The CNAP refused the man to register at the actual residence in the hostel – which was decided by the court

The man tried to register a registration at the dormitory but received a refusal due to lack of leisure for settlement

The citizen failed to formally secure the place Residence in a hostel. CNAP representatives substantiated the refusal that he did not provide legal grounds for the procedure – in particular, did not present a warrant for settlement in a conflict or lease. This information is contained in the decision of the Uzhgorod City Court of Transcarpathia, published on July 28, 2025.

According to the case, the man lived in a dormitory from childhood. His mother and grandfather used this premises on the basis of warrant # 71 of 14.11.2002, issued for living space. The family has lived in a hostel since 1993. After the death of his relatives, he stated, as a minor, he did not realize the need for registration and did not know why his mother registered him at the address of the house belonging to his sister. When the homeowner asked in 2025, the attempt to register in the hostel was unsuccessful due to the lack of supporting documents. In support of his claims, the man referred to the testimony of neighbors from the hostel (added to the case).

The course of trial The court examined the plaintiff’s arguments who believed that he had the right to use the room after the death of a legal tenant. However, there was no sufficient confirmation of his cohabitation with his mother before her death or continuing in the premises after. No receipts for utilities or other evidence of financial participation in the maintenance of housing were provided. Although the plaintiff mentioned the possibility of calling witnesses, he did not file official requests. The court also noted that the Chop City Council had previously rejected the requirement to change the lease due to the lack of registration of the plaintiff at this address, recommending that you go to court.

Judicial verdict The claim is left without pleasure. The court acknowledged that the plaintiff did not confirm the fact of residence with his mother in the controversial room and had another permanent place of registration at the time of her death. According to Art. 65 of the Housing Code, a person who has permanent housing elsewhere, cannot claim the use of the leased premises.

“After evaluating the evidence provided, the court concluded that the plaintiff did not prove legal grounds for satisfying the requirements. He did not provide confirmation of cohabitation with his mother, had a different official registration and kept housing at the address. According to housing legislation, the presence of permanent residence deprives the right to use the leased area. Given the totality of circumstances and the absence of convincing evidence, the claim is impossible to satisfy, ”the motivating part of the decision reads.

The gun