Failure to Lift Real Estate Arrest After Completion of Enforcement Proceedings Without Grounds Is a Violation of Property Rights — Court
The Karlivka District Court of Poltava Region considered a civil case concerning the removal of an arrest from a real estate object, thus safeguarding the individual's right to peaceful possession of property and eliminating unwarranted barriers to the exercise of property rights. This information was reported by the court.
The core of the dispute centred on the fact that, while finalising the inheritance registration following the demise of a family member, the heir discovered an imposed arrest on the real estate. The encumbrance had been recorded within enforcement proceedings, which had concluded by the time of the court's appeal. Nonetheless, the arrest persisted, obstructing the inheritance rights registration and full property disposal.
Throughout the case review, the court determined that the enforcement proceedings had concluded, and the arrest had been imposed after the death of the individual against whom the enforcement had been directed. In these circumstances, the ongoing presence of the restriction no longer served the legitimate purpose of ensuring court decision execution and instead created unjustified barriers to the exercise of inheritance and property rights.
In its ruling, the court underscored that the right to private property is sacrosanct and safeguarded by the Constitution of Ukraine, the Civil Code of Ukraine, and Article 1 of the First Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Any state intervention in property rights exercise must be lawful, proportionate, and supported by a legitimate objective. Without such grounds, the continued maintenance of the arrest represents an excessive limitation of an individual's property rights.
To support its findings, the court also considered the established practice of the Supreme Court, which deems the prolonged presence of an unlifted arrest post the enforcement proceedings' completion, in the absence of grounds for its continuation, as an unjustified interference with an individual's right to peaceful property possession.
After evaluating all aspects of the case, the court concluded that safeguarding property rights was necessary and upheld the claim, ordering the removal of the arrest from the real estate and the termination of the corresponding encumbrance in the state register.
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.
