1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as invalid of the contract of purchase and sale of communal property in the part of including the area of the anti-radiation shelter in the area of the basement premises and the return of this shelter to communal ownership.
2. The court of cassation departed from previous conclusions regarding the qualification of claims for the return of protective structures from private ownership, noting that such claims should be considered as vindication claims, and not negative ones, since the owner (territorial community) does not own the property that is in the possession of the defendant, who has registered the right of ownership. The court indicated that for the qualification of a claim as a negative one, the presence of two conditions is necessary: the impossibility of the property being in private ownership by virtue of the law and the presence of external signs that indicate the impossibility of acquiring ownership of this property. Since none of these conditions was met, the court concluded that the proper method of protection is a vindication claim. The court also noted that the demand for the return of property in the order of restitution is not a proper method of protection, since in this case the change of owner occurred by contributing the property to the authorized capital of the company. The court emphasized the obligations of the owners of protective structures, regardless of the form of ownership, to keep them ready for use.
3. The court of cassation partially satisfied the cassation appeal, changing the reasoning part of the appellate court’s decision, but left unchanged the decision to dismiss the claim.
