The developer was declared bankrupt under a shared construction agreement. The housing equity holder announced the inclusion into the register the requirement to transfer two apartments and two parking spaces.
The courts satisfied the claims in terms of apartments, but in terms of parking spaces, their positions were different.
The first instance decided to transform the demand into monetary and include it in the fourth priority. The reason is that the norms of the bankruptcy law, which are aimed at protecting the social rights of construction participants, are not applied to non-residential premises.
The appeal court disagreed with this position due to recent amendments which have been made to the Bankruptcy Law to include requirements for the transfer of parking spaces into the register of claims for residential premises.
The cassation upheld the decision of the first instance court. In addition, it was noted that non-residential space is understood as premises with an area of no more than 7 square meters. A parking space exceeds the specified parameters, so it cannot be included in the registry.
The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the appeal court. The Bankruptcy Law establishes the same legal regime for claims of equity holders to transfer residential, non-residential premises and parking spaces. Moreover, the legislator distinguishes between the concept of "parking space" and "non-residential space". Consequently, for non-residential premises, it has been determined the maximum allowable area. There are no such restrictions for parking spaces.