1. **Subject of the Dispute:** The prosecutor filed a lawsuit with the court requesting the cancellation of the state registration of the leasehold right to water fund land plots and compelling the defendant to return them to the territorial community due to the illegality of the lease agreement extension.
2. **Court Arguments:** The Supreme Court indicated that the lower courts erroneously equated the state registration of a property right with the state registration of the lease agreement itself, which are distinct procedures. The Court emphasized that for agreements concluded before January 1, 2013, the state registration of the agreement was a mandatory condition for its entry into force, a requirement that was not met in this case regarding the supplementary agreement. Furthermore, the Court noted that the lower courts took a formalistic approach to the prosecutor’s motion to amend the subject of the claim, failing to properly examine whether there was a simultaneous change in the subject and grounds of the claim, which is prohibited by procedural law. The Supreme Court stressed that the courts failed to assess the prosecutor’s arguments regarding the effectiveness of the chosen method of legal protection in light of new conclusions made by the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court. Consequently, due to violations of procedural law and misapplication of substantive law, the judicial decisions were deemed premature. **Note:** In this decision, the Court explicitly refers to the legal position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court dated 06.05.2026 in case No. 925/632/19, which confirms established practice regarding the moment of entry into force for land lease agreements signed before 2013 and distinguishes between the procedures for registering an agreement and a property right.
3. **Court Ruling:** The Supreme Court set aside the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances and remanded the case for a new trial to the Commercial Court of Dnipropetrovsk Region.
