Skip to content Skip to sidebar Skip to footer
Ваш AI помічникНовий чат
    Open chat icon

    Case No. 608/1029/23 dated 05/08/2026

    1. The subject matter of the dispute is the legality of the transfer of a state-owned land plot into private ownership and its subsequent recovery by a prosecutor in the interests of the territorial community due to the alleged lack of intent on the part of the initial acquirer.

    2. In rendering its decision, the Supreme Court was guided by the fact that the lower courts had correctly assessed the evidence, in particular, by establishing the fact of the citizen’s intent to acquire the land, as confirmed by their applications and subsequent notarial acts. The Court emphasized that materials from criminal proceedings do not have a prejudicial effect on civil proceedings and are assessed by the court on general grounds as documentary evidence. An important aspect was the application of the principle of “good governance,” according to which the risk of errors made by state authorities should not be shifted onto bona fide purchasers of property. At the same time, the Court drew attention to a violation of the rules of subject-matter jurisdiction, since a dispute involving a legal entity (a lessee) must be considered under the procedure of commercial, rather than civil, litigation. In accordance with the position set forth in the ruling of the Joint Chamber of the Civil Cassation Court of the Supreme Court dated May 5, 2025, in case No. 199/9897/22, the Court acknowledged that part of the claims against the legal entity is subject to consideration by a commercial court. In this case, the Court effectively confirmed the mandatory compliance with jurisdictional rules by setting aside the decision regarding the claims against the legal entity and closing the proceedings, which is consistent with the practice of delimiting competence between civil and commercial courts.

    3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the prosecutor’s cassation appeal: it set aside the decisions of the lower courts regarding the claims against the agricultural enterprise and closed the proceedings in that part, while upholding the judicial decisions in all other respects.

    Full text by link

    Leave a comment

    E-mail
    Password
    Confirm Password
    Lexcovery
    Privacy Overview

    This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.