Prosecutor lacks authority to represent the interests of the state in court in the person of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine and branch academies of sciences regarding state-owned land transferred to them for permanent use – SC GC

The prosecutor has the authority to represent the interests of the state in court in the person of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine and branch academies of sciences regarding objects of state ownership that fall within the scope of their management, except for, in particular, disputes concerning state-owned land transferred to them for permanent use.

The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court reached this conclusion in a case brought by the prosecutor in the interests of the state in the person of the National Academy of Agrarian Sciences of Ukraine (hereinafter – NAAS of Ukraine) as the permanent land user, seeking to cancel a decision of the village council and reclaim a land plot.

According to the circumstances of the case, the village council transferred a land plot into private ownership to a natural person. The plot belonged to state-owned land and was in the permanent use of a research station.

The prosecutor claimed that the land plot had left state ownership without the consent of the owner, based on an illegal decision of the village council. Therefore, the registration of ownership rights in favour of the natural person should be cancelled, and the disputed land plot should be reclaimed in favour of the lawful owner.

The courts of previous instances granted the prosecutor’s claim.

In its cassation appeal, the village council argued, among other things, that the NAAS of Ukraine and the research station were not the proper plaintiffs in whose person the prosecutor could file a lawsuit to protect the legitimate interests of the state.

When examining the dispute, the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court noted that since the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine and the branch academies of sciences are vested with powers to manage objects of state ownership that fall within the scope of their management, the prosecutor has the authority to represent the interests of the state in court in their person — with the exception of disputes regarding objects of ownership of the Ukrainian people, as defined in Part 1 of Article 13 of the Constitution of Ukraine.

Therefore, the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine and the branch academies of sciences, including the NAAS of Ukraine, are not subjects of public authority with respect to state-owned land transferred to them for permanent use. The protection of the state’s interests regarding such land is carried out by the relevant authorized state authority, local self-government body, or another subject of public authority whose competence includes exercising the rights of the state as the owner (holder) of state-owned land.

The prosecutor, when filing a lawsuit in the interests of the state, must involve the body whose competence includes the relevant powers regarding the management of state-owned land. Under the circumstances of this case, such a body is the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine.

Accordingly, the prosecutor’s representation of the state’s interests in court in such legal relations is possible only if the inaction of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine is proven, and not the inaction of the NAAS of Ukraine, which is not a subject of public authority with respect to rights to land plots in the context of applying Article 23 of the Law of Ukraine “On the Prosecutor’s Office”.

In this case, the prosecutor did not substantiate the inaction or improper protection of the state’s interests specifically by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine as the competent authority in the field of managing state-owned lands. Instead, the prosecutor filed the claim in the interests of the NAAS of Ukraine, which, although it is a permanent land user, does not have public authority powers regarding the disposal of such lands in accordance with Article 84 of the Land Code of Ukraine.

Therefore, since the prosecutor filed the claim on behalf of an interested party as a person who lacks authority to conduct the case, there are grounds for leaving the claim without consideration.

Resolution of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court dated 10 December 2025, in case No. 344/12305/18 – https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/132746753

This and other legal positions of the Supreme Court can be found in the Database of Legal Positions of the Supreme Court - https://lpd.court.gov.ua.