RusBankrot
We know everything about bankruptcy
05/12/2025
Friday
THIS DAY IN HISTORY:
5 December 
1936 The Stalinist Constitution of the USSR was adopted.
1936 the Stalinist constitution of the USSR was adopted.
1484 Pope Innocent VII initiated the "witch hunt".
1456 An earthquake that destroyed Naples occurred - 35 thousand people died.
1456 occurred an earthquake that destroyed Naples - 35 thousand people died.
5 December
1936 The Stalinist Constitution of the USSR was adopted.
1936 the Stalinist constitution of the USSR was adopted.
1484 Pope Innocent VII initiated the "witch hunt".
1456 An earthquake that destroyed Naples occurred - 35 thousand people died.
1456 occurred an earthquake that destroyed Naples - 35 thousand people died.
THE SUN HAS PROTECTED THE BANKRUPT'S APARTMENTS AS THE ONLY HOUSING
The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation clarified that courts can leave apartments to bankrupt persons if this is the only housing. The court's position is that it does not matter if such real estate meets the standards of the housing stock. The explanation is contained in the "Review of judicial practice in cases of bankruptcy of citizens, approved by the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on June 18.
In its review of insolvency cases, the court drew attention to the fact that, according to the law, housing, which is the only place of residence, must be retained by the bankrupt debtor. The only exception is when it is the subject of collateral (mortgage lending). 446 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, which regulates the exclusion of debtors' housing from enforcement actions.
The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation stressed that the fact that the premises occupied by the bankrupt meet the requirements for housing is not of serious importance. In any case, it is impossible to refuse to apply executive immunity prohibiting the compulsory recovery of assets on this basis.
The example given by the RF Armed Forces in its review was a case from practice. In it, the courts of two instances refused to retain the apartments for the debtor, citing their inconsistency with the housing status established by the relevant legislation. The courts considered that executive immunity does not apply to such apartments. However, the cassation instance did not agree with this decision.
The cassation argued that for the protection of the constitutional right to housing, it does not matter how the premises are classified in the context of the practice of the executive branch. The important fact remains how exactly the citizen uses this room.
The Supreme Court also noted that judges have the right to make decisions on the preservation of even several properties. It is only important to establish whether the debtor uses them together and whether such use does not exceed a person's reasonable need for housing. An example was the situation when the debtor retained the rights to two rooms in a communal apartment, because it corresponded to his needs.
This approach demonstrates flexibility in the application of legal norms aimed at protecting citizens' housing rights in the event of bankruptcy. Judicial practice shows that in matters of preserving the only housing for debtors, not only the legal status of real estate is important, but also the actual use of this property for living.
Photo: Freepik
In its review of insolvency cases, the court drew attention to the fact that, according to the law, housing, which is the only place of residence, must be retained by the bankrupt debtor. The only exception is when it is the subject of collateral (mortgage lending). 446 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, which regulates the exclusion of debtors' housing from enforcement actions.
The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation stressed that the fact that the premises occupied by the bankrupt meet the requirements for housing is not of serious importance. In any case, it is impossible to refuse to apply executive immunity prohibiting the compulsory recovery of assets on this basis.
The example given by the RF Armed Forces in its review was a case from practice. In it, the courts of two instances refused to retain the apartments for the debtor, citing their inconsistency with the housing status established by the relevant legislation. The courts considered that executive immunity does not apply to such apartments. However, the cassation instance did not agree with this decision.
The cassation argued that for the protection of the constitutional right to housing, it does not matter how the premises are classified in the context of the practice of the executive branch. The important fact remains how exactly the citizen uses this room.
The Supreme Court also noted that judges have the right to make decisions on the preservation of even several properties. It is only important to establish whether the debtor uses them together and whether such use does not exceed a person's reasonable need for housing. An example was the situation when the debtor retained the rights to two rooms in a communal apartment, because it corresponded to his needs.
This approach demonstrates flexibility in the application of legal norms aimed at protecting citizens' housing rights in the event of bankruptcy. Judicial practice shows that in matters of preserving the only housing for debtors, not only the legal status of real estate is important, but also the actual use of this property for living.
Photo: Freepik
23.06.2025
