joint-stock companies whose shares are expected to be sold, the rationale for the choice of these enterprises and joint-stock companies, the expected methods and timing of their privatization, expected restrictions on their privatization, the size of the shares of the joint-stock company to be sold and the forecast of the initial price of such packages shares Without inclusion in such a “forecast list” of enterprises of a strategic nature (legally classified as such), their shares cannot be sold. In 1998, decisions on this matter were forced to be made by the president and the government.
In fact, as an alternative, the State Duma adopted and the Federation Council approved the Law “On the protection of the economic interests of the Russian Federation when disposing of shares of joint-stock companies producing products (goods, works, services) of strategic importance for ensuring the security of the state” (initially the number of such enterprises was 2873, with the approval of the Federation Council in July 1998 - 737). Any method of managing the shares of these enterprises (including sale) can be chosen by the government only after the Duma adopts a special law for each company. Considering the problematic nature of sales within the framework of such a procedure (although formally this corresponds to world practice), it can be assumed that in the medium term, the JSC included in the list will obviously become a complex and extremely capacious object corporate governance on the part of the shareholder, the state, which will require adequate administrative and financial costs, for which the government does not have the funds.
In turn, the government carried out a reduction in the official list in 1998 strategic enterprises, whose shares are not subject to early sale. According to the Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation (No. 784 of July 17, 1998 “On the list of joint-stock companies producing products (goods, services) of strategic importance for ensuring the national security of the state, the shares of which are assigned to federal ownership are not subject to early sale”), the number JSCs whose shares are owned by the state have been sharply reduced to 697 (compared to 2700-3000 in 1995-1997). Given the obvious inefficiency existing methods management of state blocks of shares in MGI was focused on maximizing the expansion of the list of joint-stock companies whose shares are authorized for sale.
Apparently, the same uncertain situation will be typical for 1999. As of January 1999, the new forecast list submitted by MHI to the government included 7 companies: Svyazinvest (25% minus 2 shares, 14 billion rubles) , Gazprom (2.5%, 13 billion rubles), LUKoil (9%, 4 billion rubles), as well as stakes in the Balashovsky Bakery Plant, JSC Bor, Design Bureau of Automatic Lines Rotor , "Moselekrtofolga". There is another list. Thus, according to the RFBR, in 1999, it is planned to sell shares of 6 companies - RAO Gazprom, Svyazinvest holding, JSC ONAKO, Sovcomflot, Aeroflot, Moscow River Shipping Company (they are also listed in explanatory note to the draft budget for 1999 as a source of coverage budget deficit in the amount of 15 billion rubles).
Apparently, it is unlikely that any clear government concept for updating privatization policy will appear in 1999.
On the one hand, the government needs to demonstrate its rejection of the previous privatization process, at least at the level of a demonstrative refusal to urgently sell the remaining state-owned stakes in the most attractive companies. Ideologically, this may be justified by the need to increase the “controllability” of the public sector and its strategic objects (the implementation of such a goal with the existing volumes of state property is doubtful), and practically, by the current financial situation.
On the other hand, the socio-political problem of replenishing budget revenues can nullify any declarations of this kind and even intensify practical attempts to sell the remaining stakes - at any price. At the same time, any steps regarding the nationalization of individual companies or the cancellation of transactions are still unlikely due to the government’s interest in the most profitable restructuring of external debts and obtaining loans from international organizations, as well as in the sale of new blocks of shares.
Thus, the range of actions that the government can take regarding privatization is very limited. This:
— direct negotiations with potential strategic buyers of shares largest corporations remaining in state ownership to ensure budget revenues;
— a sharp increase in administrative measures for the management of state property (blocks of shares, real estate) to demonstrate the fight against abuses and “increase the manageability” of state property;
— implementation of organizational changes (such as the discussed merger of MHI, RFBR and FUDN) to demonstrate the development of a new concept of privatization and management.
The uncertainty and contradictory position of the executive branch regarding further transactions with state property are manifested indirectly in the statements of senior government officials:
— the previous privatization policy “did not create in Russia market economy. On the contrary, it destroyed all hopes for the productivity of the economic model created with its help”;
- nevertheless, “deprivatization” (apparently a terminological substitute for “nationalization”) is impossible without serious social conflicts;
- in the near future largest companies must remain under state control (which means the suspension of the sale of new packages and the exclusion of private outsiders), and the appearance of ongoing privatization (for international creditor organizations) will be maintained by insignificant projects;
- although privatization as a source of financing the budget deficit becomes in this case of little significance, attempts may be made to issue derivatives against the most attractive underlying assets.
To date, ideas have been expressed regarding the issue of convertible bonds of the Svyazinvest holding, intended for sale to small domestic investors. Given the state of the stock market and its traditional bias towards large over-the-counter transactions, one can apparently count on success only if such a transaction becomes a deferred direct sale of a block of shares to a large investor under government guarantees. In this case, the issuer must be exceptionally attractive to the market or to a strategic partner (in fact, only RAO Gazprom is currently such). Small portfolio investors with a speculative orientation need, first of all, signals that give, after a certain period, the opportunity to count on taking profits from an increase in the market value of shares. At the same time, given the current financial and political situation and the approaching parliamentary and presidential elections, one should hardly harbor any illusions on this matter.
Meanwhile, the very fact of recognition of possible serious conflicts in society during attempts at nationalization indicates, first of all, that the existing system of property rights has become, with all its costs and criminal component, the basis of a new economic model and system of social interests - otherwise infringed property rights could not be regarded as a reason for “bloodshed.”The legislation describes the issue of such derivatives somewhat vaguely. According to Art. 16 of the Law “On the privatization of state property and on the basis of the privatization of municipal property in the Russian Federation” N 123-FZ of July 21, 1997, as one of the methods of privatization, it is possible to alienate state-owned or municipally owned shares created in the process of privatization of open joint-stock companies to the owners state or municipal securities certifying the right to purchase such shares. In Art. 24 there is also a reference to the lack of a unified procedure for holding competitions for the placement of such securities.
The process of state registration of property rights is final and mandatory stage privatization. This legal procedure formalizes the transfer of ownership of residential premises from municipal and government agencies authorities to citizens Russian Federation. have the opportunity to register an apartment for one or several persons, that is, for use.
In order to register ownership of a property you must:
After which the registrar, after checking the information provided, will be able to make a decision on consent or refusal to register the transfer of ownership.
Registration of residential premises in the ownership of citizens
Citizens who occupy residential premises of state and municipal housing funds on the basis of social rent have the right to purchase these real estate objects as personal property. The transfer of ownership powers is formalized by a privatization agreement, for the conclusion of which it is necessary to collect the following package of documents:
- Passport details (birth certificates) of all registered residents.
- Social tenancy agreement.
- Statement of the established form.
- Extracts from the house register, according to.
- A certificate confirming that the parties to the transaction do not have their own home.
- A certificate stating that the person has not previously taken part in the privatization process.
The transfer of rights to privatized property is subject to mandatory state registration. If housing privatized but not registered ownership, the citizen is not recognized as the legal owner of the property.
The important thing is that the rights to the apartment that have arisen until January 31, 1998, have full legal force without registering.
Mandatory state certification of the powers of the owner of such real estate is carried out at his personal request (Article 69 of the Federal Law of July 13, 2015 No. 218-FZ).
Citizen R purchased an apartment in April 1997, and in October 2000 decided to sell the property, collecting Required documents, he and the buyer went to the local branch of the Federal Service for State Registration, Cadastre and Cartography (Rosreestr). The transfer of ownership was refused due to the fact that the privatization agreement did not have a stamp confirming the registration of the document.
It is important that the state duty is always paid before documents are sent for official registration, since without confirmation of the fact of payment of the fee, registration will not take place.
Conclusion
State registration of privatized property is a legal process on the basis of which the rights of citizens to a property are recognized and confirmed. Official registration is the only evidence the existence of a registered right (clause 5 of article 1 of the Federal Law of July 13, 2015 No. 218-FZ “On state registration of real estate”).
To carry out registration, it is necessary to collect a certain package of documents, comply with statutory order, pay the fee, send papers to the territorial offices Rosreestr or MFC. Officials of the registration authority check the information received and, based on the results, make a decision decisions on refusal or permission in state registration of rights to real estate.
Question
Refusal to accept documents in Rosreestr
My husband and I privatized an apartment, after which we sent an application and a package of documents for state registration. An amount of 2,000 rubles was attached to the list of required information as payment of the state duty.
We were refused to accept documents, please tell us why?
Answer
The fact of payment is confirmed by a payment order or receipt. This fee is not paid at the offices of the registration authorities.State duty is payable in banking institutions, in the relevant territorial bodies of the Federal Treasury, or in other organizations that open and maintain accounts.
