1. **Subject matter of the dispute:** The Rivne City Council filed a lawsuit to eliminate obstacles in the use of a land plot by demolishing an unauthorized non-residential building and cancelling the state registration of ownership rights to it.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
– The court confirmed that the disputed premises constitute unauthorized construction, as it was erected without permits on a land plot that had not been allocated for this purpose.
– The Supreme Court emphasized that the protection of the landowner’s rights (the territorial community) through the demolition of unauthorized construction constitutes a proportionate interference with the property rights of a bad-faith acquirer.
– The court distinguished between the claims: recognizing registration actions as illegal and cancelling alienation agreements are not effective methods of protection, as they do not restore the right to the land, but only pertain to the legal link with the object.
– An effective method of protection is specifically the claim for the demolition of the object; however, for it to be granted, the identity of the developer and the proper defendant must be clearly established.
– The court noted that the defendant in a demolition claim must be the person who creates obstacles in the use of the plot (the final acquirer); therefore, the court of appeal should have examined the chain of title transfer in greater detail.
– Legal precedent: In this decision, the Supreme Court took into account the legal position set forth in the ruling of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court dated December 17, 2025, in case No. 908/2388/21 regarding the determination of a proper defendant in disputes concerning the demolition of unauthorized construction.
– Since the court of appeal did not properly establish who exactly the developer is and whether the current owner is the proper subject of liability, the case was remanded for a new trial regarding the demolition claim.
3. **Court’s decision:** The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, overturned the decision of the court of appeal regarding the cancellation of registration actions (while upholding the refusal to grant them on other grounds), and remanded the case to the court of appeal for a new trial regarding the claim for the demolition of the building.
