1. **Subject matter of the dispute:** The plaintiff (the construction developer) sought to protect their rights to a non-residential premise in a newly constructed building by seeking to invalidate sale and purchase agreements concluded between other parties (a rescissory claim).
2. **Court’s arguments:**
– The Grand Chamber emphasized that the construction developer, as the holder of the right to the land plot, is the original title holder of the property rights to the object under construction.
– The Court clarified that seeking to invalidate sale and purchase agreements is an ineffective method of protection, as it does not lead to the automatic restoration of ownership rights or the return of the property to the plaintiff’s possession.
– Instead, the proper and effective method for protecting property rights in such cases is a vindicatory claim—the recovery of property from another’s unlawful possession.
– The Court emphasized that for vindication, it is not necessary to cancel the entire chain of previous legal transactions, as this violates the principle of legal certainty and the rights of bona fide purchasers.
– It was also noted that if property-law protection becomes impossible, a person has the right to demand compensation for construction costs within the framework of obligations.
– **Note:** The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court officially departed from its previous conclusions (specifically in the resolutions dated July 23, 2024, and October 19, 2023), where the invalidation of contracts (a rescissory claim) was mistakenly considered a proper method of protection in similar disputes.
– Ultimately, the Court noted that since the plaintiff chose an ineffective method of protection, the claim should be dismissed, even if their rights were violated.
3. **Court’s decision:** The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court amended the reasoning part of the appellate court’s resolution, while upholding the decision to dismiss the claim due to the plaintiff’s choice of an improper method of protection.
