Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a detailed breakdown:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** An individual’s challenge to an order issued by the Department of Urban Planning and Architecture regarding the issuance of urban planning conditions and restrictions (MUO) for the construction of an office and residential complex, which, in the plaintiff’s opinion, violates their non-property rights regarding cultural and aesthetic needs and the historical environment.
2. **Arguments of the court:** The Supreme Court emphasized that the key criterion for determining jurisdiction is the essence of the disputed legal relations, rather than solely the involvement of a public authority. The Court noted that disputes regarding the development of land plots, which result in the creation of civil rights for third parties, are of a private-law nature, even if they concern the challenging of actions taken by a government body. The plaintiff is not in a public-law relationship with the Department, as the contested order does not establish any obligations for them, but merely infringes upon their private non-property interests. The Court referred to the legal position of the Joint Chamber of the Civil Cassation Court of the Supreme Court dated February 2, 2026 (case No. 308/17484/23), which clearly differentiates such disputes in favor of civil jurisdiction. Therefore, the lower courts erroneously closed the proceedings, considering the dispute to be administrative. — In this decision, the Supreme Court relies directly on the conclusion of the Joint Chamber, which establishes the approach to hearing such cases specifically under civil procedure, effectively departing from previous practice, which often referred such claims to administrative courts.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court set aside the ruling of the court of first instance and the resolution of the appellate court, remitting the case to the court of first instance for continuation of the proceedings on the merits under civil procedure.
