The state can reclaim land even after the statute of limitations has expired — Supreme Court decision

The United Chamber of the Cassation Civil Court in case No. 354/625/15 formulated a conclusion regarding the validity of reasons for missing the statute of limitations in a case concerning the reclamation of land plots that were transferred into private ownership after illegal withdrawal from forest fund lands.

Case circumstances

In 2002, a citizen received a land plot of 0.1 ha in the village of Polianytsia, Yaremche City Council, for the construction and maintenance of a residential house, household buildings, and structures. Later it was revealed that this land was previously in permanent use by a state enterprise. In 2002–2003, officials of the Polianytsia Village Council illegally withdrew forest fund lands, changed their designated purpose, and transferred them to citizens as private property.

In 2011, the owner divided the land plot into two plots of 0.05 ha each. After that, the prosecutor filed a lawsuit demanding their reclamation in favor of the state.

The courts of first and appellate instances satisfied this demand, establishing that the land plots left state possession against its will. At the same time, the Supreme Court reviewed the question of whether the reasons for the prosecutor missing the statute of limitations to file such a claim were valid.

The Yaremche City Court of Ivano-Frankivsk region partially satisfied the prosecutor’s claim. The court reclaimed the two disputed land plots from unlawful possession and transferred them to state ownership represented by the State Agency of Forest Resources of Ukraine.

At the same time, the court denied the claims to invalidate the state acts granting private ownership rights to the land plots. The court noted that such a claim is an improper way to protect ownership rights.

The court of first instance reasoned that the disputed lands were withdrawn by the local self-government body from forest fund lands without following the procedure prescribed by law. Therefore, they left state possession against its will. At the same time, the citizen acquired ownership of the land plot by gratuitous transfer based on the decision of the executive committee of the Polianytsia Village Council, which had no right to transfer this land into ownership in violation of the established procedure.

The Ivano-Frankivsk Appellate Court agreed with the conclusions that the land left state possession against its will, and the citizen acquired ownership contrary to the procedure established by law. The court also agreed that the reasons for the prosecutor missing the statute of limitations were valid, as the civil claim to protect the state’s interests was considered together with the criminal case from May 2005 to March 2015.

Supreme Court decision

The Supreme Court stated that a prolonged consideration of a criminal proceeding can be a valid reason for missing the statute of limitations if it was in that proceeding that the circumstances of document forgery and illegal withdrawal of land from state ownership were established.

In this case, the Supreme Court took into account that the circumstances of illegal withdrawal of land from state ownership were to be established within the criminal proceeding that lasted from 2005 to March 2015. It was in this proceeding that the circumstances of forgery of official documents, on the basis of which forest fund land plots were transferred into private ownership, were examined.

The court emphasized that, according to the general rule enshrined in Article 387 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, the owner has an unlimited right to reclaim property from unlawful possession by another. Reclamation of property by vindication applies to property-law relations, in particular if there are no contractual relations between the owner and the possessor and the property is held by the possessor not based on a contract concluded with the owner. The Supreme Court reminded that the owner can reclaim their property from a bona fide acquirer only in cases expressly provided for by Article 388 of the Civil Code of Ukraine. One such ground is when the property left the possession of the owner or the person to whom it was transferred against their will.

At the same time, if the owner voluntarily transferred the property to another person, this generally excludes the possibility of reclaiming it from a bona fide acquirer.

The Supreme Court agreed with the conclusions of the lower courts about the existence of grounds for reclaiming the land plot in favor of the state represented by the State Agency of Forest Resources of Ukraine.

Moreover, the Supreme Court confirmed that the prosecutor, acting in the interests of the state, performs a subsidiary role. They can go to court if the competent body does not protect or inadequately protects the interests of the state or if such a body does not exist.

At the same time, in the judicial process, the state itself is the plaintiff as the bearer of the violated right, and the relevant body or prosecutor performs procedural actions to protect its interests. In this case, the prosecutor substantiated the violation of the state’s interests by the fact that the forest fund land plot left state ownership in violation of the law, based on a forged decision of the village council executive committee and as a result of illegal actions by its officials.

The Supreme Court concluded that the claim was filed precisely in the interests of the state. As a result, the cassation appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court remained unchanged.

Thus, the Supreme Court formulated a legal conclusion: a prolonged consideration of a criminal proceeding, within which the circumstances of document forgery and illegal withdrawal of a land plot from state possession were established, can under certain circumstances be a valid reason for missing the statute of limitations for the subsequent reclamation of this land plot.

Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua and to Google News SUD.UA, as well as to our VIBER and WhatsApp, our page on Facebook and on Instagram to stay informed about the most important events.