1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as illegal and cancellation of the order of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine on the cancellation of the decision of the state registrar regarding the state registration of ownership of an apartment by “Credit Initiatives” LLC.
2. The court of cassation, overturning the decisions of the courts of previous instances, was guided by the fact that the courts did not take into account the violation by the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine of the procedure for considering the complaint, in particular, the unfounded renewal of the term for filing a complaint to the person who applied to the Ministry of Justice, and non-compliance with the terms for considering the complaint by the Ministry itself. The court also took into account the prejudicial circumstances established in another case, which indicate a violation of the complaint review procedure. In addition, the court noted that the courts of previous instances did not take into account that the satisfaction of the claim to cancel the decision of the state registrar on state registration of ownership will lead to the restoration of the violated rights of the person without the use of additional methods of protection, such as the restoration of ownership. The court of cassation emphasized the obligation of the Ministry of Justice to ensure the participation of interested parties in the consideration of the complaint by proper notification, verification of the terms of appeal with the complaint, and analysis of the information contained in the complaint. The court of cassation departed from the conclusions of the courts of previous instances, which considered that the violations committed by the Ministry of Justice during the consideration of the complaint were not significant and did not affect the final result.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous courts in the part of the refusal to satisfy the claims for recognition as illegal and cancellation of the order of the Ministry of Justice, cancellation of the decision on state registration of rights and their encumbrances, and satisfied these claims, and in the part of the claims for restoration of ownership changed the decisions of the previous courts, stating their reasoning parts in a new wording.
