Submit your application

Ukrainian Supreme Court on “legalizing real estate with obstacles”

The Ukrainian Supreme Court helped the investor! With the conclusion in case No. 761/5598/15-c of 04.24.2019, he recognized his legal rights in court!

History in detail

In 2003, an individual investor and a legal entity-developer entered into an agreement on equity participation in the financing of construction. The parties undertook to work together to achieve a common goal – the construction of an apartment building for its commissioning.

  • The object of equity participation was the “kopeck piece”, for which the investor undertook to pay a little more than 70 thousand USD in national currency at the exchange rate within 10 banking days from the moment of signing the agreement, which was done.
  • The developer undertook to complete the construction within the specified timeframe, but “did not calculate” his strength. The investor reacted to this “with understanding” and they signed an additional agreement, extending the construction period.

An investor’s patience was rewarded in 2014!

“The parties drew up an act of acceptance and transfer, according to which the developer handed over and the investor accepted a two-room apartment, but … In this situation, the desire of the “newly-made” real estate owner to complete the acquisition at the registration service ended up being denied registration of ownership of the apartment.”

The investor went to court with a claim for the recognition of the property right to housing!

  • The court of first instance satisfied the claim. The decision was made on the basis of the fact that the plaintiff cannot exercise his rights due to the defendant’s failure to submit the documents necessary for the registration procedure to the registration body.
  • The appeal made the opposite decision. She motivated it by the fact that the defendant does not dispute the acquisition of the plaintiff’s property rights to the construction object, therefore, there is no dispute between them in this regard in nature.

Ukrainian Supreme Court agreed with the court of first instance!

The cassation court argued that the plaintiff was correct as follows:

  1. Everyone has the right to protection of the violated, unrecognized or contested right (part 1 of article 15 of the Civil Code). In the analyzed case, the plaintiff’s right is violated by the fact that he is deprived of the opportunity to exercise it in full or in part.
  2. When challenging / recognizing a right, uncertainty arises in it, caused by the behavior of another person and giving rise to uncertainty about the application of a specific method of protection. In this case, Art. 16 GKU secures for the plaintiff the right to choose the method of protection.
  3. According to the law, an effective method of protection must restore the violated right, and if it is impossible, guarantee the possibility of obtaining compensation. That is why the plaintiff has the right to choose, including to protect the rights (interests) in court by recognizing them in court.



Damage from “worker’s injury” is a reason not to pay court fees!

The Ukrainian Supreme Court spoke about the obligation to pay legal costs in cases of compensation by persons who suffered material damage as a result of injury at work. By the decision in case No. 127/20705 / 16-c of 06/11/2019, the Supreme Court “freed” such persons from paying the court fee! Background of conclusion and […]

A decent pension is not an obstacle to claiming alimony

The duty of children to support their parents who need help is established by law! If the children do not fulfill it voluntarily, then the parents have the right to demand alimony through the court, and such family cases are always difficult, the court practice on them is constantly changing and supplemented, and it is […]

Contractual obligations and installment of court decision

The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court of Ukraine, by its legal opinion in case No. 916/190/18 of 06/04/19, answered the question, does the installment plan for the execution of the judgment terminate the contractual obligation? According to the published conclusion, the installment plan, in fact, only affects the procedure for the enforcement of the […]

Are you familiar with the terms of the loan? That means you was not be deceived by the bank!

The borrower, who has familiarized himself with the terms of the lending, cannot accuse the bank of fraud or must prove his accusation in court, if it came to this. Establishes this, shall we say, dogma, the legal conclusion of the Supreme Court of Ukraine in case No. 569/423/15-c of 03/05/18 and the older conclusion […]

Ukrainian Supreme Court on proving the fact that the apartment was flooded by neighbors

The legal conclusion of the CCC of the Supreme Court of Ukraine in case No. 686/11256/16-c, published on December 27, 2019, is urgent legal assistance in the form of information for citizens-residents of high-rise buildings who were flooded or if they did it. Background to the proceedings! The owner of an apartment flooded by neighbors […]

Ukrainian Supreme Court: Responsibility of a bona fide purchaser

Due to the “carelessness” of the notary, the person almost lost the housing they bought for their own money! The APU “saved” him. Case No. 645/4220/16-ts of 13.11.2019 The citizen applied to the court with a claim against two persons and a third party – a notary, demanding the invalidation of the sale and purchase […]