1. **Subject matter of the dispute:** The dispute concerns the legality of the privatization of a former school building, which the public prosecutor’s office is seeking to return to communal ownership by declaring the purchase and sale agreement invalid.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
– The Supreme Court emphasized that the key criterion for determining jurisdiction is the essence of the legal relationship, rather than merely the subject composition of the parties.
– The Court noted that disputes arising in connection with the privatization of state or communal property are, by their nature, subject to commercial jurisdiction, as they concern the alienation of assets and changes in the owner’s legal capacities.
– The Supreme Court referred to its previous practice, in particular to the position of the Grand Chamber, according to which it is impossible to examine the validity of privatization transactions without analyzing the privatization procedure itself, which is the exclusive competence of commercial courts.
– It is significant that even the participation of a natural person in the disputed agreement does not alter the commercial nature of the dispute if the subject matter is the privatization procedure itself.
– Since the courts of the first and appellate instances heard the case under civil procedure, they violated the rules of subject-matter jurisdiction.
– In accordance with procedural law, a violation of the rules of jurisdiction is an unconditional ground for overturning judicial decisions; therefore, the Supreme Court was obliged to close the proceedings in the case.
– The Court in this decision confirmed and developed the position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court (in particular, in case No. 613/735/21 of November 26, 2025), definitively establishing that disputes regarding the privatization of property, where one of the parties is a natural person, are subject to consideration exclusively by commercial courts.
3. **Court’s decision:** The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the lower courts and closed the proceedings in the case, explaining to the plaintiff the right to apply to the commercial court.
