Here is the detailed analysis of the court decision prepared for your interview:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The plaintiff sought through the court to invalidate an order of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine, which had canceled a number of registration actions regarding real estate to which the plaintiff laid claim as a mortgagee.
2. **Arguments of the Court:** The court emphasized that the Ministry of Justice, when considering complaints in the sphere of state registration, assesses only compliance with the administrative procedure and does not resolve the dispute over ownership rights on the merits. The Supreme Court, referring to the position of the Grand Chamber, noted that in such categories of cases, the Ministry of Justice cannot be the sole defendant, as there is no dispute between it and the plaintiff regarding proprietary rights. The court stressed that the proper defendant in disputes over the cancellation of registration orders by the Ministry of Justice must be the person whose right to the property is being challenged and regarding whom the corresponding entry was made in the register. Since the plaintiff chose an improper defendant, this constitutes an independent and sufficient ground for dismissing the claim, regardless of other arguments of the parties. The court also indicated that it does not have the right, on its own initiative, to involve other defendants if the plaintiff has not done so in a timely manner. Thus, the Supreme Court effectively departed from previous practice, where courts could consider such disputes with only the Ministry of Justice participating, and established the mandatory requirement to involve the actual participants of the disputed legal relations as defendants.
3. **Decision of the Court:** The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, amending the reasoning parts of the decisions of the lower courts, but left their operative parts regarding the refusal to satisfy the claim unchanged.
