One resident who disagreed with the installation of the intercom can completely block this idea
The struggle for cleanliness and order in the house is not a reason for restricting the rights of residents
The times of mass communal apartments are in the past, but even today, neighbors can become a source of problems. For example, such a situation is possible: suddenly one or several initiative residents appear, and the rest will be surprised to learn that they need to pay for the installation of the intercom. The idea is interesting. Someone will agree and pay. Others will refuse (for various reasons). If the “refuseniks” find themselves in the minority, they may face the fact that since “the majority agrees,” then there will be an intercom. They, “in a good way”, can offer an electronic key (one for the apartment – the rest need to be bought). But what about pensioners who will have to go down (if they can) and open the door with every call to the doctor? At the LIGABiznesInform forum, a question arose about the rights and opportunities of residents who refused to install intercoms.
Of course, it is better to negotiate “amicably.” But if this does not work out, then you need to assert your rights. If the apartment of the refused tenant is privatized, then it is privately owned, and, according to the Law “On Privatization of the State Housing Fund”, such a tenant is a co-owner of all the auxiliary premises (as well as technical equipment) of the house in which the apartment is located. The right of ownership is comprehensively protected by law, therefore, basing your position in the conflict on this right, you can effectively protect your own interests.
It is impossible to install an intercom system without the consent of 100% of residents, in particular, for the following reasons:
– the right to use the apartment is limited; a person does not have to pay (even the cost of the key) to go to his apartment at any time convenient for him (this is the question of one key for several residents of the apartment);
– the right to use auxiliary facilities (the same staircase and staircase) is limited; a person also does not have to pay to exercise such a right;
– the right of joint ownership of auxiliary premises and technical equipment of the house is limited, since some co-owners (initiators of changes) dispose of the common property without the consent of the other co-owners.
The owner of the apartment is a co-owner of all auxiliary premises and technical equipment of the house
Let us dwell on the last of the above reasons. The Constitutional Court (whose decisions are final and binding on the territory of Ukraine) determined that auxiliary premises in the house are transferred free of charge to the common property of citizens simultaneously with their privatization of apartments. In this case, the execution of any documents is not required. The fact that such joint ownership is common, and not partial, is established by the provisions of the Law on Associations of Co-Owners of an Apartment Building. According to the Civil Code, co-owners of jointly owned property own and use it jointly (unless otherwise agreed by them), and dispose of it by agreement of all co-owners.
The installation of an intercom (replacement of technical equipment and a significant change in the condition of the auxiliary premises-entrance) is an order of the common joint property. Accordingly, the implementation of such actions requires the consent of all co-owners. The Civil Code provides that if one of the co-owners disposes of the common joint property, the consent of the remaining co-owners is assumed. Therefore, to effectively prevent unwanted activity of neighbors, it is necessary:
– do not sign anything (since subsequently you can be surprised to see a document with your signature on your consent to the installation of the intercom);
– legally competently express their disagreement (the most reliable way is to go to court; you can preliminarily notify the installation company about this, which after that, most likely, will refuse to do the work).
As for the judicial appeal, after the court establishes the disagreement of one (preferably several) residents with the actions of the others, it will prohibit disputed work. If the installation of the intercom by that time is completed, the court will oblige the co-owners-violators of your rights to return everything to its former state at their expense. It is also possible to reach a compromise (for example, dissent residents are given a code that allows them to open the front door – and they do not use the intercom).
THE MAIN THING
If most residents want to install an intercom at the entrance (that is, restrict access to the premises), they must take into account minority rights. In this case, no one can force the tenant to agree to install the intercom. All apartment owners are co-owners of auxiliary premises (front door, staircase, etc.) and technical equipment (front door, locks, etc.) of the entire house.