1. **Subject matter of the dispute:** Division of property acquired by spouses during marriage and determination of shares in the right of ownership of real estate.
2. **Court’s arguments:** The Supreme Court emphasized that the presumption of common joint ownership applies to the division of marital property; therefore, the burden of proof to the contrary lies with the spouse who denies this status. The Court confirmed that the determination of shares in common property does not constitute a resolution of inheritance rights, as the estate includes only the deceased’s share, not the entire property. At the same time, the Supreme Court pointed out a procedural error by the appellate instance: if a person who did not participate in the case challenges a decision, citing a violation of their rights, the court must verify this fact. If the appellate court determines that this person’s rights were not violated, it should have closed the appellate proceedings rather than reviewing the court of first instance’s decision on the merits. Since the appellate court reviewed the case on the merits without closing the proceedings initiated by the complaint of a person who was not involved in the case, this served as grounds for setting aside the ruling. Legal position: The Court departed from previous practice, indicating the necessity of closing appellate proceedings in cases where a person who did not participate in the case fails to prove that their rights were violated, instead of reviewing the appeal on the merits.
3. **Court’s decision:** The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, set aside the ruling of the appellate court, and remanded the case for a new hearing to the court of appellate instance.
