Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a concise and professional analysis for your material:
1. **Subject matter of the dispute:** The plaintiff sought to have a Ministry of Justice order, which had cancelled a notary’s decision on the state registration of ownership rights to a land plot, set aside by the court.
2. **Court’s arguments:** The Supreme Court in this case departed from its previous practice, clearly determining that the Ministry of Justice cannot be the sole defendant in disputes regarding the cancellation of its orders if such orders concern property rights to assets. The Court emphasized that in such cases, a dispute over property rights arises between two private parties; therefore, the person who initiated the complaint to the Ministry of Justice must necessarily be joined to the case as a co-defendant. Since the plaintiff did not bring claims against the other private party (co-defendant), but only against the Ministry, this renders the effective protection of rights impossible within the framework of this lawsuit. The Court noted that determining the proper composition of parties is a duty of the court, not merely a right of the plaintiff, and in this instance, the composition of defendants was formed incorrectly. Consequently, the Supreme Court did not re-evaluate the circumstances of the case on its merits, as a procedural error in the subject composition of the parties constitutes an independent and sufficient ground for dismissing the claim.
3. **Court’s decision:** The Supreme Court set aside the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances and rendered a new decision dismissing the claim of PERSON_1.
