EVERLEGAL once again successfully defended a Ukrainian agricultural producer before the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court
EVERLEGAL once again successfully defended a Ukrainian agricultural producer before the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court
In September 2025, EVERLEGAL's agricultural and land law practice team successfully defended its position in the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court in case No. 910/2546/22 regarding the proper defendant in a dispute challenging an order of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine issued following the consideration of a complaint in the field of state registration.
Despite the fact that since 2018, the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court has formed established conclusions that the proper defendant in this category of disputes is the person who appealed to the Ministry of Justice with a complaint against the decision of the state registrar, and the Ministry of Justice may be a co-respondent if the plaintiff also considers it guilty of violating rights, the Commercial Court of Cassation within the Supreme Court continued to adhere to the position that the Ministry of Justice may be the sole respondent in such disputes. This led to the transfer of case No. 910/2546/22 to the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court for the purpose of establishing a uniform judicial practice on this issue.
History of the dispute
In 2018 and 2019, our client, a Ukrainian agricultural producer, entered into a number of agreements under which it subleased more than 300 land plots.
In 2020, as a result of raider actions, the termination of the client's sublease rights was registered with the state, and the lease rights were registered to another lessee. The EVERLEGAL team filed a complaint with the Ministry of Justice on behalf of the client against the decision of the state registrars, which was upheld. However, the client was unable to actually restore his rights to the land, as immediately after the issuance of the Ministry of Justice order, the lease rights were again registered to another lessee. In this regard, we filed a second complaint, which the Ministry of Justice also upheld by issuing a new order.
The new tenant challenged the Ministry of Justice's order in court, naming the Ministry of Justice as the defendant and our client as a third party that does not assert independent claims regarding the subject matter of the dispute.
The court of first instance ruled in favour of the claim, concluding that the Ministry of Justice's order was unlawful. The court of appeal overturned this decision and dismissed the claim on the grounds that the order had been issued in compliance with the law.
At the same time, throughout the proceedings, we emphasised that the claim should be dismissed not only because of the legality of the contested order, but primarily because our client was not involved in the case as a defendant whose complaint had been upheld by the Ministry of Justice, despite the established conclusions of the Supreme Court.
During the cassation review of the case, the panel of judges of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, taking into account the arguments presented by EVERLEGAL's lawyers and the existence of different approaches in practice, referred case No. 910/2546/22 to the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court for consideration.
What conclusions did the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court provide in case No. 910/2546/22?
- The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court upheld its previous conclusions that the proper defendant in disputes concerning appeals against orders of the Ministry of Justice issued as a result of consideration of complaints in the field of state registration is, first and foremost, the person who filed the complaint, since in this case it is between this person and the person whose state registration of rights was appealed and the Ministry of Justice may be a co-defendant if the plaintiff considers it to be guilty of violating his rights. In this context, the Supreme Court emphasised that the Ministry of Justice cannot be the sole defendant in this category of cases, regardless of the arguments and grounds for the claim, since the claimant has no dispute with it over property rights, since the Ministry of Justice, within the limits of its powers, assesses the legality of the administrative procedure carried out by the state registrar and does not resolve the dispute on its merits, as this is not within its competence;
- The Supreme Court further concluded that the Ministry of Justice may be a defendant in a claim for compensation for damages caused by it due to improper performance of its duties during the consideration of a complaint in the field of state registration;
- The Supreme Court also concluded that a request to appeal the Ministry of Justice's order may be an appropriate means of protection, since, based on the current wording of paragraphs two and three of Part 3 of Article 26 of the Law of Ukraine ‘On State Registration of Real Rights to Immovable Property and Their Encumbrances,’ if the court concludes that the plaintiff's real right has been violated and is subject to restoration with the cancellation of the Ministry of Justice's decision, an official of the Ministry of Justice, on the basis of the court decision, will have to restore such right of the plaintiff to the state that existed prior to the relevant state registration, by means of state registration in favour of the plaintiff of changes or acquisition of the specified real right, but provided that at the time of the registration action, the right of ownership is registered in the name of the defendant and not in the name of another person. At the same time, the Supreme Court emphasised that in such disputes, the application of measures to secure the claim may prevent the further transfer of property rights, thereby providing the claimant with an effective opportunity to protect their rights without the need to reapply to the court.
The full text of the Supreme Court's decision in case No. 910/2546/22 is available at LINK.
This case once again proves the importance of high-quality legal support for businesses in court disputes, as choosing the wrong defendants or the wrong method of defence can result in the loss of invaluable time and resources needed to restore one's violated rights.
The case was handled by EVERLEGAL's agricultural and land law practice team, led by its head, Svitlana Teteria, with the support of partner Andriy Porayko.
- For further information, please fill out the contact form at the LINK.
