Family members of a housing co-op member have the right to use a residential property independent of the title possession and it remains even after the title is transferred to a different person. This does not allow to raise a question of the residential property title holders’ constitutional rights infringement. The article in question does not contradict the Constitution due to the fact that the exercise of owner’s rights should not cause the limitation of the rights and freedoms of persons, holding the title of residential property and exercising their constitutional right for abode.

(concurrent opinion) Acceptance of unlimited corporeal right is inadmissible in the court of law. Widening the circle of persons holding corporeal rightы always leads to the limitation of the most important corporeal right - Protection of Private Property, since their relation resembles the one of connecting vessels holding a liquid. One ought to consider existing political choice in favour of priority of collective benefit of the citizens in need of the housing and thus interested in mortgage industry development. While solving particular disputes, the courts have to consider an economic logic the social-economic decisions are based on. Based on the existing choice of the trend in social housing policy, the federal legislature has adopted the laws intended to create the legal framework aiding in development of residential mortgage industry, construction mortgage industry, as well as development of housing market as a whole, having reduced the risks and restrictions for the residential mortgage industry and creating the conditions for inflow of additional investments into this sector of economy. The goal of legislature, as well as political brunches of the government is obvious - to increase the purchasing accessibility of the housing, especially for young families. The legislature has found itself faced with a difficult choice between interests of the family members of a last owner and the interests of citizens in need for additional funding of housing construction. The choice was made in full compliance with a Theory of a Rational Choice and an applicable criteria for decisions efficiency, utilized by the institutional economics. The courts do not have to take into consideration the motivation of the property buyer. Even if he/she buys the property at a public auction not to reside in it, but to use it as an asset for future profit taking, the constitutional statement postulating that “right of private property is protected by the law”(Article 35, Part 1, the Constitution of the Russian Federation) should determine the courts’ application of the law.