Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared in accordance with your requirements:
1. **Subject Matter of the Dispute:** Removal of impediments to the use of a land plot by way of its restitution to the owner and the cancellation of the state registration of the lease right executed on the basis of a forged agreement.
2. **Arguments of the Court:** The Supreme Court proceeded from the premise that, since a forensic handwriting examination established the fact that the lease agreement was signed not by the owner but by another person, such a transaction is deemed unconcluded due to the absence of the party’s expression of will. The Court emphasized that an owner whose rights have been violated by the groundless use of their property has the right to protection through the filing of a negatory action. Furthermore, the Supreme Court stressed that the choice of a specific method of protection (restitution of land, cancellation of registration, etc.) depends on the nature of the violations, and a formal dismissal of the claim due to a supposedly “improper method of protection” is inadmissible if the plaintiff’s objective is clear and lawful. The Court noted that the courts of lower instances erroneously applied a formalistic approach, ignoring the objectives of civil proceedings regarding the effective protection of rights. It is significant that the Supreme Court affirmed the owner’s right to demand the removal of impediments to the use of property even through the cancellation of the lease entry if such an entry was created on the basis of an unconcluded agreement. The Court, in its decision, referred to the legal position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court dated May 13, 2026, in case No. 456/252/22, which significantly expands the options available to owners in choosing methods of protection in negatory actions, effectively departing from the narrow interpretation that previously restricted plaintiffs in their choice of claims.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court set aside the decisions of the courts of lower instances and rendered a new decision, by which it fully satisfied the claims of [Name Redacted], ordering the defendant to return the land plot and canceling the state registration of the lease right.
