Subject of Dispute: Recognition of the Land Plot Transfer as Illegal and Its Return to Communal Ownership.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The Supreme Court deviated from previous practice and recognized that changing the land use type within the same land category (from recreational purpose for recreational facilities to individual summer cottage construction) does not require a special procedure for changing the intended purpose.
2. The Court established that the land plot belongs to the category of recreational lands, which is confirmed by the State Land Cadastre data.
3. The Appellate Court erroneously considered the land plot to be part of the water fund lands, without taking into account that the boundaries of the coastal protection zone within settlements are established by urban planning documentation.
Court Decision: To cancel the appellate court’s resolution regarding the requirement to return the land plot and to leave the first instance court’s decision unchanged.
