Here is the translation of the provided legal text:
1. The subject of the dispute is the claim of the Condominium Association “Impuls” to invalidate the decision on state registration of ownership of non-residential premises, to cancel the city council’s decision on privatization of these premises, and to cancel the order for their redemption.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the previous court decisions to dismiss the claim, but changed their reasoning. The court indicated that the claim to cancel the state registration of the city council’s ownership is an ineffective remedy, since at the time of the case’s consideration, the premises had already been sold to a third party. The court also noted that the claim to invalidate the decisions of the city council and the order of the department on privatization is ineffective, since these decisions had already been executed by concluding a purchase and sale agreement. The court emphasized that in this case, the lawsuit was filed against an improper defendant, since the disputed legal relations exist between the Condominium Association and the individual who purchased the premises, and not with the local self-government bodies. Therefore, the issue of whether the premises belong to ancillary ones should be resolved in a dispute with the proper defendant.
3. The court of cassation partially satisfied the cassation appeal, amending the reasoning parts of the decisions of the courts of previous instances, but left their operative parts unchanged, i.e., the claim was dismissed.
