1. The subject matter of the dispute is the invalidation of a power of attorney, the invalidation of land lease agreements, and the restitution of land plots to the owner due to the lack of intent to lease them.
2. The court established that the power of attorney, on the basis of which the lease agreements were concluded, is invalid due to discrepancies in registration numbers and the lack of proper certification by a village council official. Since the power of attorney was declared invalid, the representative had no authority to conclude lease agreements on behalf of the owner, which indicates the latter’s lack of intent. The courts of previous instances erroneously chose the method of protection of “restitution of property from someone else’s unlawful possession,” since in this case the legal relations concern the removal of obstacles in the use of land. The Supreme Court, taking into account its own practice, noted that the court must provide a proper interpretation of the claims based on the purpose of protecting rights, and not just a literal interpretation. Given this, the Supreme Court changed the method of protection to an obligation to return the land plots, which corresponds to the essence of a negatory action. The court, in its decision, referred to the position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court in case No. 456/252/22, which clarifies approaches to the interpretation of claims and the application of a negatory action, which effectively confirms a departure from the more formalistic approaches that could have previously been applied in similar disputes.
3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, changing the operative part of the decisions of the courts of previous instances regarding the method of protecting the plaintiff’s rights, and ordering the defendant to return the land plots to the owner.
