1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the order of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine on the annulment of the state registrar’s decision regarding the ownership of an unfinished construction object.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous courts, but changed their reasoning part, guided by the following: The key point was taking into account the conclusions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court in case No. 910/2546/22 regarding the subject composition of the parties in disputes regarding the cancellation of orders of the Ministry of Justice, where the defendant should be not only the Ministry of Justice, but also the person with whom there is a dispute about a real right. In this case, a dispute arose between the plaintiff and the Kamianets-Podilskyi City Council regarding the ownership of an unfinished construction object, therefore the City Council should also be involved as a defendant. Since the plaintiff did not involve the City Council as a co-defendant, but insisted on the responsibility of only the Ministry of Justice, the court concluded that the claim should be dismissed due to its presentation to an improper defendant. The court emphasized that determining the proper defendant is the duty of the court, not just the right of the plaintiff. The court noted that it departs from the previous conclusions of the Commercial Cassation Court of the Supreme Court in similar cases, where the only defendant could be the Ministry of Justice.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous courts, changing only the reasoning part of the decisions.
