Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared from a professional perspective:
1. **Subject Matter of the Dispute:** A claim by landowners for the return of land and the cancellation of the state registration of lease rights, effected on the basis of agreements that the plaintiffs did not sign.
2. **Court’s Reasoning:** The Supreme Court emphasized that a signature is a mandatory requisite of a written legal transaction, and its absence or execution by another person indicates that the agreement was not concluded. The Court underscored that a legal transaction for which a party did not express their intent creates no rights or obligations, as it is considered unconcluded. An important aspect was that the receipt of rent by the owners cannot be automatically considered as “approval” of the agreement if they did not know the exact source of the funds and believed them to be payments related to previous legal relationships. The Court rejected the appeal’s arguments regarding the application of the doctrine of “estoppel” (prohibition of contradictory conduct), as there were no grounds for its application in this case. The Supreme Court also pointed out that the appellate court failed to properly evaluate the evidence and erroneously equated the actual transfer of funds with reaching an agreement on the essential terms of the contract. The Court departed from previous conclusions of the Supreme Court regarding the possibility of interpreting the receipt of rent as conclusive actions that confirm the conclusion of an agreement, citing the new legal position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court.
3. **Court’s Decision:** The Supreme Court set aside the ruling of the appellate court and upheld the decision of the court of first instance, by which the claim was granted.
