In this decision, the Grand Chamber agreed with the decision of the Court of Appeal, which closed the proceedings, since the actions and decisions of the State Geo-Cadastre are not subject to review in civil legal proceedings, since they are bound by the powers delegated by the SGC to verify the correctness of the data required for adoption. a decision indicating the public-law nature of the relationship.

In the opinion of the GCh, the decision to grant a permit for the development of a land management project is one of the stages of the process of obtaining the right of ownership or use on the land plot. However, obtaining such a permit can not guarantee the person or stake in the acquisition of such a right, since permission in itself is not a law-enforcement act.

When making such a decision, the state authority carries out the permissive function inherent in the public authority in public relations.

Consequently, the legal relationship related to the adoption and implementation of such a decision does not fall under the definition of private law, since it does not generate personal property rights and obligations of individuals (Resolution of the GCh / SC on October 17, 2018 in the case № 380/624/16-ц).

We remind that the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court has already resolved the issue of substantive jurisdiction in such cases (in particular, the ruling of March 21, 2018 in the case No. 536/233/16-ts, dated October 3, 2018 in the case No. 820/4149/17) .