The Administrative Collegium of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Azerbaijan has adopted a decision determining a unified judicial practice regarding the provision of housing only once to citizens belonging to a category defined by legislation.
Medianews.az reports that according to the circumstances of the case, the plaintiff is a person whose disability was determined in connection with the defense of the territorial integrity of the Republic of Azerbaijan. He lives in an apartment allocated by the local executive authority in 2012 together with family members. The apartment was given to the plaintiff’s spouse, and when calculating the area, all family members, including the plaintiff, were taken into account. However, later the plaintiff demanded to be provided with housing again, arguing that the size of the apartment was insufficient, and was even accepted onto the housing waiting list. The relevant executive authority rejected this demand, citing that housing had already been provided once.
The court of first instance granted the claim, deeming it appropriate to provide the plaintiff with housing again. The appellate court upheld the decision. Afterwards, the respondent authority appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court concluded that although the provision of housing to persons belonging to a special category determined by legislation is one of the state's important social obligations, this right is not absolute and is limited by certain legal frameworks. The implementation of social rights is closely related to the state's financial capabilities, limited resources, and the necessity to ensure social justice in society. In this regard, the state must consider not only individual interests but also the welfare of society as a whole and the balance among those in need.
The court collegium emphasized that war invalids and other persons with special status are a vulnerable group under the state's special social protection, and their provision with housing serves the restoration of social justice. However, the purpose of this provision is not to grant additional privileges to these persons but to meet their basic housing needs and return them to normal social living conditions. Therefore, the provision of housing once by the state should be regarded as the fulfillment of that social need.
The Supreme Court explained that the access right to the state housing fund on the basis of a social rental agreement arising from special status can only be exercised once. If the person or a family member has already been provided housing on this basis and all family members, including the plaintiff, were taken into account during that provision, then that person is considered to have been actually provided housing once. In this case, demanding housing again on the same basis cannot be deemed consistent with the purpose of the legislation.
The court noted that repeated housing provision is not limited only to individual claims but also affects the rights of other persons. Because the state's social resources are limited, the acquisition of housing by one person a second time on the same basis could reduce the opportunity for other persons in need of housing to benefit from this right. This would contradict the principles of social justice and equality.
In conclusion, the respondent's cassation complaint was upheld. //Milli.az