1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the plaintiff’s right to a land share (pai) as a former member of a collective agricultural enterprise (CAE), who was included in the list for land allotment but did not receive the corresponding certificate.
2. The Supreme Court, in overturning the decisions of the lower courts, was guided by the principle that the right to a land share (pai) arises for an individual from the moment the CAE receives the state deed for the right of collective ownership, provided that the individual is included in the list attached to such a deed. The Court emphasized that the failure to receive a certificate does not terminate an individual’s right, but merely complicates its realization; therefore, filing a lawsuit in such a case serves as a means of confirming an existing right. It is significant that the Court clearly distinguished between lawsuits for the protection of an infringed right and lawsuits for the confirmation of an existing right, to which the statute of limitations does not apply. Since the plaintiff was included in the list of members of the “Lozuvatka” CAE, their right to a land share is indisputable. Consequently, the lower courts erred by groundlessly applying the statute of limitations to claims aimed not at protection, but at the confirmation of a right. Note: In this decision, the Supreme Court referred to the legal position of the Joint Chamber of the Civil Cassation Court dated June 22, 2026, in case No. 530/656/24, which definitively established the approach regarding the non-application of the statute of limitations to such categories of disputes.
3. The Supreme Court granted the cassation appeal, overturned the decisions of the lower courts, and issued a new decision recognizing the plaintiff’s right to a land share (pai) in the amount of 7.63 conventional cadastral hectares.
