How Ukraine's Supreme Court is Defending Parks and Heritage from the 'Mazepa Law'

An Analysis of Law No. 4292 in Action

According to Главком: An examination of interviews concerning Law No. 4292, commonly called the 'Mazepa Law,' reveals crucial aspects of the Ukrainian Supreme Court's judicial practice regarding the protection of green spaces and cultural heritage. This legislation, passed by parliament a year ago, deals with 'good faith purchasers' and stipulates that if ten years have passed, a community or the state cannot reclaim green zones, coastal areas, or cultural heritage sites. If the ten-year period has not elapsed, a claimant must deposit a sum equal to the property's market value.

Judicial Practice and the Law's Impact

The first casualty of this law was Protasiv Yar, where prosecutors filed a lawsuit but were initially denied without requiring a deposit. However, a year later, the prosecution successfully argued before the Supreme Court for the right to file a claim without making such a deposit. The Supreme Court's Commercial Cassation Court ruled that a deposit is unnecessary if the plaintiff considers the purchaser to be acting in bad faith. This position was also supported by the Supreme Court's Civil Cassation Court. Meanwhile, the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court has protected sites including:

• The Tereshchenko Estate
• Syretskyi Hai Park
• Historical burial mounds (kurgans)

The Supreme Court's Administrative Cassation Court also protected the Bilichanskyi Forest.

The Plenum of the Supreme Court has referred a question to Ukraine's Constitutional Court regarding the retroactive application of Law No. 4292. In Ukraine, the statute of limitations for filing claims is three years, whereas in Germany and Austria, the period for real estate is 30 years. This legal framework is part of an ongoing struggle in post-Soviet states to balance property rights with public interest in environmental and historical preservation.

The judges who have expressed opinions on the law's application are Larisa Rohach, Head of the Commercial Cassation Court within the Supreme Court, and Dmytro Hudyma, a Supreme Court Justice in the Civil Cassation Court.

Larisa Rohach noted: 'Let the buyer beware.'

She also recounted her personal experience with a land purchase: 'When I bought a plot, I didn't know it was located on the coast. I didn't go and check where it was situated.'

The application of Law No. 4292 and its influence on judicial practice underscore the ongoing relevance of protecting natural resources and cultural heritage in Ukraine. As legislation in this area continues to evolve, it is important to monitor further changes in court rulings, which may affect the protection of green spaces across the country's regions. Observing the Supreme Court's practice will be key to understanding how the law may be applied in the future and what consequences this will have for communities and investors.

As the Supreme Court navigates the complexities of Law No. 4292, it also faces challenges that could influence broader legal interpretations in Ukraine. Understanding how the Supreme and Constitutional Courts may alter land reform principles provides valuable insight into potential future impacts on property rights and environmental protection.