банкротство,
несостоятельность,
исполнительное производство,
иммунитет,
имущественный иммунитет,
право на жилище,
право собственности,
конкурсная масса,
жилое помещение,
норма предоставления
Abstract
IntroductionIntroduction. In Russian law enforcement practice and legal doctrine, the issue of the possibility of limiting citizens' executive immunity to single housing has been the subject of active discussion over the past fifteen years. To date, the debtor's only residential premises can be sold as part of an insolvency case, however, there are no specific grounds for limiting the immunity in the legislation, and the parameters of residential premises, upon reaching which real estate can be qualified as luxury, are also not disclosed. According to the author of the study, this legislative gap needs to be filled in terms of fixing criteria for limiting the property immunity of a single dwelling in legislation.PurposePurpose. To characterize the approaches used in law enforcement practice to determine the grounds for limiting the property immunity of a single dwelling, to formulate proposals for improving legislation in this part.MethodsMethods. The study of legislation, judicial practice, scientific publications, and statistical data was conducted using the formal legal method. The comparative legal method is used to compare approaches to the limitation of property immunity in domestic legislation and the law of foreign countries. The method of system and logical analysis and the method of modeling were used to analyze and formulate proposals for legislative reform.ResultsResults. In the course of the study, it was found that the approaches used by the courts to determine the criteria for limiting the immunity of single housing do not meet the goals of the institute of insolvency and the interests of participants in the bankruptcy case. In this regard, the author suggests considering the experience of the American legislator in establishing a cost criterion for determining the signs of luxury living space. The content of this mechanism is to establish the maximum value of the debtor's residential premises, the excess of which will automatically entail the need for its implementation. The author suggests an approximate methodology for calculating such a marginal cost, based on statistical data and standards stipulated in legislation, based on the product of the average cost and the average area of a residential building.ConclusionsConclusions. Setting a ceiling on the cost of residential premises as a key criterion for limiting its property immunity can have a positive impact on the entire institution of consumer bankruptcy, namely, to promote transparency and predictability in the consideration of cases, reduce the burden on the courts, and minimize the risks of abuse by debtors.
