Case Facts:
D.I. Kramarchuk filed for bankruptcy in the Arbitration Court of St. Petersburg and the Leningrad Region, citing, among other things, the impossibility of satisfying his deceased father's debt obligations to Stroy-Kompleks SPb LLC in the amount of 9,126,574.65 rubles, which had been inherited by D.I. Kramarchuk, due to the insufficiency of the estate to cover the testator's debt.
The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation's position:
1. By virtue of paragraph 2, clause 1, Article Article 446 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation states that enforcement proceedings cannot be instituted, in particular, against residential premises (or parts thereof) owned by a debtor citizen if, for the debtor citizen and his or her family members residing jointly in the premises, it is the only premises suitable for permanent residence, with the exception of residential premises that are the subject of a mortgage and which, in accordance with mortgage legislation, may be subject to foreclosure.
2. According to the legal approach set out in Ruling No. 15-P of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated April 26, 2021, courts — in accordance with the provisions of Article 17 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, which also correspond to the provisions of paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 10 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation — have the right to deny debtor citizens protection of their rights constituting enforcement immunity in accordance with paragraph 2 of Part 1 of Article 10 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. Article 446 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, in conjunction with paragraph 3 of Article 213.25 of the Bankruptcy Law, applies if the case establishes that the acquisition of residential premises formally protected by such immunity was conducted with abuse, the presence of which allows the debtor to be subject to the consequences of abuse provided for by law.
3. The circumstances of the case indicate that the disputed apartment No. 24 was not the debtor's sole residence at the time of the opening of the inheritance. However, by alienating a 1/2 share in the ownership of apartment No. 96 to his mother immediately before accepting the inheritance and on the eve of his own bankruptcy, the debtor created a situation in which the inherited apartment No. 24 became the only residential premises suitable for his occupancy. In other words, he committed bad faith actions to artificially confer enforcement immunity on apartment No. 24, which constitutes grounds for denial of protection of the rights constituting enforcement immunity.
The Determination of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 307-ES24-21877 (3) in case No. A56-99903/2022 dated February 25, 2026.
D.I. Kramarchuk filed for bankruptcy in the Arbitration Court of St. Petersburg and the Leningrad Region, citing, among other things, the impossibility of satisfying his deceased father's debt obligations to Stroy-Kompleks SPb LLC in the amount of 9,126,574.65 rubles, which had been inherited by D.I. Kramarchuk, due to the insufficiency of the estate to cover the testator's debt.
The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation's position:
1. By virtue of paragraph 2, clause 1, Article Article 446 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation states that enforcement proceedings cannot be instituted, in particular, against residential premises (or parts thereof) owned by a debtor citizen if, for the debtor citizen and his or her family members residing jointly in the premises, it is the only premises suitable for permanent residence, with the exception of residential premises that are the subject of a mortgage and which, in accordance with mortgage legislation, may be subject to foreclosure.
2. According to the legal approach set out in Ruling No. 15-P of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated April 26, 2021, courts — in accordance with the provisions of Article 17 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, which also correspond to the provisions of paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 10 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation — have the right to deny debtor citizens protection of their rights constituting enforcement immunity in accordance with paragraph 2 of Part 1 of Article 10 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. Article 446 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, in conjunction with paragraph 3 of Article 213.25 of the Bankruptcy Law, applies if the case establishes that the acquisition of residential premises formally protected by such immunity was conducted with abuse, the presence of which allows the debtor to be subject to the consequences of abuse provided for by law.
3. The circumstances of the case indicate that the disputed apartment No. 24 was not the debtor's sole residence at the time of the opening of the inheritance. However, by alienating a 1/2 share in the ownership of apartment No. 96 to his mother immediately before accepting the inheritance and on the eve of his own bankruptcy, the debtor created a situation in which the inherited apartment No. 24 became the only residential premises suitable for his occupancy. In other words, he committed bad faith actions to artificially confer enforcement immunity on apartment No. 24, which constitutes grounds for denial of protection of the rights constituting enforcement immunity.
The Determination of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 307-ES24-21877 (3) in case No. A56-99903/2022 dated February 25, 2026.