The Supreme Court explained when a land share can be obtained even after 30 years

The United Chamber of the Cassation Civil Court within the Supreme Court formed a legal conclusion aimed at unifying judicial practice in disputes regarding the right to land shares of former members of collective agricultural enterprises. In case No. 530/656/24, the Supreme Court distinguished two categories of disputes about land shares and determined when the statute of limitations does not apply to claims for recognition of the right to a land share, and when it must be applied.

Case circumstances

Seven former members of the Karl Marx CAE in Poltava region applied to the court.

They requested recognition of their right to land shares of 4.49 conditional cadastral hectares each and to oblige the village council to allocate these land plots from communal land.

The plaintiffs stated that in 2024 they received documents and information that, in their opinion, confirmed their right to land shares. Some claimed they were included in the list of CAE members attached to the state act on the right of collective land ownership but did not receive certificates for the land shares. Others indicated that despite their membership in the CAE at the time of land allocation, their names were unjustifiably excluded from such a list.

The court of first instance satisfied all claims.

The appellate court overturned this decision and denied the claims. It reasoned that the statute of limitations consequences must be applied because the right to go to court arose during the land allocation in 1996, and the plaintiffs did not prove valid reasons for missing the deadline.

What the Supreme Court decided

The United Chamber of the Cassation Civil Court concluded that in such disputes it is necessary to distinguish two different categories of persons, as the application of the statute of limitations depends on this.

The first category includes persons who were included in the list of CAE members attached to the state act on collective land ownership but did not receive a certificate for the land share.

The court emphasized that the right to a land share arises under three conditions: the CAE received the state act on collective land ownership, the person was a member of the CAE at the time of issuance of this act, and was included in the list attached to the state act.

The United Chamber noted that not receiving a certificate does not refute or terminate the person's right to the land share. The certificate is a document that only certifies an already existing right. The absence of such a document only complicates the realization of the right, effectively leaving the possibility to confirm it through court.

Therefore, the Supreme Court distinguished claims for recognition of the right to protect a violated right and claims for recognition of the right to confirm an already existing right in case of non-issuance of the document certifying this right. The statute of limitations does not apply to claims of persons included in the list but who did not receive a certificate, since such claims aim to confirm an already acquired right, not to protect a violated right.

The second category includes persons who were unjustifiably excluded from the list of CAE members attached to the state act.

In this case, the Supreme Court stated that exclusion from the list is a violation of the person's right. Therefore, a claim for recognition of the right to a land share is a way to protect a violated right, and the statute of limitations applies to such claims. Its term starts from the moment the person learned or should have learned about the exclusion from the list.

How this affected the specific case

The Supreme Court established that four plaintiffs were included in the list of CAE members attached to the state act but did not receive certificates for the land shares. Therefore, the appellate court mistakenly applied the statute of limitations to their claims. In this part, the appellate court's ruling was canceled, and the first instance court's decision recognizing the right to land shares was upheld.

Regarding the other three plaintiffs, the Supreme Court found that their names were absent from the list of CAE members attached to the state act. Moreover, the case materials showed that at the time of land allocation they knew about their exclusion from the list. Since they applied to court only after more than 27 years and did not provide valid reasons for missing the deadline, the United Chamber agreed with the application of the statute of limitations and left the appellate court's ruling unchanged in this part.

Departure from previous practice

The United Chamber separately noted that the case was referred to it due to differing practices of the Cassation Civil Court regarding the application of the statute of limitations in disputes over land shares.

As a result, the Supreme Court departed from some previously formulated conclusions according to which the statute of limitations was applied to claims of persons included in the list of CAE members but who did not receive a certificate. At the same time, the Court found no grounds to depart from the legal conclusion regarding the application of the statute of limitations to disputes of persons excluded from the list, since exclusion is a violation of the right subject to judicial protection within the legally established terms.

Legal conclusion of the United Chamber

The United Chamber of the Cassation Civil Court concluded that a person's right to a land share arises under three conditions: the CAE receives the state act on collective land ownership, the person is a member of the CAE at the time of issuance of this act, and is included in the list attached to the state act.

Not receiving a certificate does not refute or terminate this right but only complicates its realization. Therefore, the statute of limitations does not apply to claims recognizing the right to a land share of persons included in such a list but who did not receive a certificate.

Conversely, a claim for recognition of the right to a land share of a person excluded from the list of CAE members is a claim to protect a violated right. The statute of limitations applies to such claims, starting from the moment the person learned or should have learned about their exclusion. According to the United Chamber, this legal approach should be applied by courts when considering similar disputes.

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