The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of lower courts: nearly 18 hectares in the coastal protection zone of the Kaniv Reservoir near Dnipro must be returned to the territorial community. The Office of the Prosecutor General announced the decision.
Scheme: fictitious real estate as grounds for transfer
These are water fund plots — a category of land that land legislation directly excludes from privatization and development. However, a legal entity obtained them. The argument was the supposedly existing real estate on these plots — which automatically provided grounds for registering the land under it.
"Prosecutors proved in court that the transfer of these lands to a legal entity, allegedly through the presence of real estate objects, did not correspond to reality"
— Office of the Prosecutor General of Ukraine
This very construction — registration of fictitious or disproportionate real estate objects as grounds for land registration — is one of the most common schemes for seizing coastal zones in Ukraine. The Prosecutor's Office has already stopped similar attempts on the Dnipro embankment within the city itself, challenging decisions by the Dnipro City Council to narrow the coastal protection zone to 10 meters.
What the law actually protects
For large rivers and reservoirs, the Water Code establishes a coastal protection zone of at least 100 meters from the water's edge — and directly prohibits any construction within its boundaries, except for hydraulic and navigation structures. Construction of cottage communities on such lands violates both the Water and Land Codes simultaneously.
- Lands of coastal protection zones belong to the water fund and cannot be privatized
- Construction of any structures — recreation bases, cottages, garages — in these zones is prohibited
- Transfer of such plots to private individuals or companies is grounds for a prosecutor's lawsuit in the interests of the community
Scale of the problem
The case near Dnipro is not an exception. Throughout 2025, prosecutors across Ukraine are conducting mass work to return water fund lands. The Kyiv Regional Prosecutor's Office has filed over 550 lawsuits regarding 6,500 hectares of illegally alienated land — courts have already satisfied 350 of them. In Cherkasy region, over 540 hectares of water fund and nature conservation territories have been returned. The scheme involving fictitious real estate or downgrading the water body category is being reproduced from the Dnipro to the Siverskyi Donets.
The Supreme Court's decision is final in the cassation part. However, between a court ruling and the physical return of land to the community — there are often months of enforcement proceedings. If during this time new registration actions or construction equipment appear on the plot, the community will face another legal marathon — and it is the speed of the local authorities' reaction that will determine whether the shoreline remains open.
