This decision was a response to an appeal from Victoria Piunova, who faced difficulties when trying to register her family in hotel-type apartments in St. Petersburg owned by her relatives. The passport office denied her request, stating that registration in non-residential premises was not provided for by law, and the premises did not fall under the hotel room stock. In turn, the courts of general jurisdiction upheld this decision.
According to the court's ruling, existing restrictions on registration in non-residential premises violate citizens' rights to freely choose their place of residence and their right to private property. This means that owners cannot fully utilize their properties for personal needs.
The court also recommended that the government amend the legislation to eliminate this legal gap, suggesting that registration of citizens in apartments be allowed under the same conditions as in residential premises. However, this ruling does not pertain to permanent registration at the place of residence and does not change the rules for taxation or payment of housing and communal services.
Now, the case of Victoria Piunova will be reconsidered in light of the new position of the Constitutional Court.
