Entering into the Association of co-owners of an apartment building (AJOAH), happy participants, over time think about the possibility of exit from the AJOAH. The reasons for this decision are different in each individual case.
So all the same, can you exit the AJOAH?
The specified the issue is regulated both by the Law of Ukraine “About the Association of Co-Owners of an Apartment Building”, the Charters of the AJOAH and the Constitution of Ukraine. At its core, AJOAH is a voluntary association – that is, to force someone to participate in the AJOAH and coerce – is prohibited. This position is valid regardless of the provisions of the Charter of the organization and is a fundamental component of law, and therefore acts in any case, regardless of the circumstances.
Exit from the participants of the AJOAH is made simple enough. A statement is issued about the withdrawal from the AJOAH in the name of the co-owners meeting or the head of the co-owners’ meeting, or the acting head. The content is dont have fundamental importance, the main thing is that it indicated the participant’s will to withdraw from the AJOAH. If it is drawn up in the name of an official, you must indicate that you are asking him to take the appropriate action to exit the AJOAH. The application is allocated approximately 30 days for consideration. After this period, it does not matter whether you were left in the composition of the participants of the AJOAH or not, you can consider that you left the AJOAH.
Before you leave the participants AJOAH should weigh all the “pros” and “cons” of such action. In fact, the exit from the AJOAH will not give you any positive consequences. Rather, you will add only difficulties.
If you think that you will be exempt from payment of contributions – this is not so. In fact, the absence of contractual relations with AJOAH should lead to such consequences. And there is logic in this. You can not force you to enter into a contract or enter a condominium. But the legal position of the Supreme Court of Ukraine will surprise you. Regardless of the existence of a contract with AJOAH, it will charge you contributions. The Supreme Court of Ukraine considered this issue in such a way that:
- the obligation to enter into a contract rests with the owner of a premise in an apartment building, at the same time the Soviet norm, obliges the co-owner to ensure the proper condition of the adjacent territory and public places
- according to the Civil Code of Ukraine, the co-owner – can not oblige to force to participate in the AJOAH or conclude an agreement with him;
- and as a conclusion, believes that the co-owner is obliged to pay the accounts of the AJOAH even if there are no contractual relations.
The specified output, of course, is surprising. Especially in the case of the Treaty. Since the Charter of AJOAH is a type of contractual relations and not a contract in the understanding of the Civil Code of Ukraine. In fact, the Decision is unmotivated, but a reflection of the Court’s understanding of the “fairness” of these relations. Moreover, since the Supreme Court of Ukraine explained this, courts of jurisdiction are lower, obliged to “take it into account”, and in fact simply accept as the “Law”.
A frequent reason, the desire to exit from the AJOAH, is the dissatisfaction of the co-owner with the quality of the services received from the AJOAH or the availability of the services and costs of the organization that the co-owner considers superfluous and such that cause him real material damage. Such conclusions of the co-owner, in many respects have a real meaning and should be taken into account. But for other co-owners of AJOA (majority), in turn, such a position may not matter. “Then why is the co-owner of the AJOAH, is deprived of the right to independently serve the adjacent territories and places of common use?”, “Is this fair?”.
Summarizing, we can say the following:
- At the time of publication of this article, there is no European practice (Decisions of the European Court of Human Rights) explaining these relations. There is no law of defining relationship. That is, the issue is not resolved, and the role of the “Law” is fulfilled by the decision of the Supreme Court of Ukraine at the expense of other Legislative Acts, which leads to unilateral consideration of these issues in the Ukrainian National Courts.
- In fact, this approach determines the “monopoly” of the AJOAH for the provision of services for the maintenance of the adjacent territories and public places, which inherently leads to a decrease in the quality of the AJOAH service, as it is not afraid of losing the payer;
- The regulation of the issue should include: the establishment of minimum obligations of the co-owner of the premises, that is, for which he is obliged to pay a condominium or perform independently, which will remove disputes related to the necessary services and the calculation of tariffs for payment, and also allow the co-owner to independently fulfill his obligations to the state and other tenants of the apartment building; absence of an actual monopoly of the AJOAH for maintenance. Such regulation will work and are carried out by residents of apartment buildings, as in the main bulk, tenants themselves understand the need for maintenance and pay with a desire, and want to ensure an adequate standard of living in the house. Non-payers or persons intentionally departing from their obligations will be liable, but in a legal framework and not within the framework of a group of people independently identified.
- Leaving the condominium at the moment, does not give anything positive. Instead, you will have a more complicated opportunity to influence tenants in the legal aspect of the issue (puts questions for discussion at a meeting, participate and vote at a meeting of tenants, require documents from the AJOAH, etc.). The desire to express a protest can be realized in other ways, which are more complex but more effective – for example, to collect an initiative group, to participate in the revision commission, etc.
Return to the content in the article: