1. **Subject matter of the dispute:** Declaration of a land lease agreement as invalid and removal of impediments to the use of the land by obligating the lessee to return the plot to the owner.
2. **Court arguments:**
– The court established that the lease agreement was not signed by the owner of the land plot, but by another person, which was confirmed by the conclusion of a forensic handwriting examination.
– Since the owner’s expression of will to conclude the agreement was absent, the court recognized such an agreement as non-concluded, rather than merely invalid.
– The Supreme Court emphasized that the receipt of rent by the owner is not evidence of the conclusion of the agreement, since a written form is mandatory for land leasing, and conclusive actions cannot replace the signature of a party.
– The court rejected the defendant’s arguments regarding the prejudicial significance of a previous court decision, as the issue of the authenticity of the signature and the fact of the agreement’s conclusion was not examined in that case at all.
– **Legal Position:** The Supreme Court departed from previous positions (in particular, that of the Joint Chamber of the Civil Cassation Court), noting that a claim to recognize the absence of a leasehold right is not the only proper method of protection, and the owner has the right to protect their rights through a negatory claim (removal of impediments to use).
– The court emphasized that an effective method of protection must ensure the real restoration of the owner’s rights; therefore, the obligation to return the land plot is entirely lawful and justified.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances, confirming the owner’s right to the return of the land plot.
