When 10 Years of Criminal Proceedings Justify Missing the Statute of Limitations — The Supreme Court's Position

The United Chamber of the Cassation Civil Court within the Supreme Court concluded that a lengthy criminal proceeding, during which circumstances of illegal alienation of state-owned land were established, can be a valid reason for missing the statute of limitations to file a claim for the recovery of such land. At the same time, the Supreme Court confirmed the state's right to reclaim forest fund land plots that were transferred into private ownership based on illegal decisions and forged documents.

Case circumstances

The dispute concerned a forest fund land plot in the village of Polianytsia, Ivano-Frankivsk region.

In 2004, law enforcement agencies opened a criminal case against officials of the Polianytsia village council. The investigation established that during 2002–2003, they illegally alienated state forest fund lands, changed their designated use, and transferred them to citizens for residential construction.

According to the criminal case materials and the conclusion of the forensic land expertise, more than 40 hectares of forest fund land were illegally alienated from the use of the State Enterprise "Vorokhtianske Forestry".

One of these plots, 0.1 hectares in size, was obtained by the defendant. In 2011, he divided it into two separate land plots and registered new state acts for them.

In March 2015, the Halytskyi District Court of Ivano-Frankivsk region closed the criminal proceedings due to the expiration of the statute of limitations for criminal prosecution. At the same time, the court established that village council officials knowingly prepared and issued false documents regarding the alienation of forest fund lands and their transfer into private ownership.

The civil claim by the State Enterprise "Vorokhtianske Forestry" for damages, filed within the criminal proceedings, was left without consideration.

After that, the prosecutor filed a lawsuit on behalf of the state represented by the State Agency of Forest Resources of Ukraine demanding the return of the land plots to state ownership.

What the courts decided

The court of first instance partially satisfied the claim.

It denied the demands to invalidate the state land acts, considering such a method of protection inappropriate. Instead, the court reclaimed the land plots from illegal possession in favor of the state represented by the State Agency of Forest Resources of Ukraine.

The appellate court agreed with these conclusions and left the decision unchanged.

The landowner filed a cassation appeal to the Supreme Court.

What issue the United Chamber considered

The key issue in the case was the statute of limitations.

The defendant insisted that the state and prosecutor missed the legally established deadline for filing a lawsuit, and therefore the claim should be dismissed.

The case was referred to the United Chamber of the Cassation Civil Court because it was necessary to assess the Supreme Court's approaches regarding whether a lengthy criminal proceeding can be a valid reason for missing the statute of limitations in cases concerning the return of state property.

The Supreme Court's position

The United Chamber reminded that valid reasons for missing the statute of limitations can only be circumstances that objectively and independently of the plaintiff made it impossible or significantly complicated timely court access.

The court noted that from 2005 to 2015, criminal proceedings were ongoing, during which circumstances of illegal alienation of forest fund lands, forgery of official documents, and transfer of lands to citizens were established.

In this criminal proceeding, the permanent user of the land plot — the State Enterprise "Vorokhtianske Forestry" — had already taken measures to protect its rights by filing a civil claim for damages.

The Supreme Court stated that a lengthy criminal proceeding, in which the circumstances of document forgery leading to the alienation of the land plot from state possession were evaluated and established, can under certain circumstances be recognized as a valid reason for missing the statute of limitations to file a claim for recovery of such land plot.

At the same time, the United Chamber agreed with the conclusions of the lower courts about the existence of valid reasons for missing the statute of limitations in this case.

Why the land was returned to the state

The Supreme Court agreed with the conclusions of the lower courts that the disputed land plot left state possession against its will due to illegal actions of local government officials.

The court established that the land plot belonged to the forest fund lands and was in permanent use by the forestry enterprise. Its alienation and change of designated use occurred without compliance with land and forestry legislation requirements.

Under such circumstances, the state had the right to reclaim the land plot under Article 388 of the Civil Code of Ukraine as property that left its possession not voluntarily.

The Supreme Court on the proper method of protection

The court separately confirmed the established practice of the Supreme Court's Grand Chamber regarding the method of protecting ownership rights.

According to the court, to return illegally alienated property, it is not necessary to separately challenge decisions of authorities, state acts, registration records, or other documents certifying ownership rights.

An effective method of protection in such disputes is a vindicatory claim — a demand to recover property from an illegal possessor. That is why the courts lawfully denied demands to invalidate state acts but satisfied the claim to reclaim the land plots.

What the Supreme Court said about the bona fide acquirer

The court also assessed the issue of respecting a person's right to peaceful possession of property under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

The Supreme Court noted that the defendant acquired the land plot free of charge, did not use it, did not carry out construction, and did not raise compensation issues.

Under such circumstances, reclaiming the land plot does not impose an excessive individual burden on him and does not violate the principle of proportionality of interference with ownership rights.

Did the United Chamber depart from previous practice

Although case No. 354/625/15 was referred to the United Chamber due to a possible need to depart from the Supreme Court's conclusions in a number of similar cases regarding lands in Polianytsia, the United Chamber saw no grounds for such a departure.

The court concluded that previous legal positions regarding the assessment of valid reasons for missing the statute of limitations comply with the law and can be applied further.

Final decision

The United Chamber of the Cassation Civil Court within the Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances unchanged.

The disputed land plots are subject to return to state ownership.

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