1. **Subject of the dispute:** The plaintiffs appealed to the court with a request to recognize the absence of the defendant’s (Olymp-Agro LLC) leasehold right to the land plots, on the grounds that the lease agreements were concluded without the expression of will of the testator, which was confirmed by the conclusion of a forensic handwriting examination.
2. **Court arguments:** The Supreme Court emphasized that a land lease agreement is a legal act that requires a mandatory written form and the signatures of the parties, which is an essential requisite for confirming the expression of will. Since the forensic examination established that the signatures on behalf of the lessor were executed by another person, this casts doubt on the very fact of the agreement’s conclusion. The Court noted that the appellate instance erroneously equated the fact of receiving rent payments with the fact of concluding an agreement, without taking into account the absence of the owner’s expression of will. The Court referred to the position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court in case No. 456/252/22, which clearly stated that the receipt of one-time payments cannot be interpreted as the commission of conclusive actions confirming the conclusion of a lease agreement, and rejected the application of the “estoppel” (prohibition of contradictory behavior) doctrine in such legal relations. The Court of Appeal did not provide a proper assessment of the expert opinion; therefore, its decision was deemed premature. The Supreme Court emphasized that it cannot independently establish factual circumstances, and therefore the case requires a retrial.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court set aside the ruling of the Court of Appeal and remanded the case to the court of appellate instance for a new consideration.
