1. The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s demand to remove obstacles in the use and disposal of a non-residential building, which, according to the prosecutor’s office, was illegally alienated from communal ownership.<\/p>\n
2. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which closed the proceedings in the case, considering that the dispute is not subject to consideration in the commercial court, since the prosecutor appealed to the court, claiming the illegality of the alienation of communal property, which, in his opinion, was carried out outside the privatization procedure. The Supreme Court emphasized that the dispute as to whether the property should have been alienated exclusively through the privatization procedure is a dispute regarding the privatization of communal property, which should be considered in the commercial court. The court also noted that the method of protection chosen by the plaintiff does not change the legal nature of the dispute, and the courts of previous instances, drawing conclusions regarding the essence of the dispute without investigating the circumstances of the case, violated the norms of procedural law. The Supreme Court referred to the previous practice of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, which confirms that disputes regarding the privatization of communal property fall under the jurisdiction of commercial courts.<\/p>\n
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the courts of the first and appellate instances and referred the case to the court of the first instance for further consideration.<\/p>\n