Points of law: 1) whether buildings and structures erected by the owner of land plot, but not registered by him in the State Register of Rights to Immovables (hereinafter: the Register), may be considered as his property? 2) whether a football pitch  situated on a land plot is a separate object of real estate, the right to which may be registered?  3) may a court give its own qualification to an object, which has been registered as a real estate? 4) under which circumstances a lease-holder of a land plot may acquire the right of ownership to objects erected by him on this land plot?

Ratio decidendi: 1) such buildings and structures belong to the owner of the land plot, because they constitute an integral part of the land plot; 2) football field in not a separate object of real estate because it is a mere improvement of the land plot – an improvement, consisting in its modification in the way necessary to meet  the needs  of persons who use the plot; 3) the court may at its own initiative give to an object another qualification instead of the one which has been fixed in the Register (for instance, as a movable object or an integral part of land plot); 4) lease-holder may register the right of ownership to objects erected by him on the land plot only if that plot has been given to him for the purposes of construction; in other cases they would be considered as inseparable improvements.

Practical consequences: the Judgment says that prior court decisions in analogous cases if inconsistent with this interpretation may be reversed in the procedure and within the limits envisaged by Art 311 of the Commercial Procedure Code.