SUPREME COURT: IT IS NECESSARY TO EVALUATE THE ONLY HOUSING FOR MEETING REASONABLE NEEDS

The plaintiff appealed to the court with a claim for foreclosure on the defendant's land plot and residential building in which she lives with her family. The defendant also owns a share in the apartment. The courts assessed the defendant's ability to provide himself with housing outside the disputed house in different ways.

The court of first instance dismissed the claim. According to the court, the disputed house is the only room suitable for permanent residence of the defendant and her family. Her 1/3 share in an apartment with a total area of 30 sq.m. will not be able to provide the necessary living conditions.

The Court of Appeal, however, did not agree with this decision. In particular, the court referred to local regulations on the provision of residential premises under a social rental agreement, according to which the norm is an area of up to 18 sq.m., and the accounting norm is 10 sq.m. The appeal indicated: based on these standards, the defendant can provide his need for housing at the expense of his share in the apartment, while the cost of the house and the plot will cover her debt.

The court also noted the defendant's behavior "aimed at evading the obligation" as a factor in resolving the case. The court of cassation agreed with these conclusions.

The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation pointed out a number of errors in the acts of lower courts. Thus, local regulations on the provision of housing within the framework of social hiring cannot be used to determine the limits of executive immunity due to their targeted nature – the Constitutional Court has repeatedly said this (pr.: resolutions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of May 14, 2012 No. 11-P and April 26, 2021 No. 15-P).

In addition, the Court of Appeal did not assess the argument about the insufficiency of the size of the share in the apartment to meet the housing needs of the defendant's family, for whom the disputed house is also the only housing. The appeal also did not take into account that out of the claimed 120 sq.m. of the area of a residential building, only 60 is a living area, and individual housing construction involves features related, among other things, to the technical equipment of private residential buildings with life support systems.

Thus, the removal of executive immunity from the defendant entailed violations not only of her rights, but also of the rights of her family members. In this regard, the Supreme Court canceled the acts adopted by the courts of appeal and cassation instances and sent the case for a new appeal.