{"id":4740,"date":"2026-08-23T18:01:18","date_gmt":"2026-08-23T15:01:18","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/svaroglaw.com\/blog\/verhovnij-sud-zminiv-pravila-zemelnih-sporiv-hto-pershim-sformuvav-dilyanku\/"},"modified":"2026-08-23T18:58:04","modified_gmt":"2026-08-23T15:58:04","slug":"verhovnij-sud-zminiv-pravila-zemelnih-sporiv-hto-pershim-sformuvav-dilyanku","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/svaroglaw.com\/en\/blog\/verhovnij-sud-zminiv-pravila-zemelnih-sporiv-hto-pershim-sformuvav-dilyanku\/","title":{"rendered":"The Supreme Court has amended the rules on land disputes: whoever first developed the plot will be the one to receive it"},"content":{"rendered":"

In a dispute between two claimants to the same plot of land, priority is not given to the person who first submitted an application or obtained permission to draw up the documentation, but rather the person who first established the plot as an object of civil rights \u2014 by drawing up a land-use plan and registering the plot in the cadastre (the Supreme Court\u2019s position in Case No. 386\/987\/19). A council\u2019s permission to draw up documentation does not guarantee the acquisition of the land.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

A classic scenario in land disputes: two people are claiming the same vacant plot, both have obtained permission from the council to draw up documentation, and each considers themselves to be \u2018first\u2019. For years, the courts have ruled on such cases in different ways: some looked at the date of the application, others at the date of the permission. The Supreme Court has now made its ruling, and its reasoning changes the approach in every case involving competing claimants. At the same time, it explains why \u2018having obtained authorisation\u2019 and \u2018having acquired the land\u2019 are legally distinct matters.<\/p>\n

Let\u2019s examine the Supreme Court\u2019s position, its implications for those currently registering a plot, and typical scenarios for disputes. If your situation is already contentious \u2014 service page: land law solicitor<\/a>.<\/p>\n

What exactly did the Supreme Court say?<\/h2>\n

The essence of the position in Case No. 386\/987\/19: authorisation by an authority to draw up a land management plan does not create a right to a plot of land and does not oblige the council to transfer it to that particular applicant. The right arises in respect of a formed object: until a plot has defined boundaries and a cadastral number, it is not an object of civil rights, and it is therefore impossible to \u2018take a place in the queue\u2019 for it. Where there are two applicants, it is not the dates of the applications that are compared, but the stages: whoever is the first to bring the plot to the stage of a formed object (the land management project has been drawn up, the plot has been registered in the State Land Cadastre) has the advantage.<\/p>\n

Practical conclusion: the council\u2019s permission is merely a \u2018starting ticket\u2019; the winner is whoever completes the process leading to cadastral registration more quickly.<\/p>\n

\"The<\/a><\/p>\n

What this changes in 2026<\/h2>\n

During martial law, the general transfer of land free of charge has been suspended, but several avenues remain open: privatisation of land under one\u2019s own property, the completion of procedures initiated prior to the ban, and priority allocation to certain categories. Within these narrow avenues, competition for suitable plots has only intensified \u2014 and the Supreme Court\u2019s position has become the key argument in \u2018two-permit\u2019 disputes. And once the moratorium is lifted, when local councils begin issuing new permits en masse, the race to secure land will unfold in full force: those who understand the rules will prepare their documentation in advance.<\/p>\n

Typical dispute scenarios and who comes out on top<\/h2>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
The situation<\/th>\nWho has the advantage under the Supreme Court\u2019s ruling<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
Both hold permits; neither has registered the plot in the cadastre<\/td>\nNo one wins \u2018automatically\u2019: the winner is whoever completes the plot formation first; the contest continues<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
The first party has an older permit; the second has a plot registered in the cadastre<\/td>\nThe second party: the formed property supersedes the priority of the application<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
The first party registered the plot; the council transferred it to the second party<\/td>\nThe first party is in a strong position to challenge the council\u2019s decision<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
The council itself formed the plot and issued the allocation order<\/td>\nThe claimants are on an equal footing; the priorities set out in law determine the outcome (for example, the priority right of war veterans)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

What to do if you are currently formalising a plot<\/h2>\n
    \n
  1. Do not stop at obtaining a permit. Once the council has made its decision, immediately commission a land-use planning project from a certified developer; the standard development period is 1\u20133 months, and every week of delay gives your competitor a head start.<\/li>\n
  2. Monitor the registration in the cadastre. The plan is not finalised until the plot is registered; ensure it is entered into the State Land Cadastre and that you obtain a cadastral number.<\/li>\n
  3. Check whether anyone else is claiming the same territory: obtain extracts from the State Land Cadastre and make enquiries to the council regarding permits issued for this territory.<\/li>\n
  4. If the council delays approving a completed project \u2014 do not wait passively. Inaction can be challenged in the administrative court, and the time limits here work against you.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    If the plot has been \u2018snatched away\u2019<\/h2>\n

    When the council has transferred the plot you have formed to another person, both the council\u2019s decision and, if necessary, the subsequent registration of title can be challenged. Case law favours the person who formed the plot, but success depends on the chronology documented in the records: the dates of the project\u2019s development, the dates of registration in the cadastre, and correspondence with the council. A related line of defence based on case law from 2026: courts have ruled that councils\u2019 refusals to approve documentation \u2018due to martial law\u2019 for property owners on the plot are unlawful \u2014 we wrote in detail about this exception in the context of the privatisation of land under a house<\/a>.<\/p>\n

    Common mistakes made by applicants<\/h2>\n