1. **Subject matter of the dispute:** The prosecutor filed a lawsuit in the interests of the territorial community seeking to recognize its ownership right to a non-residential building, which the prosecutor considers to be an object of unauthorized construction located on a communal land plot.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
* The Supreme Court emphasized that the lower courts erroneously focused solely on the fact of the registration of the ownership right by the defendant, ignoring the need to verify the status of the real estate object itself.
* The Court underscored that the registration of ownership rights to unauthorized construction does not automatically legalize it; therefore, the status of a “bona fide purchaser” does not exempt one from the obligation to prove the legality of the building’s erection.
* The Supreme Court pointed out the necessity of establishing whether the legal requirements regarding land plot allocation and the existence of permitting documentation at the time of construction were complied with.
* The Court also noted that conflicting prior information regarding the year of the object’s construction (1959, 1967, or 2009) requires thorough investigation, as the applicability of the legal norms in force at that time depends on it.
* The lower courts failed to provide a proper assessment of the questionable circumstances surrounding the conclusion of the exchange agreement through which the defendant acquired the right of ownership.
* The Supreme Court emphasized that during the new trial, the defendant’s conduct must be assessed: whether the defendant exercised sufficient due diligence in verifying the legality of the origin of the property and the existence of rights to the land.
* The Court, referring to the position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, affirmed the right of a land plot owner to file a lawsuit for the recognition of ownership rights to unauthorized construction directly against the current acquirer of such property, departing from the approach that limited liability only to the initial developer.
3. **Court’s decision:** 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 Poltava Region for a full establishment of the factual circumstances.
