Статтю присвячено визначенню критеріїв розмежування підвідомості земельних спорів. Розкрито складові відповідного механізму. Сфомульовано пропозиції щодо внесення змін до законодавства України.
Diametrically opposed viewpoints to the jurisdiction of the judicial authorities in land disputes are fixed at the level of judicial practice. In fact, now the subjects of economic relations choise a court for resolution of the dispute with regard to the conflict of positions given in the resolutions of the higher courts Plenums.
In the context of this study, land disputes will consider such unresolved conflicts arising from land relations on the origin, implementation, change or termination of land rights, their protection in connection with violation of rights and legitimate interests (or recognition) of such legal relations.
Despite the collision moments in the definition of the relevant jurisdictions of the courts it is necessary to consider such distinctive criteria: 1) subjective aspect (the composition of a particular judicial proceedings participants); 2) ontological characteristics associated with the essence of a land dispute; 3) legal criterion (relations regulated by legislation; definition of the provision in the law which provides for the &solution of the dispute by the relevant court and absence of the rules that provide for the resolution of such dispute by a court of another jurisdiction); 4) causal criteria (the existence of a dispute on the right of the respective relations).
The& solution of the corresponding situation can be considered in the imposition of the horizons of a particular person understanding (person filing a lawsuit in court and the judge who makes the decision on jurisdiction of a land dispute) on the horizon&s of understanding of the doctrinal and enforcement areas with the use of the hermeneutics backlog in the law.
In each case, in order to determine the nature of the disputed relations it is required to apply the provisions of the procedural codes on& jurisdiction (theoretical research level) and then perform the monitoring of the judicial practice (empirical research level). After that it is necessary to repeat the research of the jurisdiction definition at a theoretical level (carrying out of l&ogical thinking regarding the election of the necessary criteria, in particular on the nature of land disputes: public law, for example, free privatization of land plots by the citizens and private-legal, for example, the privatization of land throug&h its sale on a competitive basis) and subsequently re-contact the empirical level (the actual submission of the claim in court).
It is appropriate to classify the jurisdiction of land disputes according to the criterion of the latter:
1. Economic &jurisdiction contesting the ownership (use) of land, restrictions and encumbrances of rights to land; the right to land share; legal regulation of payment for land; environmental stimulation of rational use of lands (benefits; compensation for the re&duction in income due to temporary preservation of lands); land use for the intended purpose (in the framework of the paragrapf 66 of the Land code of Ukraine).
2. The administrative jurisdiction – questions of legal liability for violation of land &legislation; acquisition, transfer, termination of the ownership (use) of land plots; control in the sphere of land relations (determination of the boundaries of administrative and territorial units; the distribution and redistribution of lands; moni&toring the use, reproduction and protection of lands; maintenance of the state land cadastre); the allocation of budget funds to restore degraded state of lands; legal support of land protection (protection from adverse natural and anthropogenic proc&esses; conservation of agricultural lands).
On the basis of the above classification, where there is a management role and place of public interest, administrative courts have the competence of dispute resolution. At the same time, when decisions ta&