1. **Subject of the dispute:** The case concerns the invalidation of a land lease agreement, the transfer of rights and obligations of a buyer under a land sale and purchase agreement, and counterclaims for the cancellation of the state registration of the lease agreement due to the denial of the fact of its signing by the lessor.
2. **Court’s arguments:** The Supreme Court emphasized that a signature is a mandatory requisite of a written transaction, and its absence or execution by another person indicates that the transaction was not concluded, and therefore, rights and obligations thereunder did not arise. The Court stressed that the inconsistency of the claims with the chosen method of protection cannot be grounds for dismissal of the claim if the plaintiff’s objective is clear and the claims can be interpreted in accordance with the law. It is significant that the courts of first and appellate instances erroneously qualified the claims of the counterclaim as an ineffective method of protection without considering them on the merits. The Supreme Court noted that for the effective protection of the rights of an owner whose property was registered to another person without their expression of will, the owner may choose various methods of protection, including claims for the return of property or declaring the absence of a lease right. Since the courts of previous instances did not properly examine the evidence, in particular, did not resolve the issue of conducting a forensic handwriting examination to establish the fact of the signing of the agreement, this made it impossible to establish the actual circumstances of the case. The Court departed from its previous position, confirming that a land owner may protect their rights by filing claims for declaring the absence of a lease right or cancellation of state registration if they were not in a contractual relationship with the person in whose name the right of use is registered.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court set aside the decisions of the courts of lower instances and remanded the case to the court of first instance for a new trial for a full and comprehensive examination of evidence.
