The following is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared from a professional perspective:<\/p>\n
1. **Subject Matter of the Dispute:** The prosecutor filed a lawsuit seeking to declare the alienation of a hydraulic structure (dam) from communal to private ownership as unlawful and to return said structure to the territorial community.<\/p>\n
2. **Court\u2019s Arguments:**
\n – The Supreme Court emphasized that hydraulic structures (in particular, earthen dams) are not independent objects of civil commerce, but are an integral component of water fund land plots.
\n – The Court stressed that the legal regime of such a structure is derivative of the legal regime of the land plot on which it is located; therefore, they cannot be alienated separately.
\n – Since, as a general rule, water fund lands cannot be held in private ownership, the privatization of a hydraulic structure that constitutes a component thereof is legally impossible.
\n – The Supreme Court noted that the state registration of the right of ownership to such a structure as a separate immovable object is contrary to the law, as it lacks the characteristics of an independent object of civil rights.
\n – The Court pointed to the necessity of taking into account the conclusions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, according to which the existence of an entry in the register regarding the right of ownership to such a structure creates obstacles for the land plot owner in exercising their right of use.
\n – The Court explicitly referred to the legal position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court dated July 15, 2026, in case No. 915\/268\/24, which alters the approach to the understanding of the legal status of hydraulic structures and the possibility of their registration as separate immovable objects.<\/p>\n
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court vacated the resolution of the court of appeal and remanded the case to the court of appeal for a new trial to render a decision taking into account the stated legal positions.<\/p>\n