Here is the detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared in accordance with your request:
1. The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s claim for the vacation of an unauthorized occupied land plot of communal ownership through the demolition of an object of unauthorized construction (a cafeteria) and the return of the land plot to the territorial community.
2. The court established that the defendant carried out the reconstruction of a bus stop pavilion, converting it into a capital structure (cafeteria) without obtaining the relevant permits and without formalizing the right to use the land plot. The courts of lower instances reasonably recognized that since the land plot was not allocated for construction and the permits were absent, the object has the status of unauthorized construction. The Supreme Court emphasized that a person who has carried out unauthorized construction does not acquire ownership rights to it, and the presence of an entry in the State Register of Proprietary Rights does not legalize an illegally constructed object. An important argument was that the claim for demolition is an effective method of protecting the rights of the landowner, whereas a claim for the cancellation of the state registration of ownership rights does not, in itself, resolve the fate of the structure. The court also noted that the defendant’s reference to an improper method of protection is groundless, since the demolition of an unauthorized structure is a mechanism for restoring the rights of a land plot owner directly provided for by law. In this case, the court referred to the position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court dated December 17, 2025 (case No. 908/2388/21), which finally solidified the approach that in disputes regarding unauthorized construction, claims for the cancellation of ownership registration are ineffective, and the proper method of protection is specifically the claim for the demolition of the object.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances, confirming the legality of the obligation imposed on the defendant to demolish the unauthorizedly constructed object and return the land plot.
