1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the orders of the district state administration regarding the termination of the right of permanent use of the land plot, which belonged to the plaintiff’s father.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which closed the proceedings in the case, considering that the dispute is subject to consideration in the order of civil proceedings. The Supreme Court emphasized that administrative courts consider disputes that are of a public law nature, that is, arising from the power-administrative functions of public authorities. In this case, the dispute arose in the field of land relations, where the defendant, as a subject of power, exercised managerial functions, and the subject of the dispute is the decision of this subject, issued as a result of the performance of these functions. The court noted that the cancellation of the appealed orders will not lead to the direct emergence of any civil rights for the plaintiff, and therefore, the dispute is of a public law, and not a private law nature. The court also noted that the conclusions of the courts of previous instances regarding the application of the norms of law, set forth in the resolutions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, are not relevant to this case, since the legal relations in these cases are not similar.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances and sent the case to the court of first instance for continued consideration.
