1. The subject of the dispute is the removal of obstacles to the use and disposal of land plots by returning them to the owner, since the lease agreements for these plots were signed not by the owner, but by another person.
2. The court of cassation, when considering the case, noted that for the effective protection of the violated right, it is necessary to establish exactly which rights of the plaintiff were violated. In this case, the courts of previous instances established that the lease agreements were signed not by the owner, which makes them unexecuted. The court of first instance, referring to the previous practice of the Supreme Court, considered that the proper way to protect in such a situation is a claim for recognition of the absence of the right of lease, and not a claim for the return of land plots. The appellate court, on the contrary, considered that the claim for the return of the plots is also a proper way of protection, as it will lead to the restoration of the violated right. The Supreme Court, analyzing the practice, emphasized that the conclusions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court have priority, and that the proper method of protection is precisely the claim for recognition of the absence of the right of lease, since only such a decision is the basis for making changes to the State Register of Real Property Rights. The Court noted that it departs from the conclusion stated in the ruling of the Supreme Court as part of the panel of judges of the Third Judicial Chamber of the Cassation Civil Court dated December 04, 2024 in case No. 130/8/23.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court and upheld the decision of the court of first instance, refusing to satisfy the claim for the return of land plots.
