Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared in accordance with your request:
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the declaration of the deregistration of place of residence as unlawful, the reinstatement of such registration, and the eviction of persons into a residential premise that was previously the subject of a mortgage.
2. The court proceeded from the premise that the right to housing is fundamental and that forced eviction is possible only on the condition of providing other permanent residential premises, unless otherwise expressly provided by law for mortgage cases. A key factor was that the disputed apartment was not purchased with credit funds (the loan was taken for renovation); therefore, the bank did not have the right to simplified eviction without the provision of other housing. Furthermore, the court took into account the existence of a valid appellate court decision by which the bank had already been denied the eviction of these persons, which precluded further actions by the bank regarding their deregistration. The court emphasized the principle of good faith, noting that a property owner may not perform actions aimed at circumventing judicial decisions that have already established a person’s right to use the premises. It was also emphasized that a court decision that has entered into legal force and confirms a person’s right to housing is an obstacle to performing registration actions at the request of the owner. In conclusion, the court determined that the bank’s actions to deregister the residents were unlawful, as they contradicted previous judicial acts and the requirements of housing legislation.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts, confirming the illegality of the bank’s actions and reinstating the decisions on the right of the plaintiffs to reside in the premises.
****
In its decision, the court refers to the position of the Joint Chamber of the Civil Cassation Court dated February 2, 2026, in case No. 713/1153/23, which establishes the conclusion that a court decision that has entered into legal force and establishes a person’s right to housing (or denies eviction) makes it impossible to carry out registration actions at the request of the property owner, which is a development and clarification of the practice regarding the protection of the rights of residents during foreclosure on mortgaged property.
