Yezhov went to court with a lawsuit to Shcherbina (2013)

Theme 13. Target 16

Yezhov filed a lawsuit against the city administration Shcherbina, and the inclusion of the dwelling, the remaining after the death of his mother in her succession mass.
The petition Yezhov said that his mother was on the social contract of hiring one of the rooms in a communal apartment. Employer is another room Shcherbina. Shortly before the death of his mother in the city administration filed an application for the privatization of the room occupied by her, but finally formalized the privatization was not because of her death.
The judge left the claim without movement, pointed out that it can not be accepted completely, because: firstly, it has not attached documents confirming the mother's opinion of Yezhov on the privatization of the room, as well as the fact that Yezhov did not really have a son; secondly, the statement Yezhov paid state fee of 1/10 of the minimum wage, while it is subject to payment of a fee based on the market value of the room.
Are there grounds for leaving the statement of claim without movement?
What evidence in support of its claim Yezhov should be attached to the statement of claim?

Theme 14. Task 21

Can a judge in preparing the case for trial proceed as follows: a) send to the Head of the Department of Internal Affairs of the definition of forced drive of the witness;
b) leave the claim without movement on the grounds provided for Article 136 of the CPC, and c) to suspend the proceedings; d) to question witnesses in the case;
d) replace the inadequate respondent; e) to involve in the second defendant (respondent); f) the involvement of the co-plaintiffs in the case; h) appoint examination (option: to appoint a second examination); and) send a letter rogatory to the other court.

Subject 19. Task 22

Citizen K., not having the status of an individual entrepreneur, filed a statement challenging the order of the Ministry of Taxes and Levies of the Russian Federation, which establishes the procedure for registration as an individual entrepreneur and requirements to submit documents.
Oktyabrsky district court of Yekaterinburg refused to accept the application, stating in determining that the requirements are not subject to review K. in civil proceedings, as in accordance with the provisions of Article 138 of the Tax Code as a court competent to consider these cases, explicitly called Court of Arbitration .
The Arbitration Court of Sverdlovsk Region left the claim without movement K. pointing out that it is necessary to issue its own requirements on the application form, as the case challenging the normative legal act can only be considered in the order st.191-196 agriculture, which are in the "Manufacturing cases arising from administrative and other public relations "
Is courts did?
Rate the correct arguments ships and sufficient legal basis underlying the definitions made by them.