Management of an apartment building by the owners of residential premises involves the coordination of the will of each of them. When the number of subjects is small, less likely to occur insurmountable conflicts. Wherein making decisions on the use of common property not accompanied by any significant difficulties. Another situation is in cases of multiple owners. Features of the coordination of the will of such entities are regulated Art. 44 LCD RF. In the new edition The norms provide for the basic rules for discussing topical issues relating to the fate of material assets, the use of which is carried out jointly. Consider them. 
General meeting of owners of premises in an apartment building
It acts as a kind of administrative body. General meeting of owners of premises in an apartment building organized to discuss issues related to the sharing of material assets that are parts of the structure. For this, an agenda is formed, the date of the event is set. According to h. 1 tbsp. 44 LCD RF, coordination of the will of the owners is carried out by voting on the issues formulated.
Authority of the authority
It is spoken of in h. 2 tbsp. 44 LCD RF. The competence of the administrative authority is quite extensive. Housing owners agree:
- The choice of the method of forming a cash fund for overhaul.
- The size of contributions in terms of exceeding them over the minimum amount.
- Questions about reconstruction of a residential building. Among other things, the expansion or superstructure of the structure is being discussed. The agenda may include issues relating to the construction of farm buildings, other buildings, overhaul, use of the cash fund.
- The candidacy of the entity authorized to open a special account, the conclusion of an agreement with a bank to place temporarily free fund money, and transactions with funds.
- Obtaining a loan / loan by HOA, ZhSK or another specialized consumer cooperative for overhaul, the terms of such an agreement, obtaining a guarantee / guarantee on loans and the costs of these operations, the procedure for paying off obligations at the expense of the fund and paying interest on the use of money.
- Limits and restrictions on the use of the site on which the structure is located.
- Terms of use of common property by third parties. In particular, the possibility of concluding agreements on the installation of advertising structures is being discussed.
- Nominations of persons authorized to draw up agreements on the use of common property on behalf of the owners.
- The procedure for using information tools and systems for organizing absentee voting on issues included in the agenda.
- Rules for financing costs associated with the discussion.
- A way to manage your home.
- The procedure for vesting the Council of the MKD and its chairman with special powers. In particular, we are talking about the ability to determine the procedure and conditions for the ongoing repair.
- Other issues referred by law to the competence of the administrative body of the MKD.
Art. 44 LCD RF with comments
The privatization of the housing stock in Russia has created a rather difficult situation. Most apartment buildings lack one owner. Such structures consist of many areas owned by citizens, legal entities, municipalities, etc. This significantly complicates the management of property.Taking this circumstance into account, the Codex norm under consideration establishes a special form for discussing issues related to MKD. The general meeting is considered the only administrative body. It exists throughout the entire period of the existence of MCD.
Previous order
Previously, the conditions for managing property in apartment buildings were formulated by territorial authorities. The legitimate owners of the premises were removed from the discussion of topical issues. This, in turn, entailed a widespread neglect of the rights of these persons to participate in making decisions regarding the maintenance, disposal, and use of material assets operated by citizens jointly. In most cases, the discussion was carried out at the level of housing and communal services. This led to the municipalization of the MCD management sphere. Accordingly, there were no other organizational and economic prerequisites for the development of other forms of administration. The principle embodied in Art. 44 LCD RF, urged to radically change the situation.
The nature of the competence of the administrative body of the MKD
It is associated with the regime of the exercise of the right of ownership of housing owners. The elements of competence of an administrative body can be characterized as property and organizational. The latter include identifying key areas of property management used together. These include:
- Choosing an administration method and an authorized organization.
- Coordination of issues on liquidation and creation of HOA.
- Determining the order and timing of annual discussions of current issues related to MKD, etc.
Property and legal elements of competence include making decisions on the rules of use, and within the established limits, also disposing of common property, determining fees for work and administration services, maintenance, and so on. 
Exclusivity
It manifests itself in the fact that no other body, except the general meeting, can hold a discussion on certain issues. Other structures, for example, include the board of HOAs. The opportunity to discuss some issues Art. 44 LCD RF provides for other bodies. So, the members of the partnership can agree on the lease or transfer of other rights to material values used by the owners of housing in MKD. But, for example, issues such as choosing an administration option or forming an HOA can only be discussed by the general meeting. The unifying feature of the problems referred to the exclusive competence of this body is their fundamental nature. Decisions made on such issues are long-term in nature.
Actual problem
The considered norm includes in the list of issues subject to discussion only by the administrative body of the MKD, overhaul and re-equipment of certain areas in the structure. The exclusive competence of this structure includes problems related to the construction of household and other buildings. Present in Art. 44 LCD the peremptory norm excludes the possibility of free interpretation and use by persons who are not considered owners of housing in the Moscow Ring Road.
Important point
The specifics of the discussion of issues related to conversion in the building should be taken into account. So, if it leads to a decrease in the volume of common property, then, taking into account the provisions of Articles 36 and 40 of the Code, a decision should be taken unanimously by all owners in general or by all participants. In the latter case, approval must first be obtained from the rest of the owners of housing who are not able to attend the discussion. This rule also applies to cases when one of the owners without the consent of the neighbors carries out the reconstruction of the premises used jointly.Other owners may require the conversion of the converted premises to their original appearance. The corresponding claim may be filed under the rules of Article 304 of the Civil Code. 
Disputes
When considering cases related to the application Art. 44 LC RF, judicial practice takes into account the norms of the Civil Code. So, for example, if someone from the owners of housing in MKD is deprived of the opportunity to use some part of the structure (does not have access to the attic), he can file a lawsuit in accordance with Article 301 of the Civil Code. A claim may be brought against any other owner or against a third party. In the latter case, a vindication lawsuit will be considered declared in the interests of all owners of the MKD living space. Its satisfaction does not predetermine the question regarding the use of common property. It only ensures that the plaintiff receives the lost possession.
The construction of household and other buildings
According to experts, the competence of the administrative body of the MKD, enshrined in paragraph one of the second part Art. 44 LCDformulated ambiguously. The blur of interpretation is manifested, first of all, in the fact that the norm does not specify which site can be used for the construction of buildings. Besides, Art. 44 LCD does not contain instructions on the purpose of structures. From this we can draw a superficial conclusion that the owners of housing have the right to coordinate construction on any territory. At the same time, it may well not belong to the area on which the MKD is located. However, the provisions of part one should be remembered. Art. 44 LCD. It indicates that the competence of the administrative authority extends only to objects used jointly by the owners of housing. The nature of the authority is related to the ownership of the property. Accordingly, only those issues that relate to it are subject to discussion.
Shared Objects
Their list is enshrined in article 36 of the Code. The total property of an apartment building should include:
- Land on which the building stands.
- Elements of improvement, gardening.
- Other facilities located on this site and used for maintenance, operation and other needs of MKD.
Thus, issues on the construction of household and other structures can be discussed only in the territory related to the apartment building. At the same time, buildings should have a specific purpose - providing maintenance, improvement, operation of the MKD. 
Site Use Issues
Art. 44 LCD relate to the competence of the administrative body the discussion of problems related to the limits and limitations of the use of the allotment on which the structure stands. The relevant competence is related to the fact that the Code classifies this site as material assets operated jointly by the owners of housing. Moreover, according to article 16 of the Introductory Law, in the existing development of settlements, the allotment on which the MKD and other real estate are included in its property complex are shared property of the owners of the apartments of this house. This norm regulates 2 cases:
- The allot has already been formed on the date the Code becomes legal.
- The plot requires formation.
In the first situation, the territory passes into shared ownership for free. This is directly indicated by the norms of law. In the second case, in accordance with the decision of the general meeting in the Moscow Ring Road, any person authorized by the owners can apply to the structure of the local or state authority with a statement on the formation of the site. After satisfying the request, the allotment passes to the owners of the housing for free. Fractional owners can exercise the powers to dispose, possess, use the land within the framework established by law.
Cadastral registration
According to Articles 6 and 11.1 of the LC, the plot is an object of land relations.This refers to a part of the surface of the earth, the boundaries of which are established by the rules enshrined in federal law. On the basis of Article 261 of the Civil Code (paragraph 2), the ownership of the allotment extends to the soil (surface) layer, plants and water bodies located within its boundaries. Land plots are subject to cadastral registration. It represents actions aimed at entering information on real estate in the state register confirming the existence of an object, with characteristics allowing it to be identified. 
Transfer of parts of the structure for use
The resolution of this issue also falls within the exclusive competence of the meeting. This is due to the fact that parts of the structure are operated by the owners of the living space together. If we talk about the subjects to which the common property can be transferred, then they can be both persons from among the owners and third-party citizens. The specific subject composition is taken into account when determining the amount of compensation for the use of objects. If any part of the structure is provided to one of the owners, the size of the share in the total property complex may be taken into account.
Nuances
It is quite obvious that despite the fact that paragraph three of the norm under consideration provides for the possibility of providing common property for use, this does not mean that all relevant objects can be provided. Otherwise, the legal regime of operation of the main areas will be violated. Moreover, article 36 in part 4 expressly provides for the possibility of providing for use by third parties precisely the objects operated jointly. However, it must be understood that not all parts of the structure due to their functional features can be transferred to other entities. These, for example, include stairs, ventilation, elevator shafts, technical metering devices, and other objects that are inextricably linked with the maintenance and life support systems of the entire building. Other parts of the structure - attics, basements, etc. - can be transferred for use if this does not infringe on the interests of the owners and violate the operation of the MKD. 
Outdoor advertising
According to statistics, despite the fact that before the introduction of the modern LCD of the Russian Federation, many parts of the MKD were assigned to the objects of joint use of housing owners, they were transferred by the administrations of the Moscow Region to third parties without obtaining the consent of citizens living in the building. In this regard, the placement of outdoor advertising on the walls and roofs has become quite common. When considering this issue, you should refer to the provisions of the Federal Law No. 108, effective until 01.07.2006. The normative act stipulated that the placement of advertisements on structures and other facilities, as well as the establishment of the amount of payment and the procedure for making it, shall be made in accordance with an agreement drawn up with the owner or person vested with property rights to the building, if there is a permit issued local authority structure. a similar provision regarding the land plot is present in the Federal Law No. 38. Meanwhile, in some regions, local and state authorities not only granted permits, but also concluded the above agreements without taking into account the requirements of laws. The LCD expressly establishes that the coordination of issues relating to the provision of certain parts of the structure is carried out exclusively by the owners of the MKD living space. Decisions of other persons or bodies shall not replace the discussion of the general meeting. The provision by owners of housing for a fee of certain parts of the building to place advertisements on them may be an additional source of funding for the maintenance of the structure. However, the frequent cases of violations of the rights of owners became the basis for toughening the requirements and amending the rules.Currently, the competence of the administrative body of the Moscow Ring Road directly includes the discussion of issues of concluding agreements on the installation and subsequent operation of outdoor advertising. In addition, this structure has the right to determine the circle of persons who are empowered to draw up these contracts. The conditions for the transfer and operation of parts of the common property by third parties are determined by decision of the owners. This rule also applies to the provision of space for advertising. The protocol confirming the consent of the owners is the protocol drawn up in the process of discussing issues at the meeting. These are the main points on which disputes arise mainly when applying the article under consideration. Part 3 in Art. 44 LCD RF is missing.