1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the transfer of a forest fund land plot into private ownership and the appeal of related decisions and agreements.
2. The Supreme Court found that the courts of previous instances did not fully investigate the circumstances of the case, in particular, did not properly clarify the content of the prosecutor’s claims and did not determine an effective way to protect the rights of the state. The courts did not properly assess the evidence indicating that the disputed land plot belongs to forestry land, and also did not take into account the expert’s opinion in the criminal case, which is admissible evidence in the civil case. In addition, the courts did not take into account that the unproven nature of the claims is an independent basis for rejecting the claim, and prematurely concluded that the prosecutor’s claims in the interests of the state should be rejected. The Court also noted that there are no grounds for the prosecutor to represent the interests of the state in the person of a state enterprise, since the prosecutor does not have the authority to conduct cases in the interests of legal entities.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous courts regarding the consideration of claims in the interests of the state enterprise, leaving these claims unconsidered, and overturned the decision regarding the claims in the interests of the state, sending the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
