Articles & Analysis

Situations – and, accordingly, legal disputes – frequently arise in which the architectural and construction control authority conducts an inspection and, based on its results, identifies indicators that provide grounds to consider the object as unauthorized construction.

Such an inspection may take place not only at the initial stage – when the developer has obtained a document granting the right to perform construction works – but also at the stage when the object has already been commissioned. In the latter case, one crucial issue arises: is this still considered a construction object (commissioned but not yet registered under ownership rights), or is it already a fully registered real estate object in the legally prescribed manner (i.e., no longer a construction object)?

📌 Since June 1, 2020, the architectural and construction control authority no longer has the right to revoke urban planning conditions and restrictions, notifications, declarations, or certificates without a court decision

⭕️ Taking into account the conclusions and position of the Supreme Court, expressed in numerous rulings, namely: according to the provisions of Article 41 of the Law of Ukraine “On the Regulation of Urban Development Activities” and the Procedure for the Implementation of State Architectural and Construction Control, it follows that to prevent the abuse of the right to conduct inspections, the set of measures carried out by state architectural and construction control bodies to ensure compliance with urban planning legislation, construction norms, state standards, and regulations may only be conducted during the execution of preparatory and construction works by the relevant entities.

In other words, as a general rule, such inspections are permitted only for those objects that are under construction.

An exception to this general rule is the identification of unauthorized construction, in which case inspections may also apply to an already completed object.

After the ownership right to a constructed real estate object is registered based on a filed declaration of readiness for operation, such a declaration has exhausted its legal effect by the very fact of its execution. Therefore, the contested declaration in the case does not infringe any rights or legally protected interests of the claimant, and its deregistration does not entail any legal consequences.
The very fact of registering such a declaration and obtaining a certificate of ownership based on it excludes the possibility of classifying the disputed real estate object as unauthorized construction, as it has already been legalized. Thus, the courts’ conclusion on the unlawfulness of the unscheduled inspection of this real estate object, as referred to by the appellant in their claim, is also lawful.

As we can see, inspections may generally be carried out during the construction process, but there is an exception — the discovery of unauthorized construction, in which case such inspections may also apply to an already completed object.

However, equating the concept of a “constructed object” with a “real estate object” (i.e., one for which ownership rights have been registered) is not appropriate in this context.

There are several important criteria to consider:

• the commissioning of the object (putting it into operation), and
• the registration of ownership rights to the real estate object.

Thus, a completed but not commissioned construction object may be subject to inspection by the architectural and construction control authority (provided that there are lawful grounds for such inspection, as defined by the Procedure for the Exercise of State Architectural and Construction Control).

A completed construction project that has been put into operation may also be subject to inspection by state architectural and construction control authorities, provided that there are legal grounds for such inspection—for example, the need to verify the accuracy of information specified in the declaration of readiness for operation.

However, there is a three-month time limit established for conducting such an inspection. Once this period has expired, conducting such an inspection becomes unlawful, and all documents drawn up as a result of that inspection are subject to cancellation. Failure by state architectural and construction control authorities to comply with the statutory requirements for the procedure of exercising state architectural and construction control leads to the recognition of the inspection as unlawful and the absence of any legal consequences resulting from such an inspection.

However, when it concerns a completed construction project that has been put into operation and for which ownership has been registered in the State Register of Property Rights, any inspection of such a property after the registration of ownership is unlawful.

📌 Dismantling or Demolition? Which Decision May Be Made by a Local Council, and Which – by a Court?

⭕️ In practice, the most common situations arise when a declaration of readiness for operation has already been registered, and the state architectural and construction control authority conducts an inspection within the established three-month period, but during that time, the developer registers the ownership of the property.

What should be done if, under such circumstances, the control authority identifies signs of unauthorized construction?

The answer to this question can be found in the ruling of the Supreme Court, issued by a panel of judges of the Cassation Administrative Court on May 13, 2025, in case No. 420/21467/23, where the court reached the following conclusions:

1. The registration of the notice of commencement of construction works is a one-time legal act that triggers specific legal consequences, namely, the developer’s actions aimed at exercising the right to carry out construction works granted by such declaration.

2. Once the ownership right to the constructed real estate object is registered on the basis of the registered declaration of readiness for operation, such declaration is deemed to have exhausted its legal effect by virtue of its implementation.

3. After the registration of ownership rights to a construction object, if statutory indicators are identified that justify classifying the object as unauthorized construction, the state architectural and construction control authority is obliged to take measures aimed at eliminating the respective urban planning violations and consequences of unauthorized construction, including filing a claim for the demolition of the unauthorized construction(s) in accordance with the procedure established by law.

4. Undertaking such measures in cases where signs of unauthorized construction are identified in respect of a completed object, for which a declaration of readiness for operation has been registered and ownership rights have been entered in the register, constitutes a proper exercise of powers by the state architectural and construction control authority and serves as an effective means of judicial protection.

5. In the reviewed case, the courts established that on September 8, 2020, the Department of State Architectural and Construction Control of the Odesa City Council (UDABK) registered and entered into the Register of Construction Activities of the Unified State Electronic System in the Field of Construction a notification No. OD051200908896 regarding the commencement of construction works for an object classified as having minor consequences (risk category CC1).

On November 6, 2020, the Department registered a declaration of readiness for operation of the object, also classified as CC1, under number OD1012110497.

The above-mentioned declaration was submitted after completion of the works that were the subject of the initial notification, and based on this declaration, ownership rights to the construction object were entered into the State Register of Property Rights to Real Estate on November 17, 2020.

Taking this into account, the panel of judges concluded that the right to perform construction works, which the Department seeks to terminate through judicial proceedings, had already been exercised and ceased due to the completion of construction and commissioning of the object. Moreover, the declaration of readiness for operation had also exhausted its legal effect, as it served as the basis for the registration of ownership rights to the construction object.

6. Granting this claim would not lead to any legal consequences, would not alter the nature of the disputed legal relations, would not provide adequate judicial protection, and would not serve the objectives of administrative justice.

…

The courts further established that the construction work had been performed without a duly approved project, and the object (a reconstructed apartment) is being used without having been officially commissioned.

In view of the above, the Supreme Court found that the object qualifies as unauthorized construction within the meaning of the Law of Ukraine “On Regulation of Urban Development Activity” and is being used without proper commissioning. The registration of ownership rights does not alter the legal status of the object. Until a completed construction object is officially commissioned, there are no legal grounds to consider the architectural object as created or the construction as completed. In such cases, the person is considered only the owner of the materials, equipment, etc., used during the construction process (creation of the asset).

In conclusion, the panel of judges agreed with the decision of the court of first instance, stating that the method of judicial protection chosen by the Department was inappropriate and would not ensure the practical implementation of the authority’s powers that served as the basis for filing the claim.

The material and related court practice can be discussed in the group Urban Development in Ukraine.

Yuriy Brykaylo,

DREAMDIM & URBANDATA

Ⓒ 2025

The Committee on Legal Policy has reconsidered Draft Law No. 11533 “On Amendments to the Civil Code of Ukraine and Certain Other Laws of Ukraine Regarding the Specifics of Providing Information from Public Electronic Registers Maintained by the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine and Certain Other Public Electronic Registers” and adopted a decision to recommend that the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, based on the results of the first reading, adopt the above-mentioned draft law as a basis and as a whole in the version proposed by the Committee.

The document proposes amendments to the Civil Code of Ukraine and a number of Ukrainian laws, in particular:

• the Law of Ukraine “On State Registration of Property Rights to Immovable Property and Their Encumbrances”,
• the Law of Ukraine “On State Registration of Legal Entities, Individual Entrepreneurs and Public Associations”,
• the Law of Ukraine “On the Protection of Rights to Inventions and Utility Models”,
• the Law of Ukraine “On the Protection of Rights to Industrial Designs”,
• the Law of Ukraine “On the Protection of Rights to Trademarks for Goods and Services”,
• the Law of Ukraine “On the Protection of Rights to Layout Designs of Semiconductor Products”,
• the Law of Ukraine “On Public Electronic Registers”,
• the Law of Ukraine “On Copyright and Related Rights”.

which restricts access of individuals and legal entities to information from electronic registers regarding defense enterprises during the period of martial law in Ukraine, introduced by the Presidential Decree No. 64/2022 dated February 24, 2022 “On the Introduction of Martial Law in Ukraine”, and for one year after its termination or cancellation.

According to the authors of the draft law, the implementation of the proposed amendments will contribute to enhancing the security of defense enterprises by limiting the possibility of free and unrestricted access to registry data about defense companies, their types of activities, locations, as well as temporarily restricting access to the location of real estate owned by such enterprises and to data on intellectual property objects related to national security and defense. The goal is to preserve the integrity of such registers while imposing minimal access restrictions for individuals and legal entities.

However, it is important not to overlook the significance and impact of open data, which includes information from public registers. This concerns journalistic investigations, public oversight of politicians, and various projects that rely on public registry data (in particular, the URBANDATA project).

Given that, for example, information in the Unified State Electronic System in the Field of Construction (USESFC) concerning defense enterprises and others connected directly or indirectly to the military and defense sectors is non-public (i.e., closed), a temporary restriction on access to similar data in state registers appears entirely justified in my opinion.

What is essential, however, is that access to the entire body or a substantial portion of registry data — especially from the State Register of Real Property Rights and the State Land Cadastre — is not “accidentally” restricted.

The closure of public registers not only creates challenges for citizens but also opens up vast opportunities for corruption. That is why any restrictions must be clearly defined and legally justified.

In my view, draft law No. 11533 is likely to be adopted, but the final version of the document will partly depend on public engagement and advocacy.

The referenced decision of the Supreme Court can be discussed in the group Urban Planning in Ukraine.

Yuriy Brykaylo,

DREAMDIM & URBANDATA

Ⓒ 2025

This issue frequently arises in the context of land and urban planning disputes. It becomes particularly relevant in cases involving unauthorized construction, installation of temporary structures, garages, kiosks, or other objects placed without legal documentation.

In this article, we will clarify which decisions – regarding dismantling or demolition – may be made by a city or village council within the scope of its powers (as a public authority), and in which cases a court decision is required. We will examine key provisions of Ukrainian legislation as well as the case law of the Supreme Court.

This material will be useful for legal professionals, developers, local government representatives, and property owners.

Terminology

At first glance, the difference between “dismantling” and “demolition” may seem purely terminological. However, when property is involved, the distinction becomes more significant – and even more so when we are dealing with compulsory dismantling or demolition, where multiple legal nuances must be considered. That is precisely where we will begin.

We will not examine the general meanings of the terms “dismantling” and “demolition” here, since in practice both refer to the process by which a structure is physically removed.

Instead, the focus of this article is on property – specifically, real estate objects or temporary buildings and structures – since decisions by local governments and courts most often pertain to these. We are discussing forced dismantling or demolition as a consequence of legal violations by the owner of a given object.

As a rule, the term “dismantling” is used in regulations related to temporary buildings and structures. For instance, it appears in the Order No. 244 of October 21, 2011, “On the Approval of the Procedure for the Placement of Temporary Structures for Business Activity”.

Additionally, since the onset of russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, new regulations have introduced provisions on “the dismantling of buildings damaged or destroyed as a result of emergencies, hostilities, or terrorist acts” – such as the Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No. 474 of April 19, 2022, “On Approval of the Procedure for Performing Dismantling Works on Buildings Damaged or Destroyed Due to Emergencies, Hostilities, or Acts of Terrorism.”

According to Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No. 474, dismantling is defined as a specific type of construction activity carried out on damaged or destroyed structures for the purpose of removing all or part of their structural elements.

In contrast, demolition is typically referenced in cases of unauthorized (self-willed) construction. For example, Article 376 of the Civil Code of Ukraine states: “A residential building, structure, facility, or other immovable property is considered unauthorized construction if it has been built or is being built on land not allocated for that purpose, without the proper authorization to carry out construction work or without an approved project, or in significant violation of building codes and regulations”.

Even based on the context in which the legislature uses each term, we can draw a clear distinction:

• Dismantling generally applies to temporary structures or objects damaged or destroyed due to emergencies, hostilities, or acts of terrorism.
• Demolition, on the other hand, pertains to immovable property and is more commonly associated with legal responses to violations such as unauthorized construction.

(At this point, we will not go into the separate legal treatment of cases where an object has not been officially commissioned or registered.)

📌 On the Excessiveness of the Demand for Demolition of Unauthorized Construction)

Who Is Authorized to Decide on Dismantling and Demolition?

A clear answer to this question can be found in judicial practice.

The Supreme Court, represented by the panel of judges of the Cassation Administrative Court, in its Ruling of May 26, 2025, in case No. 160/2346/21, reached the following conclusions:

According to Part 3 of Article 41 of the Constitution of Ukraine, no one shall be unlawfully deprived of the right of ownership. The right to private property is inviolable.

These constitutional provisions are elaborated, in particular, in Article 319 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, which guarantees that the owner possesses, uses, and disposes of their property at their own discretion and has the right to perform with their property any actions that do not contradict the law and conform to the moral principles of society. The state shall not interfere with the exercise of the right of ownership by the owner, but the owner’s activities may be restricted or terminated in cases and in the manner prescribed by law.

Decisive for determining whether the respondent (i.e., the public authority — in this case, the city council) has the authority to adopt a decision on the dismantling and demolition of property is whether the respective property is classified as immovable property or as a temporary structure. Accordingly, the disputed objects must first be identified on-site.

According to Part Two of Article 28 of the Law of Ukraine “On the Regulation of Urban Development Activities”, a temporary structure for commercial, domestic, social, cultural, or other purposes intended for entrepreneurial activity is defined as a single-storey structure made of lightweight constructions, taking into account the basic requirements for structures as defined by the technical regulation of construction products, buildings, and structures. It is installed temporarily without the construction of a foundation. A temporary structure for entrepreneurial activity may include an enclosed space for the temporary presence of people (a pavilion with a maximum area of 30 square meters by the external perimeter) or may lack such a space.

According to Part One of Article 5 of the Law of Ukraine “On State Registration of Property Rights to Immovable Property and Their Encumbrances”, property rights and their encumbrances are subject to registration in the State Register of Rights for land plots, as well as for immovable property objects located on a land plot, the relocation of which is impossible without their depreciation or change of intended purpose. Such objects include enterprises as single property complexes, residential buildings, structures, buildings, and their separate parts, apartments, residential and non-residential premises.

According to the provisions of Article 181 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, Article 1 of the Law of Ukraine “On Mortgage”, and Article 1 of the Law of Ukraine “On State Registration of Property Rights to Immovable Property and Their Encumbrances”, a set of qualifying characteristics for immovable property is established.

Thus, pursuant to Article 181 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, immovable things (immovable property, real estate) include land plots as well as objects located on a land plot that cannot be moved without being devalued or having their intended purpose changed.

According to Part Two of the same article, movable things are those that can be freely moved in space.

Therefore, unlike immovable property, which cannot be relocated without devaluation or a change in its intended use, temporary structures differ in that they are typically made of lightweight prefabricated constructions and are installed without deep foundations, among other distinctions.

According to Article 38 of the Law of Ukraine “On Regulation of Urban Development Activities”, in the event of unauthorized construction of an object, where reconstruction to eliminate significant deviations from the project or to rectify violations of the legal rights and interests of other persons or substantial violations of construction regulations is not feasible, an official of the state architectural and construction control authority shall issue an order to the person who carried out (or is carrying out) such construction, requiring the elimination of violations of urban development legislation, building regulations, state standards, and rules, specifying a timeframe for voluntary compliance with the order. If the person fails to comply with the requirements set out in the order within the specified period, the state architectural and construction control authority shall file a claim with the court seeking the demolition of the unauthorized construction and compensation for the associated demolition costs.

Based on the content of the above legislative provisions, it follows that the procedure and the implementation of powers by an authority in relation to the dismantling of a temporary structure depend on the type of object subject to dismantling.

📌 A public authority is authorized to make decisions on the dismantling of objects if such objects qualify as temporary structures within the meaning of the Local Improvement Rules.

📌 If the object does not constitute a temporary structure, it may be subject to compulsory demolition pursuant to the procedure established by the Law of Ukraine “On Regulation of Urban Development Activities” and only on the basis of a court decision issued upon the claim of the state architectural and construction control authority.

A similar conclusion was reached in the rulings of the Supreme Court dated January 27, 2020 in case No. 465/249/15-a, dated March 13, 2020 in case No. 161/14543/16-a, and dated April 13, 2022 in case No. 852/2a-1/19.

You may discuss the referenced Supreme Court ruling in the Urban Planning in Ukraine group.

Yuriy Brykaylo,

DREAMDIM & URBANDATA

Ⓒ 2025