JUDICIAL PROTECTION OF TERRITORIAL COMMUNITIES’ INTERESTS IN THE PRESERVATION OF NATURAL AREAS

Abstract

This article examines controversial issues related to the application of judicial remedies for the protection of territorial communities’ interests in disputes concerning illegal development of water fund lands and other environmentally protected areas in Ukraine. The study analyzes the formation of the Supreme Court’s public environmental protection doctrine, including the concept of the legal impossibility of lawful acquisition of water fund lands, the evolution of evidentiary standards, and the correlation between negatory, vindicatory and condiction remedies during the period from 2018 to 2025.

It is substantiated that the interest of a territorial community in preserving natural territories has gradually acquired the characteristics of a civil-law protected interest. Such interest is increasingly recognized by courts as an independent object of judicial protection, regardless of the formal ownership title to a specific land plot. This transformation reflects a broader shift in Ukrainian judicial practice toward acknowledging the priority of public environmental interests over private proprietary claims derived from unlawful land allocation decisions.

At the same time, the article demonstrates that existing judicial remedies and approaches to evidentiary assessment in this category of disputes, including the criteria used to evaluate the good faith of land acquirers, remain inconsistent, fragmented and insufficiently predictable. Divergent judicial approaches to proving the legal status of land plots, spatial boundaries of protective zones significantly affect the outcomes of similar cases, thereby undermining legal certainty and the stability of judicial protection mechanisms.

Special attention is given to the change in the Supreme Court’s approach toward the active application of negatory claims based on the concept of continuing violations and the legal impossibility of lawful possession of water fund lands. This approach has substantially influenced the role of limitation periods, the balance between private and public interests, and the overall architecture of judicial protection in environmental land disputes.

The article concludes that sustainable stabilization of judicial practice in disputes involving water fund lands and other protected territories requires not only legislative intervention, but also a coherent doctrinal framework combining effective judicial protection, proportionality, legal certainty and a fair balance between the interests of territorial communities, the state and bona fide private acquirers.