Below is a detailed analysis of this court decision:
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the legality of the transfer into private ownership and subsequent lease of a land plot that is part of the nature reserve fund.
2. The Supreme Court was guided by the principle that a claim for declaring a decision of a local self-government body illegal and cancelling it is an ineffective method of protection, as such a decision has already exhausted its effect through implementation (registration of ownership rights). The Court emphasized that instead of cancelling such acts, courts should provide a legal assessment of them directly in the reasoning part of the judgment when resolving the dispute on the merits. Regarding the claims against the Farming Enterprise, the Court concluded that there was a violation of subject-matter jurisdiction, as a dispute between a territorial community and a legal entity concerning property must be considered under the procedure of commercial, rather than civil, litigation. The Court referred to the position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court dated January 22, 2025, in case No. 446/478/19, confirming that challenging already executed decisions of public authorities is an ineffective method of protection, thereby departing from approaches where such claims were granted. Furthermore, the Supreme Court noted that it lacks the authority to review the part of the claims against the natural person (INDIVIDUAL_1) that were not challenged in the cassation procedure, as it is limited by the scope of the cassation appeal. Thus, the Court applied a differentiated approach: dismissal of the claim due to an improper method of protection, termination of proceedings due to a violation of jurisdiction, and upholding the decision in the part that was not challenged.
3. The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeal: it set aside the decisions of the lower courts, dismissed the claim regarding the cancellation of the village council’s decision, terminated the proceedings in the case concerning the claims against the Farming Enterprise, and left unchanged the decision in the part concerning the claims against the natural person.
