The Supreme Court explained how many deputy votes are needed for the free transfer of land ownership

The decision of a local self-government body on the free transfer of a land plot into ownership is made only if at least two-thirds of the total number of council members vote in favor, and fractional values when calculating this number are not subject to rounding down. Adopting such a decision with fewer votes means the absence of a proper expression of will by the landowner, and such a plot is considered to have left communal ownership against the owner’s will. This conclusion was made by the Supreme Court in the composition of the panel of judges of the First Judicial Chamber of the Cassation Civil Court.

On June 3, 2026, the Supreme Court reviewed in simplified cassation proceedings the cassation appeal of the deputy head of the Kharkiv Regional Prosecutor’s Office in the case filed by the head of the Izyum District Prosecutor’s Office in the interests of the state represented by the Borivska settlement territorial community of Izyum district, Kharkiv region, whose representative body is the Borivska settlement council, against an individual, FG, regarding the recovery of a land plot and the invalidation of the land lease agreement.

To substantiate the claims, the plaintiff stated that the settlement council’s decision to transfer a 2-hectare land plot into the ownership of the individual is illegal because only 17 deputies voted for it out of a total of 26 council members. The prosecutor noted that according to Article 59 of the Law of Ukraine "On Local Self-Government in Ukraine," such a decision should have been made with at least 18 votes (2/3 of 26 equals 17.33). Since there was no lawful decision on the alienation of the land, the property left the possession of the territorial community against its will.

The court of first instance, whose conclusions were supported by the appellate court, denied the claim. The court decisions were motivated by the fact that with a total of 26 deputies, the calculated figure of 17.33 votes, according to mathematical rounding rules, allows considering the decision adopted with 17 votes "for." Additionally, the recovery of the disputed plot was deemed a disproportionate interference with the respondent’s property rights, who is a bona fide acquirer.

The Supreme Court disagreed with the court decisions, canceled them, and sent the case back for a new trial to the court of first instance based on the following.

The wording of the law "not less than two-thirds" excludes the possibility of rounding a fractional number down because the resulting number of votes would actually be less than the legally established minimum. Since 17 votes are fewer than 17.33, the contested council decision did not receive enough votes and could not be considered adopted.

The Supreme Court noted that the courts' conclusions about the legality of the council’s decision and simultaneously examining the bona fide status of the acquirer and the proportionality of interference are mutually exclusive since the issue of balancing interests is examined by the court only if the illegality of the property’s alienation is established.

The body that made the illegal decision, which led to the violation of the community’s rights, cannot be the plaintiff in a case filed by the prosecutor. In such a case, the settlement council body must acquire the status of the defendant because it effectively opposes the claim and defends the legality of its actions.

More details and the text of the Supreme Court ruling dated June 3, 2026, in case No. 638/18374/23 (proceeding No. 61-8049sv25) can be found at this link.

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.