The Supreme Court Explains When Cadastral Registrar Errors Do Not Constitute Official Negligence

Considering that the land book, and not an extract from the State Land Cadastre, serves as the document confirming land plot registration, the actions of a state cadastral registrar do not constitute a criminal offence under Part 2 of Article 367 of the Criminal Code if they involved creating applications from citizens for state registration of land plots without the actual registration occurring, and where the land books were not signed with the digital signature of the responsible person. This conclusion was reached by the Criminal Cassation Court of the Supreme Court in case No. 359/208/19.

Case Circumstances

The state cadastral registrar, in the absence of an approved land management project and an approval conclusion regarding the transfer of land plots into private ownership, registered these plots and provided individuals with extracts from the State Land Cadastre. According to the accusation, these actions caused serious consequences for state interests protected by law, as the land plots, valued at 2,100,000 hryvnias (250 or more times the non-taxable minimum income), were subsequently illegally transferred into private ownership.

Positions of the Courts of First and Appellate Instances

The lower courts found the official not guilty and acquitted him under Part 2 of Article 367 of the Criminal Code, citing a failure to prove that a criminal offence had been committed.

In the cassation appeal, the prosecutor contended that the courts did not properly assess the evidence as a whole and unjustifiably concluded the official’s innocence.

Position of the Criminal Cassation Court of the Supreme Court

The decisions of the lower courts were upheld.

The panel of judges of the Criminal Cassation Court noted that to prove the state cadastral registrar’s guilt in this criminal offence, the prosecution relied on witness testimonies and various written pieces of evidence, the detailed content of which is presented in the acquittal verdict. The court of first instance examined this evidence, evaluating each element for admissibility and reliability, and assessed the totality of the collected evidence for sufficiency to confirm the accusation. It reached a reasoned conclusion that the prosecution had not proven beyond reasonable doubt that the acquitted person committed the incriminated crime.

In particular, the local court reasoned that the prosecution insisted on the commission by the acquitted, without specifying the form of guilt, of unlawful actions which objectively consisted of registering land plots without an approved land management project regarding their transfer into private ownership and providing extracts from the State Land Cadastre for these plots. According to the investigation, these unlawful actions by the acquitted caused serious consequences for state interests protected by law, amounting to UAH 2,100,000.

The prosecutor substantiated his position, including with copies of registration files and extracts from the State Land Cadastre concerning the land plots.

However, this accusation was not confirmed, as the court established that the registration of such land plots had not actually taken place.

The local court also justified its conclusion by stating that the land book, not an extract from the State Land Cadastre, confirms land plot registration, and in this criminal proceeding, the prosecution did not provide evidence of registration of the disputed land plots by the acquitted.

Furthermore, the prosecution’s position was refuted by the response from the Main Department of the State Geocadastre, which stated that it was impossible to identify the cadastral registrar who provided extracts from the State Land Cadastre for the specified land plots, as such plots were absent from the National Cadastre System. A similar response was provided by the State Land Agency.

The court also found that the state cadastral registrar only created applications for state registration from citizens, but the state registration of land plots was not carried out, and the land books were not signed with the digital signature of the responsible person.

Witnesses questioned during the court session also did not confirm the involvement of the acquitted person in the incriminated crime.

Among other things, the local court noted that the accusation under Part 2 of Article 367 of the Criminal Code did not specify which exact official duties were not performed by the acquitted person, nor did it establish the causal link between their non-performance and the infliction of serious consequences.

Given these factual data, the local court accepted the acquitted person’s testimony about non-involvement in the alleged act and the creation of only applications for land plot registration as unrefuted.

In addition to the above, the acquitted person’s position is confirmed by the examined decision of the local court, which established that the basis for the illegal registration of ownership rights to the aforementioned land plots was a forged order of the district state administration, not extracts from the State Land Cadastre.

The appellate court, having reviewed the local court’s verdict, duly examined the prosecutor’s arguments, which were similar to those presented in his cassation appeal, and reasonably upheld the acquittal verdict.

The decision of the panel of judges of the Second Judicial Chamber of the Criminal Cassation Court of the Supreme Court dated 04.06.2026 in case No. 359/208/19 (proceeding No. 51-2958km25) 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.