Administrative courts do not resolve disputes with a notary

A claim to a private notary regarding the cancellation of ownership registration in the State Register of Rights to Real Estate can not be considered under the rules of administrative legal proceedings. This was stated by the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court.

rejestrator stamp

Under the circumstances of the case, the notary has registered the right of ownership of the non-residential complex, transferred to the mortgage by the liquidated bank. The plaintiff has indicated a violation of his rights as the owner by such actions. Although, as pointed out by the GCh, the plaintiff did not make specific claims to the state registrar.

Given the subject matter of the case and the fact that the dispute is associated with non-fulfillment of the terms of civil law agreements (loan agreement and mortgage agreement), this dispute, in the opinion of the GCh, is not public-law and follows from contractual relations, and consequently - must be decided on the basis of economic legal proceedings. Thus, the Grand Chamber confirmed the earlier conclusion of the SCU on the non-jurisdiction of the administrative courts of disputes with the state registrar regarding the contracts (in the ruling of 14.06.2016 in the case number 21-41а16 and in the ruling of 04.11.2017 in the case number 808/2298/15).

Thus, in determining the substantive jurisdiction of the courts, the courts should analyze the essence of the interest, for which the person applied for protection, the declared claims, the nature of the controversial legal relationships and the legal nature of the circumstances in the case.

At the same time, the decisive feature of the case of administrative jurisdiction is the relevant public-law nature of the dispute, the presence of participants in public-legal relations and the affiliation of the dispute to these relations.

In addition, the deciding principle of the administration of justice in administrative cases is the principle of officially clarifying all the circumstances of the case, and the obligation of the subject of power to prove the lawfulness of their actions or decisions, in contrast to the defining principle of civil proceedings, which consists in adversarial parties .

The relevant ruling in the case No. 820/2792/16 was issued by the Grand Chamber on June 20, 2018, the full text of which is available for review at the link.