1. **Subject matter of the dispute:** The dispute concerned the declaration of illegality of local self-government bodies’ decisions on the privatization of a land plot and the registration of ownership rights to a residential building, as well as the recognition of ownership rights to shares in inherited property, and counterclaims for declaring a will invalid.<\/p>\n
2. **Court’s arguments:**
\n * The Court departed from previous practice, noting that the absence in the case files of a decision by the executive committee granting the village council head the authority to perform notarial acts is not sufficient grounds for declaring a will invalid, as this violates the principle of freedom of testamentary disposition.
\n * The Court emphasized that the right to make a will is a fundamental principle of succession law; therefore, formal defects in documents that do not concern the free expression of the testator’s will should not result in the nullity of the will.
\n * Regarding succession, the Court established that since the testator (the grandson) effectively entered into management of the property, he accepted the inheritance after his grandfather, which is confirmed by the case materials and witness testimony.
\n * The Court found erroneous the conclusion of the lower courts that a notary\u2019s resolution refusing to issue a certificate of the right to inheritance is mandatory for filing a lawsuit to recognize ownership rights to inherited property.
\n * Since there is a real dispute over the right between the parties that cannot be resolved out of court, protection of ownership rights through the court is an appropriate method of protection.
\n * The Court also considered the principle of prohibiting reformatio in peius, upholding the decisions in the part where the plaintiffs’ rights were protected by the lower courts.<\/p>\n
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court granted the cassation appeal, overturned the decisions of the lower courts in the part concerning the satisfaction of the counterclaim (declaring the will valid) and in the part concerning the refusal to recognize ownership rights, and rendered a new decision recognizing the plaintiffs’ ownership rights to shares in the residential building.<\/p>\n