The Supreme Court Cancelled Excessive Land Arrest: Injunction Must Be Proportionate

Providing security for a claim by imposing an arrest on property is allowed only within the subject and scope of the stated claims. Imposing an arrest on a consolidated land plot, the area of which significantly exceeds the area of the plots that are the subject of the recovery dispute, without proper justification and clarification of the full scope of the claims, is premature. This conclusion was made by the Supreme Court in the composition of the panel of judges of the Third Judicial Chamber of the Cassation Civil Court.

On 3 June 2026, the Cassation Civil Court of the Supreme Court reviewed, under simplified claim proceedings, the cassation appeal of a person in the case filed by the deputy head of the Myrhorod District Prosecutor's Office of Poltava Region in the interests of the state represented by the Senchanska Village Council of Myrhorod District, Poltava Region, against a person, with a third party being a limited liability company, regarding the cancellation in the State Land Cadastre of the registration of a consolidated land plot and recovery of land plots from unlawful possession.

The prosecutor filed a lawsuit to cancel the registration record in the State Land Cadastre of a consolidated land plot with an area of 26.0001 hectares and to recover from a person's possession land plots with a total area of 12 hectares that existed before the consolidation.

An application for securing the claim was submitted together with the lawsuit.

The court of first instance, whose conclusions were agreed upon by the appellate court, satisfied the application, imposed an arrest on the entire consolidated plot (26.0001 hectares), and prohibited the defendant and registration authorities from performing any actions regarding it, justifying its decision by stating that such measures are proportionate and necessary to prevent further alienation of the property.

The Supreme Court disagreed with the conclusions of the lower courts, cancelled their decisions, and sent the case back for a new trial to the court of first instance.

It noted that the courts overlooked and failed to assess the circumstances that the subject of the stated claims is a plot of 12 hectares, while the claim was secured, in particular by imposing an arrest on a land plot of 26.0001 hectares.

Also, by court decisions in case No. 538/130/21, land plots with a total area of 12 hectares, which are part of the consolidated land plot with cadastral number 5322681900:00:004:1450 and an area of 26.0001 hectares, have already been recovered from unlawful possession.

Therefore, imposing an arrest on the land plot of 26.0001 hectares effectively makes it impossible to enforce the court decision in case No. 538/130/21.

The Supreme Court concluded that when considering an application for securing a claim, the court must clarify the scope of the claims, which the courts in this case did not do, since the submitted materials do not contain the claim statement at all, and the contested court decisions do not correctly reflect the content of the stated claims (only the title of the claims is given without specifying the grounds and subject of the claim).

More details and the text of the Supreme Court ruling dated 3 June 2026, in case No. 538/1109/25 (proceeding No. 61-13371sv25) can be found at this link.

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.