community property

The family court awarded the marital home to Appellant's wife under Section 220-1 of the Civil Code, which provides that where one spouse threatens or perpetrates violence, the judge may rule that the couple should live apart, allocating the marital dwelling to the spouse who was not the perpetrator of the violence. Appellant appealed on the grounds that he had limited income, that the dwelling was his childhood home, that his wife had left voluntarily, and that she, a native of Algeria, had only married him for a French residence permit.

The plaintiff sued his ex-wife, the appellant, and requested recognition that a piece of real estate was his private property. The plaintiff noted that he and his wife were in a registered marriage for a certain period. The plaintiff made money as an individual entrepreneur (in Ukraine, this term means an individual that owns his or her business and possesses all the profit). While running his business, he acquired real estate and registered title. The plaintiff invested his own money in this property.

A Supreme Court precedent from 1966 held that property obtained by a wife during the continuance of a marriage, but which cannot be proved separate property or contributed property, belongs to the husband.  The amendment of the Civil Code in 1985 under the authority of Article 7 of the Constitution emphasizes gender equity and invalidates this Supreme Court precedent.

最高法院1966年的一個判例認為，妻子在婚姻存續期間獲得的財產，如果不能證明該財產是與原有財產分離的或妻子對其有貢獻，則該財產屬於丈夫。依憲法第7條規定，1985年修正後的民法強調性別平等，並不再援用最高法院此一判例。