Five important conclusions of the Supreme Court regarding land disputes: what land owners should know

Land conflicts remain one of the most common categories of litigation in Ukraine. The reasons may be the imposition of land boundaries, the expiration of the lease term, technical errors in documents or disagreements between neighbors.

Based on the latest practice of the Supreme Court, five important legal conclusions have been compiled that may be useful to land owners, tenants and territorial communities.

1. One cadastral number is not enough to resolve a boundary dispute

The Supreme Court emphasized that in the event of a conflict between owners of adjacent land plots, the court cannot be guided solely by the data of the State Land Cadastre.

When considering such cases, it is necessary to examine all technical documentation, land management materials, state acts, results of geodetic works and, if necessary, appoint a land technical examination. In this case, the court does not establish the boundaries of the land plot independently, but only assesses whether they have been determined or restored in accordance with the requirements of the legislation.

2. Land lease is not automatically renewed

The mere fact that the lessee continues to use the land plot after the expiration of the contract does not mean the automatic renewal of the lease.

The Supreme Court clarified that even in the case of the so-called “tacit consent”, it is necessary to follow the procedure prescribed by law: to notify the lessor in a timely manner, send a draft additional agreement and properly draw it up. If the owner refuses to sign the document, the issue is resolved in court.

3. A neighbor’s refusal to sign the act of approval of boundaries does not cancel the right of ownership

Another important conclusion of the Supreme Court concerns the approval of the boundaries of a land plot.

The court noted that the absence of the signature of the adjacent land user in the act of approval of boundaries is not in itself a basis for canceling the state registration of ownership. The decisive factor is the reasons for such refusal and the presence of a real violation of land legislation, and not the fact of not signing the document itself.

4. Technical errors in documents do not deprive the right to a land share

Inaccuracies in old documents, differences in the area of ​​the plot or errors in cadastral numbers do not mean automatic loss of ownership.

The Supreme Court emphasized that when considering such disputes, it is necessary to establish whether these shortcomings led to a real violation of the rights of other persons. If there is no such violation, technical errors themselves cannot be grounds for canceling the state registration of a land plot.

5. Systematic non-payment of rent can lead to loss of land

The Supreme Court also confirmed that systematic violation of the terms of a lease agreement is sufficient grounds for its termination.

If the tenant fails to pay the rent within the specified time limits two or more times, the owner of the land plot has the right to demand termination of the agreement. In this case, even further repayment of the debt does not eliminate the consequences of such a violation.

At the same time, in the case of a minor or partial underpayment, the court assesses how significant the violation was and does not always terminate the agreement automatically.

What lawyers advise

Experts recommend that landowners keep all documents confirming ownership, promptly record violations of contract terms, do not rely solely on records in the cadastre and registers, and, in the event of a dispute, collect the most complete package of evidence.

It is the set of properly prepared evidence, and not a single document, that most often becomes decisive during the consideration of land disputes in court.