The Supreme Court, as part of the panel of judges of the First Judicial Chamber of the Civil Cassation Court, in its Ruling dated March 12, 2025, in case No. 676/76/22 regarding the invalidation of the village council’s decision, the recognition of the state registration of the land plot as unlawful and its cancellation, and the obligation to return part of the land plot, came to the following conclusions:
The Prosecutor stated that the decision of the Rudska Village Council of Kamianets-Podilskyi District, Khmelnytskyi Region, dated July 24, 2015, No. 5, regarding the transfer of the land plot with cadastral number 6822486800:03:001:0101 into private ownership, is subject to invalidation, as the plot is located within the territory of the nature reserve fund, which is under the permanent use of the National Nature Park “Podilski Tovtry” based on a state act granting the right of permanent land use.
By Presidential Decree of Ukraine No. 474/96 dated June 27, 1996, the National Nature Park “Podilski Tovtry” was established, with a designated land area of 261,316 hectares, including 3,015 hectares allocated for permanent use.
The territory of the National Nature Park “Podilski Tovtry” is part of the Emerald Network of Ukraine (with a total area of 261,521 hectares) and is protected under the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Bern Convention) of 1979, ratified by Ukraine in 1996.
The Prosecutor indicated that the fact that the disputed land plot is located within the territory of the nature reserve fund is confirmed by relevant and admissible evidence, namely cadastral plans certified by specialists and data from the Public Cadastral Map. The land management project for the allocation of a land plot within the nature reserve fund was not approved by the relevant department of the Regional State Administration in the field of environmental protection. Lands of the nature reserve fund are subject to a special protection regime and are fully or partially excluded from commercial use.
The land plot transferred to PERSON_2 is part of the nature reserve fund, classified as particularly valuable land that has been withdrawn from economic use, and was under the permanent use of the National Nature Park “Podilski Tovtry.” Therefore, it could not be granted into ownership for individual horticulture. The land plot is subject to return to the state, represented by the Khmelnytskyi Regional State Administration.
…
Particularly valuable lands include, among others, lands of the nature reserve and other environmental protection purposes (subparagraph “g” of paragraph one of Article 150 of the Land Code of Ukraine (hereinafter — in the version effective at the time of the disputed legal relations)).
The legal framework for the organization, protection, effective use of the nature reserve fund of Ukraine, and the restoration of its natural complexes and sites is defined by the Law of Ukraine “On the Nature Reserve Fund of Ukraine” (hereinafter — in the version effective at the time of the disputed legal relations).
The nature reserve fund consists of land and water areas, natural complexes, and sites that have particular environmental, scientific, aesthetic, recreational, and other value, and are designated for the purpose of preserving the natural diversity of landscapes, the gene pool of fauna and flora, maintaining the general ecological balance, and ensuring background environmental monitoring (second paragraph of the preamble to the said Law).
According to Article 43 of the Land Code of Ukraine, lands of the nature reserve fund are land and water areas with natural complexes and sites that have particular environmental, ecological, scientific, aesthetic, recreational, and other value and have been granted the status of nature reserve fund territories and sites in accordance with the law.
In accordance with Article 44 of the Land Code of Ukraine, lands of the nature reserve fund include natural areas and sites (nature reserves, national nature parks, biosphere reserves, regional landscape parks, wildlife sanctuaries, nature monuments, and reserved tracts), as well as artificially created sites (botanical gardens, dendrological parks, zoological parks, and parks-monuments of landscape gardening art).
…
In the areas designated for regulated recreation, stationary recreation, and the economic zone, any activity that leads or may lead to the deterioration of the environment and the reduction of the recreational value of the national nature park’s territory is prohibited (part two of Article 21 of the above-mentioned Law).
In view of these provisions, the Law of Ukraine “On the Nature Reserve Fund of Ukraine” does not permit construction and maintenance of garden houses or horticultural activity within national nature parks.
The Supreme Court concurs with the conclusions of the lower courts that the transfer of a land plot into private ownership for horticultural purposes within lands of the nature reserve fund is in contradiction with the aforementioned legal requirements.
Therefore, the Rudska Village Council (legal successor — Zhvanecka Village Council) and PERSON_2, and subsequently PERSON_1, knew or ought to have known — by exercising reasonable diligence regarding the location of the disputed land plot — that it could not be transferred into private ownership for horticultural use. The conduct of the defendants was not in good faith.
…
In the areas designated for regulated recreation, stationary recreation, and the economic zone, any activity that leads or may lead to the deterioration of the environment and the reduction of the recreational value of the national nature park’s territory is prohibited (part two of Article 21 of the above-mentioned Law).
In view of these provisions, the Law of Ukraine “On the Nature Reserve Fund of Ukraine” does not permit construction and maintenance of garden houses or horticultural activity within national nature parks.
The Supreme Court concurs with the conclusions of the lower courts that the transfer of a land plot into private ownership for horticultural purposes within lands of the nature reserve fund is in contradiction with the aforementioned legal requirements.
Therefore, the Rudska Village Council (legal successor — Zhvanecka Village Council) and PERSON_2, and subsequently PERSON_1, knew or ought to have known — by exercising reasonable diligence regarding the location of the disputed land plot — that it could not be transferred into private ownership for horticultural use. The conduct of the defendants was not in good faith.
You can discuss the above Ruling of the Supreme Court in the Urban Planning in Ukraine group.
Ⓒ 2025