1. **Subject matter of the dispute:** The plaintiff appealed to the court with a claim to cancel the decisions of state registrars regarding the registration of the right to lease land plots, since the lease agreements had been concluded without the owner’s expression of will (the signatures on the documents turned out to be forged).
2. **Arguments of the court:**
– The Supreme Court emphasized that a legal transaction signed not by a party to the contract, but by another person, is considered as not having been performed, since the owner’s expression of will was absent.
– The Court stressed that the absence of the owner’s signature on a land lease agreement means that the agreement was not concluded, and that rights and obligations thereunder did not arise.
– The Court of Appeal erroneously dismissed the claim solely due to a formalistic approach to the method of protection, considering that the plaintiff had chosen an “improper” method (cancellation of registration instead of recognition of the absence of a right).
– The Supreme Court clarified that an owner has the right to independently choose the method of protection, and the court must interpret the claims on their merits rather than interpreting them purely literally.
– Formal inconsistency of claims cannot be grounds for dismissal of a claim if the plaintiff’s purpose is clear and aimed at removing obstacles to the use of property.
– Since the Court of Appeal did not consider the case on its merits, but only formally dismissed the claim, its decision was set aside.
– The case was remanded to the appellate instance for a new trial for the proper examination of evidence and the adoption of a decision on the merits of the dispute.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court set aside the ruling of the Court of Appeal and remanded the case for a new trial to the appellate court.
**Note:** In this decision, the Supreme Court refers to the position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court dated May 13, 2026, which details approaches to the protection of an owner’s rights in cases where lease agreements are not concluded due to the absence of the owner’s signature, which effectively clarifies and develops the practice regarding the effectiveness of methods of protection in such disputes.
