The design and construction of garages as independent units within buildings is the current standard. This allows garages to be bought or sold separately from the apartments in the respective building.
Another option is to designate parking spaces on a floor classified as a common area in the building. The use of these parking spaces by owners is regulated through an agreement for the distribution of the use of these common areas.
However, what about the use of a specifically designated part of a land plot as a parking space or even as a garage? Can such spaces be transferred when the ownership of an independent unit in the building changes, to which these designated parts of the land plot are assigned?
This question was brought before the Supreme Court of Cassation. In a decision dated February 5, 2025, the court provided an affirmative answer.
Facts and Relevance
The case reviewed by the court pertains to provisions of the now-repealed Territorial and Urban Planning Act (TUPA, which was repealed on March 31, 2001). However, the issue remains relevant as it concerns the moment when the use of a specifically designated part of the land plot was provided for (or retained upon ownership transfer) as part of the ownership of an object in the building.
In this case, the architectural design of the building was created in 1993, and it included six parking spaces on the undeveloped part of the land. A series of transactions followed, transferring the construction rights for specific apartments along with the right to use the designated parking spaces. In 2018, an individual acquired ownership of the land plot land through a public auction. The new owner discovered that the land was being used by others who had even built metal-structured garages that corresponded in size to some of the designated parking spaces in the building’s original plan. This led to a lawsuit claiming that the new owner’s property rights were being restricted and that the garages were illegal structures that should be removed.
Court’s Arguments
At the time of the building’s design, the TUPA explicitly prohibited the transfer of specifically designated parts of land plots. However, the court ruled that this prohibition did not apply in this case, as it falls under an admissible exception as per Article 64 of the Property Act. This provision outlines two scenarios:
- The owner of a building can use the land on which it is constructed, as necessary for the building’s intended use (general case);
- The act by which the right to the building (or its respective unit) is acquired may provide otherwise (special case).
The court found that the second, special case applies here. Since the landowner transferred the construction rights for an independent unit along with the designated parking space in the land plot as per the project, this qualifies as an exception under the special case mentioned above. Therefore, the transaction is fully valid, and the landowner must respect the rights over the respective parking spaces.
Although the metal-structured garages built on the designated parking spaces do not formally meet all legal requirements, the court ruled that they should not be removed, as they do not obstruct the landowner from exercising their rights. The owner cannot place personal belongings on these spots even if the metal structures are removed, nor can they independently exercise rights over them, such as renting them out.
