Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision prepared for you:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The plaintiff filed a claim with the court seeking to have the apartment sale and purchase agreements declared null and void, to cancel the decisions on the state registration of rights to said apartment, and to vindicate the property from someone else’s illegal possession on the grounds that the real estate was disposed of without the plaintiff’s intent.
2. **Main arguments of the court:**
* The Supreme Court, referring to the legal position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court (resolution dated November 27, 2024, in case No. 204/8017/17), departed from previous practice regarding the recognition of transactions as null and void in the absence of a party’s signature, emphasizing that such a contract is considered non-concluded, not null and void.
* The court noted that a non-concluded transaction cannot be recognized as invalid or null and void, as it does not generate any legal consequences at all.
* Regarding the vindication of property, the court emphasized that a vindication claim (recovery of property from a bona fide purchaser) is the most effective method of protecting ownership rights.
* To vindicate property, the owner does not need to cancel all previous transactions or registrar decisions, as the court judgment on vindication serves as an independent basis for registering ownership rights in favor of the plaintiff.
* The court established that the defendant failed to exercise due diligence when purchasing the apartment, as the register contained information regarding an attachment on the property at the time of the transaction, which refutes her status as a bona fide purchaser.
* Thus, the court concluded that the claims to recognize the agreements as null and void and to cancel registration actions are ineffective methods of protection, whereas the vindication of property is a lawful and well-founded method.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal: it overturned the decisions of the lower courts regarding the recognition of the agreements as null and void and the cancellation of registration actions, dismissing the claim in that part, but upheld the decisions regarding the vindication of the apartment in favor of the plaintiff.
