Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared in accordance with your request:
1. The subject of the dispute was the recognition of the extension of the term of a real estate lease agreement for a certain period, which had already expired at the time the case was considered by the court.
2. The court proceeded from the fact that closing the proceedings in the case due to the absence of a subject of the dispute is lawful, since the lease expiration date specified by the plaintiff had already passed, and no new claims or amendments to the claim were filed. The Supreme Court acknowledged that although the lower courts committed a procedural violation by closing the proceedings during the preparatory hearing (which, as a general rule, should take place in a court session), this violation is formal. The court emphasized that overturning decisions for purely formal reasons would not lead to the protection of the plaintiff’s rights, since the subject of the dispute is objectively absent. The court also emphasized that the involvement of a new co-defendant would not change the essence of the situation, since the legal relations regarding the lease for the specified period had already terminated. Importantly, the Supreme Court applied the principle of the primacy of the tasks of civil proceedings, which must prevail over formal procedural shortcomings. In this case, the court confirmed its position set forth in the resolution of the Joint Chamber of the Civil Cassation Court of the Supreme Court dated September 20, 2021 (case No. 638/3792/20), which departed from previous legal conclusions regarding the impossibility of closing proceedings in a preparatory hearing by specifying them and recognizing the priority of the absence of a subject of the dispute.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the lower courts.
