Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the Supreme Court decision you provided. Here is a brief analysis for your material:<\/p>\n
1. **Subject matter of the dispute:** The plaintiffs filed a lawsuit to remove obstacles in the use of land plots by means of their return and the cancellation of the state registration of the lease right, as the lease agreements were concluded without the owner’s expression of will (the signatures were forged).<\/p>\n
2. **Court arguments:**
\n – The court established that since the lessor’s signatures on the lease agreements were forged, the agreements are not considered concluded, as no agreement on the essential terms of the transaction was reached.
\n – The Supreme Court emphasized that a transaction for which a written form is established by law cannot be considered executed without the party’s signature, and therefore, no rights and obligations under such an agreement arose for the parties.
\n – The court rejected the defendant’s argument regarding the bad-faith conduct of the plaintiffs due to their receipt of rent, noting that these actions cannot replace the owner\u2019s absent expression of will to conclude an agreement.
\n – It was confirmed that in the event of contesting the very fact of the conclusion of a transaction, an effective method of protection is a negatory lawsuit (removal of obstacles in the use of property).
\n – The court noted that the statute of limitations does not apply to such claims, as the violation of property rights is ongoing.
\n – In its decision, the Supreme Court referred to the position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court dated May 13, 2026, in case No. 456\/252\/22, which enshrines the approach to protecting the owner’s rights through a negatory lawsuit in cases where lease agreements are non-concluded, and emphasizes that the mismatch of claims is not grounds for dismissal of the lawsuit if the essence of the rights violation is obvious.<\/p>\n
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts, by which the claims for the removal of obstacles in the use of land plots and the cancellation of the state registration of the lease right were satisfied.<\/p>\n