Below is the detailed analysis of the court decision prepared for you:
1. **Subject of the Dispute:** The plaintiff applied to the court with a demand to cancel the state registration of the property rights of the Storozhynets City Council to a land plot, as it overlaps by 99% with his own plot, the right to which was formalized back in 1998.
2. **Arguments of the Court:**
– The court established that the plaintiff is the lawful owner of the land plot on the basis of a state deed from 1998; therefore, his ownership right arose prior to the formation of the municipal plot.
– It was confirmed that the plaintiff’s land plot was effectively “absorbed” by another plot without his knowledge or consent, which constitutes a gross violation of the right to private property.
– The Supreme Court emphasized that land plots for which the right arose before 2004 are considered formed, even if they do not have a cadastral number; therefore, their boundaries must be taken into account during any subsequent registration actions.
– Regarding the method of protection, the court noted that the demand to cancel state registration is an effective instrument for restoring a violated right in this specific situation.
– The court stressed that a formal inconsistency of the claims cannot be a ground for refusing to protect a right if the essence of the violation is obvious and the plaintiff’s objective is lawful.
– In this case, the Supreme Court referred to its new position dated May 13, 2026 (case No. 456/252/22), where it was clarified that a person may demand protection of a land right by way of canceling the registration of a proprietary right if it is necessary to remove obstacles in the use of property.
– The court concluded that the arguments of the State Geocadastre regarding an “improper method of protection” are groundless, as they do not take into account the actual nature of the violation of the owner’s rights.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the Main Directorate of the State Geocadastre and left the decisions of the lower courts unchanged, confirming the plaintiff’s right to cancel the unlawful registration.
