Registration in apartments: the criteria set by the Constitutional Court

The Constitutional Court (Judgment of 3 February 2026, No. 4-P) has held that registration at a place of stay is possible in non-residential premises as well, if the premises meet the criteria that follow from the decision.

What the decision gives

Registration cannot be refused on the bare ground that "it is non-residential, so it is not allowed". The Constitutional Court treated the lack of a procedure as a de facto limit on the freedom to choose a place of stay, and as an obstacle to the use of property. A transitional procedure is already available, before the amendments are made: the registration authority registers the person on an application, on the model used for residential premises, where the conditions are met and the supporting documents are produced.

The property in which this works (the criteria in the judgment)

For registration at a place of stay in apartments (non-residential premises), the property must be as follows:

1. The building was built, or was intended, for people to stay in, according to the documents for the property.

2. The particular premises are fit to live or stay in, and in their characteristics they resemble a flat.

3. They are not a room in, and not part of the room stock of, an accommodation facility. Otherwise the hotel procedure, through the administration, applies.

4. During the transitional period the circle of persons is limited: the owner and, with the owner's written consent and proof of kinship, members of the family or close relatives.

Why this is not a "general regularisation of apartments"

This is not a "residence registration", that is, registration at the place of residence. The Constitutional Court expressly confined its conclusions to a place of stay. Otherwise the line between residential and non-residential premises would disappear. There is no automatic levelling-up with housing as regards infrastructure, taxes or utilities.

Comment by Sergei Pivovarchik, managing partner of Consul Group: In the judgment itself the Constitutional Court does not lay down criteria for registration at a place of residence in apartments. On the contrary, it rules out that wider reading. The logic of the legal order is this: for there to be a "residence registration" at the place of residence, the property must in law be a residential premise, forming part of the housing stock, and it must meet the requirements for fitness for permanent residence. In practice that means the status has to be changed, by conversion of the premises or by their recognition as residential, under the procedure laid down for that purpose. It is not done "through registration". It is done by changing the legal regime of the property.

The Court's position does not legitimise every premises that the market calls apartments. A property that was in fact built or reconstructed as offices, or that was refitted as "apartments" without the proper permits and without a change of designated purpose, and was then sold to individuals as apartments, falls outside the logic of the judgment. The registration at a place of stay of which the Constitutional Court speaks does not apply to it.

Follow Consul Group on Telegram.