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).
📌 On the disproportionality of a demolition demand in cases of unauthorized construction
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 group Urban Planning in Ukraine.