Such a conclusion was reached by the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court in Case No. 545/1149/17, in which the courts considered a claim in the case of recognizing the right to privatize the land without agreeing the boundaries with the adjacent land user.

It should be noted that the right to agree or refuse a signature is a constitutionally guaranteed right of every person to freely express his or her free will and exercise his / her rights.

At the same time, refusal to privatize a land plot on the grounds of non-signature or refusal to sign documents on the agreement of boundaries between adjacent land users does not deprive the plaintiff of the right to apply to the court for protection of their rights. Which, in fact, is what the plaintiff did in this case.

However, the court of appeals made decision (which was later upheld by the Supreme Court) according to which the plaintiff's claims were not consistent with the methods of protecting the rights to the land, defined by Article 152 of the Land Code of Ukraine. Indeed, the court's admission of the defendant's unlawful refusal to consent to the privatization of the disputed land plot would not renew the plaintiff's violated right, for which he had appealed to court.

What are the main theses of the resolution in the case?

The stage of approval of the boundaries of the land plot in the preparation of land management documentation is ancillary. The signing of the act of concluding the boundaries of independent meaning does not have any effect, it does not lead to the emergence, change or termination of rights to the land plot, as well as any other rights in the privatization procedure.
The agreement of the boundaries is that the interlocutor should be asked to sign the relevant act. If he refuses to do so, the authority empowered to resolve the issue of privatization of the plot in essence must proceed not on the very fact of refusal to sign the act, but on the grounds of refusal.
Disagreement of the boundaries of a land plot outside the settlement with adjacent owners and land users cannot be grounds for refusal by the respective territorial body of the central body of executive power implementing state policy in the field of land relations (territorial body of the state geocadastre in the city technical documentation, subject to the legitimate action of each of the land users.
It should be noted that similar legal conclusions are set out in the Supreme Court's judgments of March 20, 2019 in cases No. 350/67/15-c (proceedings No. 14-652c18) and No. 514/1571/14-c (proceedings No. 14-552c18). .

Therefore, since the current legislation does not restrict the right to privatize the land in connection with the refusal of the adjacent land user to sign an act of land boundary agreement, the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court concluded that such refusal is not an obstacle to the completion of the plaintiff's privatization procedure for land whereas there are no grounds for satisfying the claim (the SC decision of 12 February 2020 in case no. 545/1149/17).