On some aspects of resolving land disputes

The article examines the problematic issues of judicial methods for resolving land disputes. The author defines these disputes as legal relations arising from conflicts between subjects of land relations (citizens, legal entities, local government bodies, and state authorities) concerning the object of land legal relations (land within the territory of Ukraine, land plots, and rights to them, including land shares (paisa)). The author agrees that judicial protection of land rights is a significant component of land rights guarantees, and the judicial resolution of land disputes is traditionally considered the most universal and qualified method for their resolution. However, there are certain problematic aspects of the judicial process in resolving this category of cases. In particular, the author focuses on the contentious issues of determining the subject matter jurisdiction of courts and the territorial jurisdiction of land disputes. The analysis includes the views of courts of different jurisdictions on the grounds for determining the jurisdiction of cases arising from land relations. Attention is drawn to the difficulties of administering justice under the necessary changes in the territorial jurisdiction of courts during martial law when their normal functioning is impossible. The modern practice of addressing these problematic issues is reviewed through specific court decisions. Without diminishing the importance of judicial protection of land rights, the author believes that in the current conditions, non-judicial methods of resolving land disputes, particularly mediation, could become more effective and accessible. Mediation is an out-of-court procedure for preventing or resolving conflicts (disputes) with the participation of a specially trained specialist (mediator) who assists in organizing and conducting negotiations and facilitates the parties’ independent search for the most optimal solution. The author notes that mediation, unlike judicial proceedings, does not require the parties to adhere to mandatory procedural formalities. As an out-of-court procedure, it has significant advantages, such as being much faster, confidential, allowing the parties to influence the outcome, maintaining or restoring friendly relations if needed, and enabling the parties to independently make a decision based on their true interests, which they are willing to voluntarily implement.