Here is the detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared in accordance with your request:
**1. Subject matter of the dispute**
The subject matter of the dispute is the consideration of an appeal filed by a person who did not participate in the case (Lviv City Council) against the decision of the court of first instance recognizing the ownership right to immovable property by another person.
**2. Court’s arguments**
The Supreme Court emphasized that the appellate court committed a gross procedural error by creating a “procedural paradox.” The appellate court initially stated that the decision of the local court did not concern the rights and obligations of the Lviv City Council (which is grounds for closing the appellate proceedings), but instead continued to consider the case on the merits and rendered a judgment. The Supreme Court stressed that a judicial decision in a private law dispute is effective only between the parties (inter partes) and has no prejudicial effect on persons who did not participate in the case. In accordance with the position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, if a court determines that a decision does not affect the rights of the person who filed the appeal, it is obliged to close the proceedings rather than review the case on the merits. By its actions, the appellate court artificially granted the Council the status of a participant in the case, thereby effectively opposing the judicial decision to it and depriving it of the opportunity to protect its interests in the future. Since the appellate court did not follow the algorithm of actions defined by procedural law, its resolution is unlawful and subject to cancellation.
**3. Court decision**
The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeal, cancelled the resolution of the appellate court, and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of appellate instance.
***
In this resolution, the Supreme Court refers to the position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court dated 04.03.2026 in case No. 922/5241/21, which clarifies the criteria for what is considered a decision regarding the rights, interests, and obligations of a person who did not participate in the case, and emphasizes the inadmissibility of interference with a final court decision solely due to disagreement with the reasoning part.
