The Supreme Court determined in which cases the statute of limitations applies in disputes over land shares

Claims for recognition of the right to a share by persons included in the official lists of enterprise members but who do not have a certificate are not subject to the statute of limitations, since such a claim only confirms an already existing right. At the same time, for persons who were not included in the lists for share allocation, the statute of limitations is three years and begins from the moment the person learned or could have learned about the violation of their right.

This conclusion was reached by the Supreme Court in the composition of the United Chamber of the Cassation Civil Court in case No. 530/656/24.

Case circumstances

In the reviewed case, the plaintiffs filed lawsuits against the village council to recognize the right to land shares and their allocation in kind. The plaintiffs argued that at the time of issuance of the state act on the right of collective ownership of the land, they were members of the collective agricultural enterprise (CAE) and had the right to receive land shares but did not exercise this right.

The court of first instance satisfied the claims of all plaintiffs, considering their right to the share inviolable and subject to protection without limitation by the statute of limitations.

The appellate court overturned the first instance court's decision to satisfy the claims and denied all plaintiffs' claims due to the expiration of the statute of limitations. The appellate court's decision was motivated by the fact that the plaintiffs could have learned about the violation of their rights back in 1996 during the public process of land allocation, while the claims were filed in 2024.

As a result of reviewing the cassation appeal, the United Chamber of the Cassation Civil Court partially satisfied it: it canceled the appellate court's ruling regarding plaintiffs included in the lists attached to the state act on the right of collective ownership of the land, leaving in force the district court's decision to satisfy their claims. At the same time, regarding plaintiffs whose names were absent from these lists, the appellate court's decision to deny the claim remained unchanged.

Legal position of the Supreme Court

In this case, the United Chamber of the Cassation Civil Court formulated the following key legal conclusions regarding the application of substantive law norms.

The European Court of Human Rights notes that national courts should choose interpretative methods that usually include legislative acts, relevant practice, scientific research, etc. (case "Volovyk v. Ukraine", application No. 15123/03, para. 45, ECHR, December 6, 2007).

A method of protecting civil rights and interests may include recognition of the right (paragraph 1 of part 2 of Article 16 of the Civil Code of Ukraine).

Interpretation of paragraph 1 of part 2 of Article 16 of the Civil Code of Ukraine indicates that such a method of protection as recognition of the right can be applied only when a subjective civil right has arisen and if this right is violated (disputed or not recognized) by another person. Recognition of the right as a private law category is intended to ensure certainty in private relations, protection of rights and interests during their violation, non-recognition or dispute, or confirmation of the right. Initiating a dispute for recognition of the right not for protection or confirmation of rights and interests is inadmissible.

The United Chamber of the Cassation Civil Court noted that depending on the circumstances in the share allocation process, two categories of persons entitled to a land share can be distinguished, but:

• included in the list of CAE members attached to the state act on the right of collective ownership of the land, but did not receive a certificate for the right to a land share;
• unjustifiably not included in the list of CAE members attached to the state act on the right of collective ownership of the land.

According to part 9 of Article 5 of the Land Code of Ukraine of 1990, every member of a collective agricultural enterprise, agricultural cooperative, agricultural joint-stock company upon leaving it has the right to receive their share of land in kind, which is determined according to parts 6 and 7 of Article 6 of this Code.

A person's right to a land share arises from the combination of three factors: the enterprise (CAE) receiving the state act on the land, the person's membership in this enterprise at the time of the act's transfer, and the mandatory inclusion of the person in the list attached to the state act.

The certificate for the right to a share is a document that certifies an already existing right. Its non-receipt does not terminate the right itself but only creates obstacles to its realization, which can be removed through judicial proceedings.

The United Chamber of the Cassation Civil Court clarified the need to distinguish claims for protection of a right (in case of its violation or dispute) from claims for confirmation of a right (when it already exists according to documents, but the person does not have the corresponding certificate).

As a general rule, the statute of limitations begins from the day the person learned or could have learned about the violation of their right or about the person who violated it. The court must establish not only when the person learned but also when they could have learned about the violation or the violator.

The cassation court indicated that the statute of limitations does not apply to claims for recognition of the right to a share by those persons included in the list but who did not receive a certificate. Such a claim is aimed at confirming an existing right, not protecting it from violation.

At the same time, a claim by a person who was not included in the list is a claim for protection of a violated right, to which the general statute of limitations applies. This period begins from the moment the person learned or under objective circumstances could have learned about their exclusion from the annexes to the state act. These plaintiffs did not provide evidence of valid reasons for not filing a claim to protect their violated right for more than 27 years, which the appellate court correctly referred to.

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.