Submit your application

Supreme Court of Ukraine on the recovery of unreasonably acquired property

The risks of investing in construction in Ukraine are obvious, nevertheless, they still continue to invest in this industry, because the demand for housing in our country remains steadily high. When investing, the contribution “grows” along with the construction, the closer the date of its commissioning, the more expensive it becomes.

At the same time, the risk of investing and not receiving anything, or “knocking out” through the courts, remains stably high, even if the parties were provided with legal services for drafting contracts! The legal conclusion of the Supreme Court of Ukraine dated 25.03.2020 in case No. 537/4259/15-c will be useful to investors, since it answers the question of how to get money back from a developer who has not fulfilled his obligations.

Brief overview of the proceedings

The investor and the contractor entered into an agreement for a share participation in the construction of a residential building. We agreed that the investor contributes money every month, and the contractor, within the time frame established by the agreement after the completion of construction, will provide the investor with documentation for registering the ownership of the apartment. But, something went wrong …

The investor appealed to the court with a demand to recognize the contract as not concluded due to the absence of essential conditions in it and to recover the money invested by him from the developer as unjustifiably acquired.

The case was reviewed several times!

“The first time the court of first instance refused to consider the dispute, the second time the claim was satisfied, appeal court agreed with this. The agreement was declared invalid due to the absence of the essential conditions of the contract agreement in it, and the plaintiff’s claims were legitimate on the grounds of Art. 1212 CCU”.

Ukrainian Supreme Court sent the case for review

The courts were told about the incorrect application of the norms of the legislation, namely, that in this situation the application of only Art. 1212 CCU is not fully justified!

  •  Justice should proceed from the fact that the current agreement is a sufficient and appropriate legislative basis for the acquisition of property (receipt of funds).
  •  In this case, the legal relationship of the parties is governed by the rules of obligation, which apply to certain types of contracts, and not just Article 1212 of the Civil Code.

It follows from this that in the event of a dispute concerning the acquisition of property (its preservation without sufficient legal grounds), the contractual nature of the relationship gives rise to the impossibility of applying the provisions of Art. 1212 GKU, including regarding the obligation to return the property.

According to Part 4 of Art. 653 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, the participants in the transaction are prohibited from demanding the return of what they have performed under the obligation before the contract is amended or terminated, unless otherwise provided by law or contract, and paragraph 3 of part 3 of Art. 1212 of the Civil Code of Ukraine determines that the provisions of this chapter also apply to claims for the return of an obligation fulfilled by one of the parties.



SCU on the validity of the contract after the replacement of the 1st page in it

The impossibility of establishing certain circumstances does not relieve the participants in the process from the need to prove them! This conclusion was made public by the Supreme Court of Ukraine on 25.09.19 following the results of the proceedings in case No. 397/928/16-c. The reason for the dispute was the replacement of the first page […]

Ukrainian Supreme Court determined the conditions for declaring downtime for employers

The Supreme Court has once again rescued ordinary citizens-workers from a thrifty employer who was trying to optimize costs with the help of downtime by not paying workers wages! The Supreme Court of Ukraine, by a resolution in case No. 210/5853/16-c, adopted on January 30, 2019, indicated to this employer and his other thoughtful colleagues […]


As practice shows, counterparties, when concluding international agreements (if lawyers are not involved in the development of agreements), practically do not attach importance to the jurisdiction of dispute resolution. Obviously in vain! The information will be interesting and useful to foreign creditors who have debtors from Ukraine, Belarus and Russia. IN MOST CASES! Such “inattention” […]

Collection through bankruptcy – introduction of the monitoring procedure and receivership

Foreword! If you are now on this page of our website, it means that previous attempts to “knock out” the debt from the debtor by “encashment settlement accounts of debtors”, “cooperating with bailiffs” and “recovering from controlling persons” did not lead to the desired result, but … Not everything is lost! Bankruptcy is a monitoring […]

CEC-Supreme Court of Ukraine: what should the economic court find out before rejecting the claim?

The Joint Chamber of the CEC of the Supreme Court of Ukraine spoke out on the motivation for refusals to consider claims. In the ruling in case No. 910/6642/18 of 06/14/19, the courts were explained what exactly they should find out before deciding to dismiss the claim when considering economic disputes in the context of […]

The Demanding countermeasures. Alternative ways to influence the debtor

What to do if the debtor turned out to be a “hard nut to crack” and it was not possible to collect debts from him by “encashment settlement accounts of debtors”, “cooperating with bailiffs”, “collecting from controlling persons” and “through the bankruptcy procedure”? Turning on the heavy legal artillery! Need to start criminal prosecution, file […]