From here, the expert turned to examining the questions in this case.
- the area of the original apartments;
It was detailed that in the specific case, the area of the apartments listed in the land registration document is 61.3 square meters per apartment, but this registration does not reflect the actual state of affairs. This is because building permits were issued for the expansion of the apartments without the condominium order being amended, and in addition, since the area of the original apartments according to the original building permit for the building is approximately 67.6 square meters (similar to the defendants' claim for a measurement of about 68.4 square meters), while the area listed in the document is 61.3 square meters and the area determined in the agreement is 60 square meters.
- With regard to the defendants' arguments that there was room to set a higher coefficient for the planning option that they had for an expansion of 25 square meters, the expert opened and noted that on the normative level in principle, there are three levels in the context of this question - the first vis-à-vis the planning authorities - which revolves around the connection between unused rights and the scope of the project approved by the planning authorities; the second - the level of relations between the developer and the apartment owners, which revolves around economic feasibility in relation to all the considerations given by the developer versus those granted to him by them; and the third - the level of relations between the apartment owners themselves - where equality in consideration must be maintained.
As for the first level - i.e., the recognition of unused rights in the planning process - the expert noted that although according to Standard 21.1, unused building rights must be addressed when determining the scope of new construction in the project. However, it was clarified that in practice this is not a binding provision and the planning authorities do not implement it uniformly, especially in cases where increasing the volume of construction is contrary to planning trends.