The provisions on the protection of the rights of a bona fide purchaser are taken from the current version of the Civil Code
These amendments were introduced over a year ago, and during this period not only has the state not relinquished its rights to forests, land, water and cultural heritage, but it has also ensured strict compliance with the law in this area.
Few people understand what the right of a bona fide purchaser is. Put simply, if you bought a flat, a house or a plot of land a long time ago (more than 10 years ago), it is not possible to take it away from you without compensating you for it.
Imagine this situation: you bought a flat, and 15 years later someone comes to you and says that the developer had once illegally acquired the plot on which the building containing your flat was built, and so they are taking the flat away from you.
‘What about the money?’ you ask. ‘Go and find the developer,’ they’ll reply. And if you bought on the secondary market? Who should you look for?
And so it goes round and round.
You are a bona fide purchaser. And if someone did break the law at some point – that’s what the Criminal Code is for; hold the guilty party to account. And let them compensate either you or the state.
But there is something else that few people know about.
In December 2025, the European Court of Human Rights upheld this position and the rules regarding bona fide purchasers.
In its December 2025 ruling, the European Court of Human Rights recognised the rules on the protection of bona fide purchasers as the cornerstone of the protection of an individual’s property rights.
‘The Court notes that the Ukrainian legislature, by amending the Civil Code of Ukraine in 2025 to protect the rights of bona fide purchasers (see paragraphs 20–21), has in effect recognised that, in the event of the recovery of property from such owners, the consequences, particularly the financial ones, must be borne by the state.
This is evident from the requirement to ensure the availability of funds, at the time of filing the action for revendication, which will be awarded as compensation to the relevant person if the claim is upheld.
Furthermore, these amendments do not appear to distinguish between the ways in which the property was acquired by the last (or sole) owner – directly from the state (through privatisation) or as a result of another transaction, such as a sale.
What is important is that the property in question originally belonged to the state (or local authorities) and that the last owner is a bona fide purchaser.
Indeed, the new legislation cannot remedy the applicant’s situation, as it applies only to future cases (it has retroactive effect only for cases pending before the courts of first instance), but the Court considers that this approach reflects the legislature’s view on how to resolve complex situations such as those at issue in this case.
Thus, any arguments put forward by critics are refuted by yet another ECHR ruling, which prioritises the guarantee of respect for human rights and the inviolability of those rights on the part of the state.
Recodification and the development of the legislative framework is a complex matter.
But we will overcome this resistance too.
Hang in there!
