The Supreme Court, represented by a panel of judges of the Cassation Administrative Court, in its Ruling dated March 5, 2025, in case No. 120/13166/21-a concerning the obligation to demolish an unauthorized construction project, stated, among other things, that:
⭕️ The revocation of permitting documentation (in particular, urban planning conditions and restrictions, the notice of commencement of construction, or a permit) for already commenced or completed construction changes the status of such an object to unauthorized construction.
Such revocation may result from formal violations (e.g., incorrect formatting, data inaccuracies, missing signatures or seals, etc.) or substantial violations (e.g., construction on a land plot that was not properly allocated).
At the same time, a demolition order without a prior injunction requires proof that construction was carried out on a land plot with a category or designated purpose that does not permit such use, and that it is impossible to change the designation. It also requires proof that the person who constructed the unauthorized building has not acquired ownership (or usage rights) to the land plot and is unable to obtain consent from the landowner (local government or state authority) to use the land. In such cases, the violation cannot be eliminated voluntarily without changing the legal status of the land plot.
In all other cases, the person who performed the unauthorized construction may apply to the executive body of local government to obtain new urban planning conditions and restrictions or submit a new notice of commencement of construction works (for projects with minor consequences – class CC1), or obtain a construction permit (for projects with medium (CC2) or significant (CC3) consequences). The architectural and construction control authority may only file a claim in court for demolition if the violation has not been rectified after the expiration of the voluntary compliance period specified in an official order (as provided by Article 38, Part One of the Law of Ukraine “On Regulation of Urban Planning Activities”), i.e., if non-compliance is confirmed.
The Supreme Court also emphasizes that, in adjudicating such disputes, courts must take into account the need to maintain a balance between protecting public interests and the rights of individuals who may be adversely affected by demolition, as well as the proportionality of the measures to a legitimate aim.
Discussions of case law in the field of urban planning can be continued in the groupUrban Planning in Ukraine.
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)?
⭕️ 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, 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.
⭕️ 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?
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 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 URBANDATAproject).
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 groupUrban Planning in Ukraine.
