Article 235. Maintenance of termination of ownership

1. The right to property shall cease when the owner disposes of his property to other persons, if the owner renounces the right to own property, dies or destroys property and if the right to own property is lost. 2. The compulsory seizure of property from the owner shall not be permitted except on the grounds prescribed by law. I: (1) Retribution of property for obligations (art. 237); (2) Disposal of property which by law cannot be owned by the person (art. 238); (3) Disposal of immovable property (art. 239); (3.1) Disposal of the construction in progress due to termination of the lease contract (art. 239.1); 3.2) Real property for the compulsory disposal of land for the State Free or municipal needs (exemption of land for public or municipal purposes (art. 239.2); 4) ransoming of unprofitable cultural property, domestic animals (arts. 240 and 241); (5) requisition (art. 242); (6) confiscation (art. 243); (7) disposition of property in the cases provided for in art. 239.2, para. 4 of art. 252, para. 2 of art. 272, arts. 282.285 ,293, article 1252, paragraphs 4 and 5 of the present Code; (8) application by court decision to the income of the Russian Federation of property in respect of which no provision has been made in accordance with Russian law 9. Application by a court of law of the Russian Federation to the income of money, valuables, other property and income of the Russian Federation In accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation on counter-terrorism, no information has been provided by a person confirming the legality of their acquisition. In accordance with the procedure provided for in the privatization laws, property in State or municipal property is disposed of by citizens and legal persons. State ownership of property owned by citizens and legal persons (nationalization) is carried out on the basis of the law, with reimbursement of the value of the property and other ub. The Committee notes that the State party’s observations on the admissibility and merits of the communication are consistent with the Committee’s jurisprudence.