The right to reclaim land for State ownership is not absolute: how to protect your property

Disputes over the return of land plots to state ownership are not uncommon. The situation becomes particularly complex when a person lawfully obtained a land plot, used it for years, constructed new real estate on it, and then suddenly receives a claim from state authorities demanding its return. In such cases, many questions arise: what happens to the already built property, whether the statute of limitations has expired, and how to secure the right to land ownership if even a city council’s decision does not guarantee protection from loss?

In 2025, both the Supreme Court and legislators took significant steps to resolve such situations by introducing new approaches to protecting the rights of bona fide acquirers.

Supreme Court Decision: Protection of Ownership and Proportionality of Interference

The key development was the ruling of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court dated January 22, 2025, in case No. 446/478/19.

In this case, an individual received a land plot based on a city council decision and a corresponding state ownership certificate. Later, it turned out that part of the plot overlapped with state-owned railway land. Ukrzaliznytsia demanded the invalidation of the ownership documents, arguing that railway land is state property and cannot be transferred into private ownership.

The Supreme Court dismissed the claim in full. This ruling is extremely important for the protection of private owners.

Full text of the ruling: https://www.reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/125736760#

Returning State-Owned Land Considering Property Rights: Analysis of the Decision

The Grand Chamber emphasized that partial overlap of a privately owned plot with state-owned land does not justify complete deprivation of ownership. The Court stressed that the claimant (Ukrzaliznytsia) must precisely prove which part of the land plot overlaps state-owned railway land, by identifying it through coordinates of turning points. Without such data, protection of rights is impossible.

From the ruling:

“121. Ukrzaliznytsia must prove exactly which land plot, and within what boundaries, overlaps with the railway right-of-way. Protecting rights without identifying the land plot is impossible… 122. Thus, to resolve such disputes, the land plot must be identified by determining the coordinates of boundary turning points and tying them to the state geodetic network (Article 15 of the Law of Ukraine ‘On the State Land Cadastre’).”

Moreover, the Court clearly stated that a legal remedy cannot result in interference with ownership that is not in dispute:

“125. The Grand Chamber draws attention to the fact that a legal remedy which interferes with ownership not in dispute cannot be deemed lawful… Setting aside a city council decision and returning the parties to their original state would unjustifiably deprive the person of ownership not only of the disputed portion but also of the undisputed land. Such interference cannot be considered lawful.”

This ruling includes a separate section on the proportionality of interference with the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions, referencing numerous judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). It underscores that the state must not excessively infringe on the rights of bona fide owners when protecting public interests.

Vindication or Negatory Claim?

In the ruling dated January 22, 2025, in case No. 446/478/19, the Grand Chamber emphasized that claims to invalidate municipal decisions or state acts are not effective remedies. Instead, if a claimant believes their right was violated because the property was registered to another, the proper remedy is a vindication claim:

“…since a court decision to recover property from unlawful possession serves as the basis for amending the State Register of Property Rights… In contrast, demands to cancel ownership registrations are not necessary for restoring the violated right.”

This is crucial because state authorities previously favored negatory claims (to eliminate obstacles in the use or disposal of property), which are not subject to limitation periods — a practice that triggered much debate.

Statute of Limitations: Uniform Rules for All

Although the Grand Chamber did not examine limitation periods in this particular case, the issue is central to similar disputes. The trial court had dismissed the claim due to expired limitation. Notably, in a separate opinion (https://www.reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/126362887), judges supported this reasoning, advocating for upholding the trial court’s ruling.

The ECtHR has repeatedly stressed the importance of limitation periods for legal certainty, protecting defendants from stale claims, and preventing injustice. In Stubbings and others v. the United Kingdom (1996), the Court emphasized the need for finality and reliability of evidence. This position was reaffirmed in OAO Neftyanaya Kompaniya Yukos v. Russia(2011).

Importantly, the ECtHR held that limitation periods must apply equally to all parties, including state prosecutors. In Dacia S.R.L. v. Moldova (2008), the Court found that exempting public bodies from limitation rules violates Article 6 of the Convention, giving the state unjustified procedural advantages (§76–77).

The Ukrainian Supreme Court has echoed this. In ruling No. 911/2818/17 (October 16, 2019), the Court rejected the prosecutor’s justification for missing the limitation period, stating:

“The limitation period starts when the state, through its authorized body, became or should have become aware of the rights violation…”

Thus, even claims made in the public interest are subject to statutes of limitation if the state delayed action unreasonably.

Legislative Changes: Stronger Protection for Bona Fide Acquirers

To reinforce the courts’ position, lawmakers passed the Law of Ukraine No. 4292-IX of March 12, 2025, amending the Civil Code to strengthen the protection of bona fide owners.

Key provisions include:

• Article 391(2): If state or municipal authorities — regardless of whether they had proper authority — took actions resulting in private ownership of property, disputes over possession or use must follow Articles 387–388 of the Civil Code. This confirms the vindication model endorsed by the Supreme Court.
• Article 261(8): For disputes about reclaiming or recognizing rights to immovable property transferred from state/municipal to private ownership, the limitation period begins from the date of state registration of the first owner’s title.

These amendments aim to eliminate inconsistent judicial practice, align with ECtHR standards, and uphold the principle of legal certainty.