Does a prosecutor have the right to file a complaint with the Ministry of Justice against the decision of a state registrar: The Supreme Court puts an end to the dispute

The legislation provides for the possibility of administrative appeal against decisions, actions, or inaction of a state registrar to the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine. At the same time, the right to file such a complaint is granted only to persons defined by law, and the issue of the circle of subjects entitled to such appeals has repeatedly been the subject of judicial disputes.

A particularly controversial issue remains whether a prosecutor can appeal to the Ministry of Justice with a complaint against the decision of a state registrar in the interests of the state or local self-government bodies. The Supreme Court formulated the legal position on this matter.

The Supreme Court, in a panel of judges of the Cassation Administrative Court, considered case No. 440/12281/25, in which it resolved the issue of the prosecutor's authority to extrajudicially appeal decisions of the state registrar to the Ministry of Justice. The court examined whether the legislation allows a prosecutor to file a complaint in the field of state registration in the interests of local self-government bodies.

Case Facts

The claimant appealed the order of the Ministry of Justice, which, based on the results of the complaint filed by the Poltava Regional Prosecutor's Office, annulled the decisions of the state registrar regarding the state registration of lease rights for seven land plots.

The lease rights were registered based on land lease agreements concluded with the Main Department of the State Geocadastre in the Poltava region, as well as additional agreements on the renewal of these contracts concluded with the Lokhvytsia City Council. Based on these documents, the state registrar registered the lease rights to the land plots on April 9, 2025.

Subsequently, the Poltava Regional Prosecutor's Office filed a complaint with the Ministry of Justice requesting the cancellation of the relevant registration actions. The prosecutor noted that the decisions of the Lokhvytsia District Court, which served as the basis for concluding additional agreements on the renewal of lease contracts, were annulled by the Poltava Court of Appeal, and proceedings in the cases were closed with an explanation that the disputes fall under the jurisdiction of commercial courts. Therefore, the prosecutor believed that the decisions of the state registrar were made in violation of the requirements of the Law of Ukraine "On State Registration of Property Rights to Real Estate and Their Encumbrances."

The Central Board of the Ministry of Justice for the consideration of complaints agreed with the prosecutor's arguments and recommended satisfying the complaint, annulling the decisions of the state registrar, and temporarily blocking his access to the State Register of Property Rights to Real Estate. Based on this conclusion, the Ministry of Justice issued an order satisfying the prosecutor's complaint and annulling the registrar's decisions. After that, the records of the lease rights to the land plots were cancelled.

The claimant argued that the Ministry of Justice had no right to consider the prosecutor's complaint on the merits because the prosecutor was not a person whose rights were violated and did not have legal authority to appeal to the Ministry of Justice with such a complaint. In his opinion, the Ministry of Justice should have left the complaint unconsidered according to paragraph 5 of the second subparagraph of part six of Article 37 of Law No. 1952-IV as submitted by a person without the appropriate authority.

Decisions of the Courts of First and Appeal Instances

The Poltava District Administrative Court denied the claim. The court of first instance reasoned that the prosecutor participated in civil cases related to the renewal of land lease agreements and, therefore, while exercising the function of representing the interests of the state, had the right to appeal to the Ministry of Justice with a complaint against the decision of the state registrar under Article 37 of Law No. 1952-IV. According to the court, the Ministry of Justice acted within its powers and followed the procedure established by law.

The Second Appellate Administrative Court overturned this decision and upheld the claim. The court concluded that current legislation does not provide the prosecutor with the authority to file an extrajudicial complaint with the Ministry of Justice in the field of state registration in the interests of local self-government bodies, which can independently protect their rights.

The appellate court noted that representation of the state's interests by a prosecutor is allowed only in court and only in cases expressly defined by law. Therefore, the Ministry of Justice had no legal grounds to accept and consider the prosecutor's complaint on its merits, submitted by a person not endowed with the relevant powers.

Legal Conclusions of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court stated that the key issue in the case is the presence or absence of the prosecutor's right to appeal extrajudicially to the Ministry of Justice against decisions, actions, or inaction of the state registrar in the field of state registration in the interests of local self-government bodies.

The court emphasised that according to Article 19 of the Constitution of Ukraine, state authorities and their officials are obliged to act exclusively on the basis, within the powers, and in the manner defined by the Constitution and laws of Ukraine.

Analysing the provisions of Article 131-1 of the Constitution of Ukraine, the Law of Ukraine "On the Prosecutor's Office," and the Law of Ukraine "On State Registration of Property Rights to Real Estate and Their Encumbrances," the Supreme Court noted that the prosecutor's powers are exhaustively defined by law. The Constitution of Ukraine provides for the representation of the state's interests by the prosecutor exclusively in court, in exceptional cases and in the manner established by law.

The court drew attention to the legal positions of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, according to which after the 2016 constitutional reform, the prosecutor's powers were significantly narrowed, and its activity is primarily focused on criminal justice. The Constitutional Court repeatedly emphasised that the list of the prosecutor's functions is exhaustive, and representation of the state's interests is possible only in court and cannot extend to cases not provided for by the Constitution and laws of Ukraine.

The Supreme Court noted that neither the Constitution of Ukraine nor the Law of Ukraine "On the Prosecutor's Office" grants the prosecutor the right to appeal to the Ministry of Justice with complaints against decisions, actions, or inaction of the state registrar in the field of state registration in the interests of local self-government bodies.

The court also noted that according to part three of Article 37 of Law No. 1952-IV, the right to file a complaint with the Ministry of Justice belongs to a person whose rights have been violated. At the same time, paragraphs 4 and 5 of the second subparagraph of part six of this article explicitly provide that the Ministry of Justice must leave the complaint without substantive consideration if it is filed by a person whose rights have not been violated or by a person who does not have the appropriate authority.

According to the Supreme Court, the provisions of the Law of Ukraine "On the Prosecutor's Office" that allow the prosecutor to participate in enforcement proceedings cannot be interpreted as granting the right to extrajudicially appeal decisions of the state registrar to the Ministry of Justice. Such powers are exclusively related to representing the state's interests in court and executing court decisions, not general supervision of legality in the field of state registration.

The Supreme Court also noted that a similar approach regarding the absence of the prosecutor's right to appeal to the Ministry of Justice with a complaint in the field of state registration was previously expressed by the Supreme Court in the ruling dated March 20, 2024, in case No. 910/5371/23.

Given the established circumstances, the Supreme Court agreed with the appellate court's conclusion that the Ministry of Justice should have left the prosecutor's complaint without consideration as submitted by a person without authority, rather than considering it on the merits. Since this was not done, the Ministry of Justice's order annulling the decisions of the state registrar is illegal and subject to cancellation.

The court also rejected the Ministry of Justice's arguments regarding the application of the Supreme Court's conclusions in case No. 910/2529/22, noting that that case concerned the powers of the Security Service of Ukraine to file complaints to the Ministry of Justice regarding registration actions related to sanctioned persons, and therefore the relevant legal relations are not similar.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeals of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine and the Poltava Regional Prosecutor's Office and left the ruling of the Second Appellate Administrative Court unchanged.

The ruling comes into legal force from the date of its adoption, is final, and is not subject to appeal.

Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua, follow SUD.UA on Google News , and join us on VIBER, WhatsApp, Facebook and on Instagram to stay informed about the important events.