The ruling was the result of an appeal by Victoria Piunova, who sought to register her family in hotel apartments in St. Petersburg owned by her relatives. However, the passport office refused to carry out the registration, citing that the legislation does not allow citizens to be registered in non-residential premises, and the specified apartments are not part of the hotel room stock. This decision was also supported by general jurisdiction courts.
The Constitutional Court noted that the existing restriction on registration in non-residential premises violates citizens' rights to freely choose their place of residence and their right to private property, as owners cannot fully utilize their properties for personal needs.
The court recommended that the government amend the legislation to eliminate this legal gap and allowed the registration of citizens in apartments under the same conditions as in residential premises. However, this decision does not pertain to permanent registration at the place of residence and does not change the rules for taxation or payment for housing and communal services.
The case of Victoria Piunova will be reconsidered in light of the new ruling of the Constitutional Court.
