THE SUPREME COURT QUESTIONED THE ONLY UNFINISHED HOUSING

The plaintiff appealed to the court with a claim for foreclosure on the debtor's property – an unfinished house, indicating in support of the claims the fact of the presence of unpaid debts of the defendant to the plaintiff confirmed by a court decision and the absence of other property due to which the creditor's claims could be satisfied. This is confirmed by the fact that the enforcement proceedings against the defendant have ended.

The courts of three instances refused to satisfy the claim, referring to the fact that the disputed house is the only housing for the debtor and his family members, and the defendant's obligation to the plaintiff is not a credit, in connection with which the house is covered by executive immunity.

This approach did not suit the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, which sent the dispute for a new consideration, noting the following.

Firstly, the court recalled that the executive immunity of a single dwelling is not unconditional.

Secondly, the Supreme Court stressed that the lower courts did not investigate the issue of the excess area of the disputed house (416.3 m2).

Summing up, the Supreme Court pointed out that a foreclosure may be levied on a dwelling (part of it), even if it is the only one for the debtor, but its size exceeds reasonable and sufficient to meet the debtor's need for housing.

At the same time, the courts did not assess the totality of the established circumstances that the house is an object of unfinished construction, its area is 416.3 m2, and the debtor and his family are registered at their place of residence in another city.