Category: Статьи

Верховний Суд у складі колегії суддів Другої судової палати Касаційного цивільного суду у своїй Постанові від 12 березня 2025 року по справі №568/823/23 щодо припинення права власності на земельну ділянку шляхом її конфіскації і продажу на земельних торгах, про припинення дії договору оренди землі та припинення права оренди земельних ділянок, прийшов до настпуних висновків:

Частиною п`ятою статті 22 ЗК України визначено, що землі сільськогосподарського призначення не можуть передаватись у власність іноземцям, особам без громадянства, іноземним юридичним особам та іноземним державам.

За змістом частини четвертої статті 81 ЗК України землі сільськогосподарського призначення, прийняті у спадщину іноземцями, а також особами без громадянства, протягом року підлягають відчуженню.

Відповідно до вимог підпункту «е» частини першої статті 140 ЗК України підставами припинення права власності на земельну ділянку є не відчуження земельної ділянки іноземними особами та особами без громадянства у встановлений строк у випадках, визначених цим Кодексом.

Примусове припинення прав на земельну ділянку здійснюється у судовому порядку у разі конфіскації земельної ділянки (пункт “в” частини першої статті 143 ЗК України).

Відповідно до частини другої статті 145 ЗК України у разі, якщо відповідно до закону власник земельної ділянки зобов`язаний відчужити її протягом певного строку і земельна ділянка не була відчужена ним протягом такого строку, така ділянка підлягає конфіскації за рішенням суду.

Пунктом 10 частини першої статті 346 ЦК України визначено конфіскацію як одну з підстав припинення права власності.

Норма частини п`ятої статті 41 Конституції України передбачає, що конфіскація майна може бути застосована виключно за рішенням суду у випадках, обсязі та порядку, встановлених законом.

Суд першої інстанції, урахувавши вимоги вказаних норм права, дійшов висновку, що ОСОБА_1 як громадянка іноземної держави набула на праві власності земельну ділянку сільськогосподарського призначення та не відчужила її протягом строку, встановленого статтею 81 ЗК України, у зв`язку із чим право власності на спірну земельну ділянку підлягає припиненню шляхом її конфіскації за рішенням суду на користь держави, а сама земельна ділянка – продажу на земельних торгах.

Рішення Радивилівського районного суду Рівненської області від 05 лютого 2024 року в цій частині в апеляційному порядку не оскаржувалось, а тому, в силу приписів частини другої статті 17 ЦПК України, у вказаній частині в касаційному порядку також не переглядається.

Разом із цим, звертаючись до суду з позовом, керівник Дубенської окружної прокуратури в інтересах держави в особі Головного управління Держгеокадастру у Рівненській області також просив припинити дію договору оренди землі та додаткових угод до нього, орендодавцем у яких на цей час виступає ОСОБА_1 , а також припинити ТОВ «Радивилів Агро» право оренди спірної земельної ділянки.

Відмовляючи у задоволенні указаних позовних вимог, апеляційний суд виходив із того, що орендодавцем спірної земельної ділянки як фізичною особою може бути виключно громадянин України, однак ОСОБА_1 є громадянкою російської федерації, а тому вона не наділена повноваженнями укладати правочини щодо оренди землі сільськогосподарського призначення. Додаткові угоди від 08 листопада 2018 року та від 31 грудня 2021 року до договору оренди землі № 412 від 15 жовтня 2008 року, укладені між відповідачкою і ТОВ «Радивилів Агро», порушують публічний порядок, оскільки стосуються земельної ділянки сільськогосподарського призначення, що є національним багатством і перебуває під особливою охороною держави, власником якої була громадянинка іноземної держави, якій вимогами закону заборонено передавати її в оренду, тому ці правочини є нікчемними.

Колегія суддів Верховного Суду погоджується з указаними висновками апеляційного суду з наступних підстав.

…

Аналіз норм Закону України «Про оренду землі», зокрема частини першої статті 4 Закону України «Про оренду землі» у взаємному зв`язку з положеннями пункту «в» частини другої статті 5 цього Закону, дає підстави для висновку, що орендодавцем земельної ділянки не можуть бути іноземці.

У справі, яка переглядається, встановлено, що ОСОБА_1 є громадянкою російської федерації, тому національним законодавством України вона не наділена правом на укладання договорів оренди землі сільськогосподарського призначення.

⭕️Земельна ділянка сільськогосподарського призначення, отримана іноземцем у спадщину та не відчужена ним протягом року, підлягає конфіскації за рішенням суду. Додаткові угоди до договору оренди такої земельної ділянки, укладені іноземним громадянином як орендодавцем, є нікчемними, оскільки порушують публічний порядок та суперечать законодавчій забороні іноземцям бути орендодавцями таких земельних ділянок.

Обговорити вказану Постанову ВС можна в групі Містобудування в Україні.

Юрій Брикайло,

DREAMDIM & URBANDATA

Ⓒ 2025

The Supreme Court, as part of the panel of judges of the Second Judicial Chamber of the Civil Cassation Court, in its Ruling of March 12, 2025, in case No. 568/823/23 regarding the termination of ownership of a land plot through its confiscation and sale at a land auction, the termination of the land lease agreement, and the termination of the lease right to land plots, reached the following conclusions:

Part five of Article 22 of the Land Code of Ukraine stipulates that agricultural land may not be transferred into the ownership of foreigners, stateless persons, foreign legal entities, and foreign states.

According to part four of Article 81 of the Land Code of Ukraine, agricultural land inherited by foreigners, as well as stateless persons, must be alienated within one year.

In accordance with subparagraph “e” of part one of Article 140 of the Land Code of Ukraine, the grounds for termination of ownership rights to a land plot include the failure of foreign persons and stateless persons to alienate the land plot within the prescribed period in cases determined by this Code.

Compulsory termination of rights to a land plot is carried out in a judicial procedure in the event of confiscation of the land plot (paragraph “v” of part one of Article 143 of the Land Code of Ukraine).

According to part two of Article 145 of the Land Code of Ukraine, if, under the law, the owner of a land plot is obliged to alienate it within a certain period and the land plot has not been alienated within that period, such land plot is subject to confiscation by a court decision.

Paragraph 10 of part one of Article 346 of the Civil Code of Ukraine defines confiscation as one of the grounds for termination of ownership rights.

Part five of Article 41 of the Constitution of Ukraine stipulates that confiscation of property may be applied exclusively by a court decision in the cases, scope, and procedure established by law.

The court of first instance, taking into account the requirements of the above-mentioned legal provisions, concluded that PERSON_1, as a citizen of a foreign state, acquired ownership of an agricultural land plot and did not alienate it within the period established by Article 81 of the Land Code of Ukraine. Therefore, the ownership right to the disputed land plot is subject to termination by means of confiscation by a court decision in favor of the state, and the land plot itself is subject to sale at a land auction.

The decision of the Radiviliv District Court of Rivne Region dated February 5, 2024, in this part was not appealed, and therefore, pursuant to part two of Article 17 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, it is also not subject to cassation review in this part.

At the same time, when filing a claim with the court, the head of the Dubno District Prosecutor’s Office, acting in the interests of the state represented by the Main Department of the StateGeoCadastre in Rivne Region, also requested to terminate the land lease agreement and the additional agreements thereto, in which PERSON_1 currently acts as the lessor, as well as to terminate the lease right of LLC “Radyvyliv Agro” to the disputed land plot.

In refusing to satisfy these claims, the appellate court based its decision on the fact that the lessor of an agricultural land plot, as a natural person, may only be a citizen of Ukraine. However, PERSON_1 is a citizen of the Russian Federation and therefore is not authorized to enter into transactions concerning the lease of agricultural land. The additional agreements dated November 8, 2018, and December 31, 2021, to the land lease agreement No. 412 dated October 15, 2008, concluded between the defendant and LLC “Radyvyliv Agro”, violate public order, as they concern an agricultural land plot that is national wealth and under special protection of the state. The owner of this land was a foreign citizen, who is prohibited by law from leasing such land, and therefore these transactions are null and void.

The panel of judges of the Supreme Court agrees with the conclusions of the appellate court on the following grounds.

…

An analysis of the provisions of the Law of Ukraine “On Land Lease”, in particular Part 1 of Article 4 in conjunction with subparagraph “v” of Part 2 of Article 5 of this Law, provides grounds for the conclusion that foreign nationals cannot act as lessors of land plots.

In the reviewed case, it was established that PERSON_1 is a citizen of the Russian Federation. Therefore, under Ukrainian national legislation, she does not have the right to enter into lease agreements for agricultural land.

⭕️An agricultural land plot inherited by a foreign citizen and not alienated within one year is subject to confiscation by court decision. Any additional agreements to lease such a land plot, concluded by a foreign citizen acting as the lessor, are null and void as they violate public order and contradict the legal prohibition against foreigners serving as lessors of such land plots.

You can discuss the mentioned Resolution of the Supreme Court (Civil Cassation Court) in the group Urban Planning in Ukraine.

Yuriy Brykaylo,

DREAMDIM & URBANDATA

Ⓒ 2025

The Ministry for Communities and Territories Development of Ukraine has developed and submitted to the State Regulatory Service (DRS) for approval the Draft Law of Ukraine “On Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of Ukraine Regarding the Establishment of a Warranty Period for Completed Construction Projects That Have Been Officially Commissioned.”

The draft law was developed pursuant to the third paragraph of subclause 1 of clause 5, Section IX “Final and Transitional Provisions” of the Law of Ukraine No. 3153-IX of June 10, 2023, “On Consumer Rights Protection” to ensure the protection of consumer rights in the event of latent construction defects discovered within the 10-year warranty period.

Current Legal Regulation

According to Article 884 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, the contractor guarantees that the construction object will meet the parameters defined in the design and estimate documentation and will be suitable for use in accordance with the contract during the warranty period. The warranty period is ten years from the date of acceptance of the object by the customer, unless a longer period is provided by the contract or the law.

In addition, Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No. 668 dated August 1, 2005, stipulates that the warranty terms for the quality of completed works are an essential condition of the construction contract and must not be less than ten years.

According to parts one and four of Article 884 of the Civil Code, the contractor guarantees that the construction object will achieve the parameters specified in the design documentation and will be suitable for operation under the terms of the contract throughout the warranty period, unless otherwise specified in the construction contract. The warranty period is ten years from the date the object is accepted by the customer, unless a longer period is established by the contract or by law. If defects are discovered during the warranty period, the customer must notify the contractor within a reasonable time after discovering them.

Article 1 of the Law of Ukraine of June 10, 2023, No. 3153-IX “On Consumer Protection” (enters into force one year after its publication, but not earlier than the day of termination or cancellation of martial law introduced by the Decree of the President of Ukraine No. 64/2022 of February 24, 2022, “On the Introduction of Martial Law in Ukraine,” and approved by the Law of Ukraine No. 2102-IX of February 24, 2022) defines a defect as any non-compliance of a product with legislative requirements, terms of the contract, or information provided by the business entity about the product, or the presence of a defect in the product as defined by the Law of Ukraine “On Liability for Damage Caused by a Defective Product,” confirmed by diagnostics performed by the business entity or by an independent expert examination (research) of the product.

Product means any goods, work (service) produced, performed, or provided to the consumer, including food products.

Article 1 of the Law of Ukraine “On Liability for Damage Caused by a Defective Product” (hereinafter — the Law) defines damage as injury, other health impairment, or death of a person, or damage or destruction of any property (except the defective product itself) caused by a product defect.

Product is defined as any movable property, including finished goods, raw materials, and components, including items that are part of other movable or immovable property.

This Law regulates the relationships regarding liability for damage caused to the victim by a defective product placed on the market in Ukraine. For matters not regulated by this Law, the provisions of civil, procedural law and consumer protection legislation apply.

This Law does not limit any rights of the injured party under contractual or non-contractual obligations that establish liability different from that defined by this Law — including the right to compensation for moral damage or compensation in specific areas of civil relations in accordance with the applicable law (Article 2 of the Law).

Article 6 of the [Law of Ukraine on Liability for Damage Caused by a Defective Product] stipulates that the injured party must prove:

• the existence of damage;
• the existence of a defect in the product;
• the causal link between the defect and the damage.

The injured party has the right to request from the manufacturer the documentation related to the product that caused the damage due to its defect — to the extent necessary to prove the circumstances listed in part one of this article.

The third paragraph of subparagraph 1 of paragraph 5 of Section IX “Final and Transitional Provisions” of the Law of Ukraine “On Consumer Protection” provides for the development of a draft law regarding mandatory warranty obligations by developers for construction projects for a period of at least 10 years from the date of their handover to the consumer.

At the same time, under parts five and eight of Article 39 of the Law of Ukraine “On Regulation of Urban Development Activities”, the date of commissioning a completed construction project is the date of registration of the declaration of readiness for operation or the issuance of a certificate of readiness.
The operation of completed construction objects that have not been properly commissioned (if required by law) is prohibited.

In other words, a completed construction project may only be used after being duly commissioned (i.e., after the registration of a declaration of readiness or issuance of a commissioning certificate).

Considering the above, it became necessary to amend legislation of Ukraine in part concerning the warranty period for completed construction projects, which have been duly commissioned.
These amendments should apply not only to consumers who signed a contract with the developer but also to subsequent owners who acquire ownership of the real estate within the 10-year warranty period (as a property may change hands multiple times during this time).

For this purpose, the Ministry for Communities and Territories Development of Ukraine developed a draft Law of Ukraine “On Amendments to Article 884 of the Civil Code of Ukraine.” However, following the review by relevant government bodies, it was decided to refine the provisions of this draft law by instead amending the Law of Ukraine “On the Regulation of Urban Development Activities,” which governs public relations in the field of urban development, and by clarifying the provisions of the Law of Ukraine “On Consumer Protection.”

Proposed Amendments

The warranty period for completed construction projects that have been duly commissioned (excluding projects carried out based on a building passport and projects classified as low-consequence (risk) class CC1 constructed through owner-builder/self-construction methods) shall be ten years from the date of official commissioning.

The quality warranty for completed construction works shall be ensured by the developer (or its legal successor). The developer (or its successor) shall be held liable for defects that affect the functional suitability of the completed property (real estate) and are identified within the warranty period, unless it proves that the defects arose through no fault of its own. Disputes regarding defect elimination between the property owner and the developer (or successor) shall be resolved in court.

In my opinion, it would be reasonable to introduce differentiated warranty periods based on the risk class, construction cost, type of building, seismic risk of the region, and other factors. The minimum warranty period should remain 10 years, including for CC1-class buildings.

Currently, most houses built with building passports are constructed without meaningful supervision or warranties, and often with the sole purpose of selling them. Unfortunately, Ukrainian legislation lacks provisions restricting the sale or lease of such buildings. It would be appropriate to introduce legal limitations on the alienation or leasing of these structures within the first 3–5 years after commissioning—limiting use during this period exclusively to the owner and their family.

Given that the expected lifespan of monolithic frame buildings is typically 100 years or more, I believe it would be logical and reasonable to set a minimum warranty period of 30 years for this type of structure.

For discussion of the current legal framework and the proposed amendments, join the Urban Planning in Ukraine discussion group.

Yuriy Brykaylo,

DREAMDIM & URBANDATA

Ⓒ 2025