**1. Subject of the Dispute**
The plaintiff (TAS AGRO PIVNICH LLC) sought judicial relief to renew a land lease agreement, to declare illegal the settlement council’s decisions refusing such renewal and transferring the land to another lessee, and to invalidate the lease agreement concluded between the council and the new lessee.
**2. Court’s Arguments**
* The Supreme Court reaffirmed established practice that for land lease agreements signed before 01.01.2013, the moment of their entry into force is their state registration, unless otherwise provided by the agreement itself.
* The Court indicated that the courts of lower instances erroneously determined the commencement of the lease term, failing to link it to the date of state registration, which led to incorrect conclusions regarding the plaintiff’s missed deadline for notifying the renewal of the lease.
* At the same time, the Supreme Court emphasized that a claim to invalidate an already executed lease agreement (concluded with another lessee) without a simultaneous request for the application of the consequences of its invalidity (restitution) constitutes an ineffective method of legal protection.
* The Court stressed that a lawsuit seeking to declare an additional agreement concluded on new terms, regarding which the parties have not reached a consensus, cannot be satisfied, as this violates the principle of freedom of contract.
* Furthermore, the Court confirmed that a settlement council’s decision that has already been executed (the land has been leased out) has exhausted its effect, and therefore its revocation would not lead to the actual restoration of the plaintiff’s rights.
* Consequently, although the lower courts made errors in their reasoning regarding time limits, the final result — the dismissal of the claim — is correct due to the plaintiff’s choice of an ineffective method of protection.
**3. Court Decision**
The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal by amending the motivational parts of the decisions of the lower courts (stating them in its own wording), but left their operative parts, which denied the plaintiff the satisfaction of the claim, unchanged.
