Who Owns Technical Floors, Stroller Rooms, and Vestibules in Apartment Buildings: The Supreme Court's Position

Who owns the technical floors, stroller rooms, and vestibules in apartment buildings — the co-owners or private individuals? The Supreme Court provided an answer to this question in its ruling dated May 29, 2026, in case No. 947/27734/23, which may influence future judicial practice in disputes regarding common property.

A co-owner of an apartment in a multi-apartment building filed a lawsuit demanding protection of the right of joint ownership over auxiliary premises, which, in her opinion, were illegally registered as private property.

The dispute concerned a technical floor (boiler room) with an area of 127.5 sq.m, as well as premises of 18.2 sq.m and 19.1 sq.m, ownership rights to which were registered to a private individual based on certificates issued by the Odessa City Council. The plaintiff claimed that these objects are auxiliary premises of the building and therefore belong to all co-owners and could not have been alienated.

Thus, the plaintiff asked the court to establish that the specified premises at the time the building was commissioned belonged to auxiliary premises and were part of the common property of the co-owners of the building.

Additionally, she requested the court to eliminate the violation of the right of joint ownership by recognizing as illegal and canceling the ownership certificate, by which the defendant was registered as the owner of the technical floor of 127.5 sq.m as a separate real estate object.

The court of first instance dismissed the claim, in particular due to the ineffectiveness of the chosen method of protection. The court noted that the plaintiff tried to establish legal facts and cancel ownership certificates, whereas the proper way would have been a vindicatory claim for recovery of property.

However, the appellate court disagreed, stating that if the property is jointly owned by law, the plaintiff does not need to prove ownership rights but only needs to challenge documents that create obstacles to the use of common property, namely by recognizing the certificates as invalid. The Supreme Court ultimately focused on the substantive aspect — the status of the premises themselves.

Criteria for Delimitation and the Court's Position

The Supreme Court, deciding the dispute, applied the provisions of Article 382 of the Civil Code of Ukraine and the Law of Ukraine "On the Peculiarities of Exercising Ownership Rights in an Apartment Building."

The court confirmed that auxiliary premises, including stroller rooms, storage rooms, and technical premises intended exclusively for servicing the building, are an integral part of the building and belong to the co-owners as joint ownership.

In contrast, non-residential premises are independent real estate objects not classified as residential stock and may be used for commercial, household, or other non-industrial purposes.

According to parts 1–2 of Article 5 of the Law of Ukraine "On the Peculiarities of Exercising Ownership Rights in an Apartment Building," the common property of an apartment building is joint ownership of the co-owners and cannot be divided among them or allocated in kind.

The Constitutional Court of Ukraine, in its decision dated March 2, 2004, in case No. 4-rp/2004, stated that the legal regime of auxiliary premises is defined as part of the common property of co-owners of an apartment building, including elements necessary for its functioning and operation.

In the decision dated November 9, 2011, in case No. 14-rp/2011, the Constitutional Court clarified that auxiliary premises have a functional purpose — ensuring the operation of the building and household services for its residents. This circle of residents includes owners, co-owners, tenants, and other users of premises in the building. The court also emphasized that auxiliary functions may be performed by objects located outside the building if they are related to its servicing.

In contrast, non-residential premises intended for commercial, household, or other non-industrial needs are independent civil law objects and are not part of the residential stock. Therefore, the right of joint ownership of co-owners over such objects does not arise automatically.

To determine the legal status of premises in an apartment building, it is necessary to consider:

• their location;
• functional purpose;
• method and order of use;
• the set of technical characteristics of the object.

These criteria allow distinguishing auxiliary premises that are part of the common property of co-owners from non-residential premises, which are independent civil law objects.

The court dismissed the claim due to these circumstances. The status of the disputed premises as non-residential had already been established in previous cases (No. 520/10983/14-c and No. 520/5447/17), which confirmed the defendant's ownership rights.

Moreover, the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence that at the time the building was commissioned, the premises had the status of auxiliary.

The court rejected expert opinions because they were prepared without inspecting the objects and without examining the originals of the project documentation.

Thus, co-owners attempting to return premises to common ownership must prove that the premises were auxiliary according to the project. The mere fact of a boiler room being located there may be insufficient if the documents designate the object as a separate non-residential area.

If ownership was registered in accordance with the legislation in force at that time, challenging it many years later without proper evidence of illegal registration is unlikely to succeed.

Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua and to Google News SUD.UA, as well as to our VIBER and WhatsApp, Facebook page and Instagram to stay informed about the most important events.