Prolonged criminal proceedings can be a valid reason for missing the statute of limitations — Supreme Court conclusion

The United Chamber of the Cassation Civil Court of the Supreme Court confirmed the possibility for the state to reclaim forest fund lands that were illegally alienated from its ownership and clarified that prolonged consideration of criminal proceedings, within which the circumstances of illegal alienation of such lands were established, can, under certain circumstances, be a valid reason for missing the statute of limitations. At the same time, the Court emphasized that prolonged consideration of a criminal case by itself does not automatically mean recognition of the reasons for missing the deadline as valid — this issue must be decided taking into account the specific circumstances of each case.

The United Chamber of the Cassation Civil Court of the Supreme Court reached this conclusion in case No. 354/625/15.

Case circumstances

The dispute concerned lands of the state forest fund that in 2002–2003 were illegally withdrawn from the use of the state forestry enterprise and transferred into private ownership.

As established by the courts, officials of the Polianytsia Village Council forged official documents on the basis of which the state forest fund lands were illegally withdrawn, their designated purpose was changed, and they were transferred into private ownership for residential construction. One of the recipients was the defendant, who received a land plot of 0.1 ha and in 2011 divided it into two separate land plots and registered new state ownership certificates.

In 2004, criminal proceedings were initiated against the village council officials. Within these proceedings, the state enterprise "Vorokhtianske Forestry" filed a civil claim for compensation of damages caused to the state. Only in 2015 did the court close the criminal proceedings due to expiration of the statute of limitations for bringing the guilty to criminal responsibility and left the civil claim without consideration, explaining the right to apply to the court under civil procedure. After that, neither the state enterprise "Vorokhtianske Forestry" nor the State Agency of Forest Resources of Ukraine filed a corresponding claim to the court.

In September 2015, the prosecutor, acting in the interest of the state, filed a claim for reclaiming the land plots and requested to recognize the reasons for missing the statute of limitations as valid.

The court of first instance reclaimed the land plots into the ownership of the state represented by the State Agency of Forest Resources of Ukraine but denied the request to invalidate the state ownership certificates, considering such a method of protection inappropriate. The appellate court left this decision unchanged. The landowner appealed these decisions to the Supreme Court.

What the Supreme Court decided

The United Chamber of the Cassation Civil Court of the Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the lower courts unchanged. The Supreme Court agreed that the land plots left state ownership against the will of the state due to illegal actions of officials and therefore are subject to reclamation as property illegally alienated from the owner’s possession under Article 388 of the Civil Code of Ukraine.

The Court paid special attention to the issue of the statute of limitations.

The United Chamber noted that valid reasons for missing the statute of limitations can only be such circumstances that objectively and independently of the claimant’s will made timely court appeal impossible or significantly complicated.

At the same time, the Supreme Court pointed out that if within the criminal proceedings the circumstances of illegal alienation of property were established for a long time, and the permanent land user already took procedural actions to protect their rights by filing a civil claim within the criminal case, then under specific circumstances of the case, such prolonged consideration of criminal proceedings can be recognized as a valid reason for missing the statute of limitations for filing a claim to reclaim the land plot. The Court emphasized that the assessment of the validity of reasons must be made individually in each specific case.

When referring the case to the United Chamber, the panel of judges of the Cassation Civil Court proposed to depart from the legal conclusions set out in a number of Supreme Court rulings of 2025 regarding the assessment of valid reasons for missing the statute of limitations in similar disputes. However, the United Chamber concluded that the established legal position complies with the law and there are no grounds to depart from it.

Moreover, the Supreme Court confirmed the established legal position that to reclaim property from another’s illegal possession, the owner is not obliged to simultaneously challenge decisions of authorities, state registration entries, state acts, or other documents on the basis of which the property left their ownership. Such requirements are not a proper and effective method of protection, as they themselves do not ensure the return of property to the owner. The proper method of protection in such cases is a vindicatory claim to reclaim property from another’s illegal possession.

Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua and to Google News SUD.UA, as well as to our VIBER and WhatsApp, Facebook page Facebook and on Instagram to stay informed about the most important events.