Acquisitive prescription (adverse possession) in relation to land plots: prospects for application in Ukraine

Abstract

The Land Code of Ukraine, which came into force on January 1, 2002, established a new institution for land legislation - acquisitive prescription for land plots. Only one provision of land legislation is devoted to this institution, but its lack of detail leads to ambiguous interpretations of the grounds for acquiring ownership of land through long-term use and complicates its practical application. The purpose of this article is to provide a comprehensive theoretical and legal analysis of the institution of acquisitive prescription with regard to land plots, to identify problems in its practical implementation, and to formulate proposals for improving the legislative regulation of this legal institution. The results obtained may be significant for the development of legal doctrine and law enforcement practice. The following methods were used in the study: the systemic-structural method (to analyze the institution of acquisitive prescription in the land law system and its relationship with the provisions of the Civil Code of Ukraine), the formal-legal method (to analyze the provisions of land legislation and identify gaps and conflicts); comparative legal method (to compare the provisions on acquisitive prescription in land and civil legislation), method of analysis and generalization of judicial practice (to identify problems in the practical application of Article 119 of the Land Code of Ukraine), logical-legal method (for formulating proposals for legislative improvement of the institution of acquisitive prescription for land plots).

Results. In this article, the author analyzes the current legislation of Ukraine and emphasizes that the Land Code and the Civil Code of Ukraine contain different legal models of acquisitive prescription. Despite this, courts sometimes do not distinguish between the key categories of “bona fide acquisition” and “bona fide use” of a land plot. In this regard, there is a need to develop a unified categorical apparatus. There is also a need to establish a clear mechanism for proving the criteria for adverse possession.

Conclusions. The author draws attention to the fact that Article 119 of the Land Code of Ukraine provides for a general procedure for acquiring ownership of a land plot. In this regard, it is advisable to give such citizens priority in the privatization of land plots, provided that they have not previously exercised their right to free privatization, and to apply a simplified privatization model. The author emphasizes that the institution of acquisitive prescription can be made effective by establishing a rule according to which ownership of a land plot by acquisitive prescription is acquired by a court decision. This is due to the conflict of rights and interests between state authorities, local self-government bodies, and a person who is a long-term actual land user. This approach will contribute to the development of uniform judicial practice and the implementation of Article 119 of the Land Code of Ukraine.