1. The subject of the dispute is the determination of the procedure for using the apartment between co-residents who cannot reach an agreement.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decision of the appellate court, upholding the decision of the court of first instance, based on the fact that the plaintiff has the right to reside in the disputed apartment, which is violated by the defendants, and cannot be forcibly deprived of housing. The court of first instance reasonably satisfied the claim, since the procedure for using the living space proposed by the plaintiff does not violate the requirements of the law and the rights of the parties, and the defendants did not offer another acceptable option. The court took into account that the defendants are actually one family, and some of them live abroad, therefore, allocating a separate room to the plaintiff is justified. The court emphasized that it does not determine the shares of the parties in the dwelling, but only establishes the procedure for using it. The court also referred to the practice of the Supreme Court, according to which the right of the tenant and persons permanently residing with him to determine the procedure for using the residential premises has no restrictions and is not related to the area of the leased residential premises.
3. The court of cassation overturned the decision of the appellate court and upheld the decision of the court of first instance, satisfying the plaintiff’s cassation appeal.
