1. The subject of the dispute is the reclamation by the prosecutor in favor of the territorial community of land plots from the defendant, which, according to the prosecutor, illegally left state ownership.
2. The court granted the prosecutor’s claims, as it found that the alienation of land plots from state ownership took place on the basis of forged decisions of the local self-government body, that is, without the will of the state as the owner. The court also took into account that at the time of alienation, the disputed plots were in state ownership outside the settlement, and only the State Service of Geodesy, Cartography and Cadastre, and not the village council, could dispose of them. The court also took into account the practice of the European Court of Human Rights regarding the need to maintain a “fair balance” between the interests of society and the protection of the rights of the individual, but concluded that in this case the public interest in returning the land to state ownership prevails.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the previous courts remained unchanged.
