WHICH HOUSING WILL BE CONSIDERED THE ONLY ONE?

In rejecting the application, the courts of two instances referred to the invalidated transaction on the alienation of the said property, and concluded that by alienating the residential building with the land plot, the debtor had in fact voluntarily waived the privilege of executive immunity granted by procedural legislation in respect of this property.

The disputed property is not the only one suitable for the debtor and his family members to live in, since the debtor has the right to live in an apartment owned by the debtor's spouse under the terms of the prenuptial agreement and in which both the debtor and his family members are permanently registered.

The cassation sent the dispute for reconsideration, since the return of the disputed property to the bankruptcy estate as a result of the invalidation of the transaction does not change the status of the residential premises as the only one suitable for habitation. The circumstances of the debtor's acquisition of residential premises, formally protected by such immunity, with abuse, have not been established by the courts.

The courts also did not establish whether a land plot with a residential building located on it belongs to the right of common (spouse) or sole ownership... the circle of family members of the debtor, including, taking into account their cohabitation in a particular room.

Having recognized the status of this apartment as the only suitable housing for the debtor and his family members, the courts did not take into account that executive immunity protects the debtor's property right, since the very fact of registration or the possibility of actual residence at one time or another does not prevent the owner of the premises from evicting the debtor in the future.

The fact that a citizen has the actual opportunity to live at a different address does not mean that executive immunity cannot be applied unconditionally to the only housing owned by him.