{"id":5955,"date":"2026-10-22T09:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-10-22T06:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/svaroglaw.com\/?p=5955"},"modified":"2026-10-22T09:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-10-22T06:00:00","slug":"pryvatyzovana-kvartyra-pry-rozluchenni","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/svaroglaw.com\/en\/blog\/pryvatyzovana-kvartyra-pry-rozluchenni\/","title":{"rendered":"Why an apartment privatised during marriage is not split in half, and who the 2011\u20132012 exception applies to"},"content":{"rendered":"

A privatised apartment that one spouse received during the marriage belongs to whoever took part in the privatisation, and it is not split in half on divorce. The exception is such housing privatised between 8 February 2011 and 12 June 2012 inclusive: it is held in joint (common) ownership by the spouses and, as a general rule, is divided equally (Family Code, Art. 70(1)).<\/strong><\/p>\n

Since 13 June 2012, Art. 57(1)(4) of the Family Code has expressly made such housing personal property, and for privatisations before 8 February 2011 the Supreme Court reaches the same conclusion. These 16 months came about because of two laws passed one after the other: the first declared such housing joint, the second made it personal, and neither had transitional provisions. So whether a privatised apartment is divided on divorce still depends on the date of privatisation.<\/p>\n

Why the rule \u201cwhat was acquired in marriage is split in half\u201d does not apply to privatised housing<\/h2>\n

Each item acquired during the marriage, except items for individual use, is deemed to be in the joint ownership of the spouses (Family Code, Art. 60(2)), but the Civil Code adds: \u201cunless otherwise established by contract or law\u201d (Civil Code, Art. 368(3)). For housing privatised under the Law \u201cOn Privatisation of the State Housing Stock\u201d No. 2482-XII, that \u201cotherwise\u201d is established by Art. 57(1)(4) of the Family Code: such housing is the personal private property of the spouse who acquired it. For privatisations before 8 February 2011, the Supreme Court derives the same rule from Law No. 2482-XII: \u201cthe person (persons) who took part in its privatisation in the manner established by law becomes the owner of the privatised housing\u201d (ruling of 20 June 2018 in case No. 1311\/832\/12-\u0446).<\/p>\n

The Law does indeed tie everything to specific people. The free allowance is 21 m\u00b2 of total floor area per tenant and per member of the tenant’s family, plus 10 m\u00b2 per family (Art. 3). An apartment is transferred into ownership with the written consent of all adult family members who permanently live in it, including those temporarily absent who retain the right to the housing (Art. 8(2)). A husband or wife who did not permanently live there and had no right to that housing is not considered a member of the tenant’s family (Art. 5(1)) and does not become a participant, however long the marriage has lasted. If you are arranging the privatisation of an apartment<\/a> now, while Law No. 2482-XII is still in force, the list of participants will also determine who it belongs to after a possible divorce.<\/p>\n

<\/svg>One spouse privatised it<\/span>

The other spouse has no share unless the privatisation fell within the period from 8 February 2011 to 12 June 2012. A wife sought half of an apartment that her husband had privatised under a certificate dated 7 March 2006; the court of appeal dismissed her claim by a decision of 31 October 2016, and the Supreme Court upheld that decision (case No. 1311\/832\/12-\u0446).<\/p><\/div><\/div>

<\/svg>The whole family privatised it<\/span>

Each participant has a share, and if the size of the shares was not determined, they are equal (Civil Code, Art. 357(1), Art. 370(2)). For an apartment that a husband, wife and son privatised in 1997, the Supreme Court agreed that all three had equal shares of 1\/3 each (case No. 404\/1436\/24, not a divorce dispute).<\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div>\n

Art. 61(5) of the Family Code: the 16 months when privatised housing was joint property<\/h2>\n

Until 2011, neither the Marriage and Family Code nor the Family Code determined whether privatised housing was joint or personal, and the Supreme Court agreed that an apartment a husband privatised on 7 July 2010 was his personal property (ruling of 14 July 2020 in case No. 202\/2112\/18). Then the Family Code was amended twice:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Law No. 2913-VI of 11 January 2011<\/strong>, in force from 8 February 2011, added a fifth part to Art. 61 of the Family Code: \u201cThe object of the spouses’ right of joint ownership is housing acquired by one of the spouses during the marriage as a result of the privatisation of the state housing stock\u2026\u201d. Land transferred free of charge to one of the spouses also became joint property.<\/li>\n
  2. Law No. 4766-VI of 17 May 2012<\/strong>, in force from 13 June 2012, deleted this part and added paragraphs 4 (privatised housing) and 5 (privatised land) to Art. 57(1) of the Family Code. For land, the Supreme Court applies the same period (ruling of 28 July 2026 in case No. 361\/9790\/21).<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Each of these laws consists of two sections (the amendment to the Code and the date of entry into force), so they say nothing about housing privatised earlier. The gap was filled by the Civil Cassation Court of the Supreme Court, which has repeated the same formula since 2018 (cases No. 1311\/832\/12-\u0446, No. 369\/3325\/16-\u0446, No. 201\/6987\/20, No. 199\/1719\/23, No. 495\/6032\/23). We have found no rulings of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court on this issue and no contrary rulings of the Civil Cassation Court.<\/p>\n

    \u201c\u2026only in the period from 8 February 2011 to 12 June 2012 inclusive was housing acquired by one of the spouses during the marriage as a result of the privatisation of the state housing stock recognised as being in the joint ownership of the spouses\u201d (Supreme Court ruling of 30 September 2019 in case No. 369\/3325\/16-\u0446).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    \n\n\n\n\n\n\n
    Date of privatisation<\/th>\nOwnership status<\/th>\nHow it is divided on divorce<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
    Up to and including 7 February 2011<\/td>\nPersonal property of the participant (Art. 1\u20133 of Law No. 2482-XII as interpreted by the Supreme Court)<\/td>\nNot divided: only the person who took part in the privatisation has a share; disputes may arise over joint investments (Family Code, Art. 62(1))<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    From 8 February 2011 to 12 June 2012<\/td>\nJoint (common) ownership of the spouses (Family Code, Art. 61(5))<\/td>\nThe share of the spouse who privatised it is divided equally (Family Code, Art. 70(1)), unless the court departs from equality (Art. 70(2), (3))<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    From 13 June 2012<\/td>\nPersonal private property (Family Code, Art. 57(1)(4))<\/td>\nNot divided; disputes may arise only over joint investments (Family Code, Art. 57(7), Art. 62(1))<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table><\/div>\n
    <\/svg><\/span>

    Supreme Court ruling of 6 May 2026 in case No. 495\/6032\/23<\/h3><\/div>

    After the marriage was registered on 4 September 2011, the wife and another person privatised half of a house, 1\/4 each: the certificate was issued on 28 November 2011 and the right was registered on 6 February 2012. The husband did not take part in the privatisation, and the courts of first instance and appeal found the wife’s share to be her personal property. The Supreme Court set those decisions aside and recognised each spouse as the owner of 1\/8 of the house, because both the certificate and the registration fell within the period from 8 February 2011 to 12 June 2012.<\/p>\n

    Only your husband’s or wife’s share is split in half<\/strong>, not the whole house. In your claim, ask the court to divide that share and to recognise your right of ownership<\/a> of half of it.<\/p><\/div>\n

    Which date has to fall within the period, and why not everything before 13 June 2012 was joint<\/h2>\n

    In case No. 369\/3325\/16-\u0446 the Supreme Court rejected the argument that before 13 June 2012 a privatised apartment was always joint property. The husband received 1\/2 of an apartment that he had privatised together with a female relative on 13 May 2005, and bought the other half under a contract of 23 November 2011. The courts left the privatised half as his personal property and divided the purchased half, so the wife received 1\/4 of the apartment and the husband 3\/4.<\/p>\n

    Art. 61(5) of the Family Code referred to housing \u201cacquired \u2026 as a result of privatisation\u201d but did not specify which date had to fall within the period: that of the order of the privatisation authority, the certificate or the state registration. In case No. 1311\/832\/12-\u0446 the Supreme Court went by the date of the certificate, and in case No. 495\/6032\/23 both the certificate date and the registration date fell within the period. We have not come across rulings where these dates ended up on different sides of the boundary, so such a dispute is risky for both parties. Gather the documents showing all three dates before you file a claim.<\/p>\n

    \"Timeline<\/a><\/p>\n

    1\/3, 1\/4 or nothing for the wife: a hypothetical calculation for a privatised apartment<\/h2>\n

    The starting point: the husband is the tenant of a state-owned apartment where he lives with their son, and after the divorce the wife’s share depends on who privatised the apartment and when the certificate was issued.<\/p>\n