State registration of property rights, like a decision of an arbitral tribunal, does not legalize the unauthorized construction of a car wash and tire service on a water fund land plot – SC CommCC

An immovable property object is considered unauthorized construction if it was built on a land plot not allocated for this purpose, without the required permits, or in violation of construction norms. State registration of property rights or a decision of an arbitral tribunal does not change the legal status of unauthorized construction. The owner of the land plot has the right to demand the demolition of the unauthorized structure at the expense of the person who carried out the construction, if they did not give consent for the building. A person without a proprietary right to the land plot cannot acquire ownership rights to immovable property objects located on it.  

This conclusion was reached by a panel of judges of the Commercial Cassation Court within the Supreme Court.

On a plot of communal land located within the coastal protection zone of the Lybid River, a road service facility (car wash and tire service) was constructed. The city council did not adopt any decisions on transferring this plot into ownership or use by any persons, and there are no construction permits. The initial state registration of ownership of the disputed object was carried out on the basis of an arbitral tribunal decision, after which the property was repeatedly alienated and later acquired by the defendant.

The courts of first and appellate instance granted the claim, cancelled the state registration of property rights, and ordered the demolition of the disputed building.

When reviewing the case, the Commercial Cassation Court of the Supreme Court noted that, in accordance with Article 376 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, an immovable property object is considered unauthorized construction if it was erected on a land plot not allocated for this purpose, or without the relevant document authorizing construction works, or with significant violations of construction norms and rules. Each of these features is independent and sufficient to recognize the immovable property object as unauthorized construction.

The SC CommCC emphasized that state registration by itself is not a separate ground for acquiring property rights; it is merely official confirmation of the property right already acquired by the person. At the same time, registration of ownership of unauthorized construction does not change its legal regime as unauthorized.

Furthermore, a decision of an arbitral tribunal cannot serve as a basis for the emergence of property rights to an immovable object built on a land plot owned by the territorial community and located in a coastal protection zone, which is subject to a special use regime.

Taking into account the established circumstances, the Supreme Court agreed with the conclusions of the lower courts that the placement of an unauthorized structure on a water fund land plot violates the rights of the land plot owner, and therefore such an object is subject to demolition.

Resolution of the Commercial Cassation Court of the Supreme Court dated 10 February 2026 in case No. 910/7133/25 – https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/134196917.

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.