1. **Subject Matter of the Dispute:** The prosecutor applied to the court in the interests of the state, seeking the annulment of a city council decision on the transfer of a land plot into private ownership, the invalidation of the state deed of title, and the recovery of said land plot from unlawful possession for the benefit of the territorial community.<\/p>\n
2. **Court Arguments:**
\n – The court of cassation indicated that the lower courts had failed to properly assess evidence of the acquirer’s bad faith, in particular, the facts of the acquirer\u2019s disregard for a court order prohibiting construction, as confirmed by a criminal conviction.
\n – The Supreme Court emphasized that the issue of an acquirer’s good faith must be resolved exclusively after a thorough examination of all circumstances of the case, which the courts of first and appellate instance failed to do.
\n – The Court noted that in resolving the dispute, it is necessary to take into account amendments to the Civil Code of Ukraine (regarding the strengthening of the protection of the rights of a bona fide acquirer), which require the court to verify whether actions aimed at the alienation of property were performed and whether the acquirer is truly bona fide.
\n – The court of cassation underscored that the courts did not analyze the evidence provided by the prosecutor (urban planning documentation, cadastral map data, media publications) in the context of whether the acquirer could have known about the unlawful alienation of the land plot from the community’s ownership.
\n – The Court also indicated that since the decision was overturned regarding the recovery of property, the additional decisions regarding the recovery of legal costs automatically lose their force, as they are an integral part of the main decision.
\n – The Supreme Court in this case departed from its own previous conclusion, set forth in the additional resolution dated April 22, 2019, in case No. 756\/2157\/15-\u0446, regarding the procedure for the allocation of legal costs in the event of remitting a case for a new trial.
\n – The court of cassation stated that the lower courts did not properly examine the issue of whether the acquirer is bona fide, which is key for the application of new legislative provisions regarding compensation for the value of property.<\/p>\n
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court partially satisfied the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, overturned the court decisions in the part concerning the refusal to recover the land plot and the allocation of legal costs, and also overturned the additional decisions of the court of first instance, remitting the case in this part for a new trial to the court of first instance.<\/p>\n