Experts continued this line of reasoning, stressing the long- standing relevance of the issue.
«This issue has always been extremely relevant. At the same time, judicial practice for a long time was unable to ensure adequate guarantees of protection for the relevant category of persons due to the specifics of the wording of legal provisions,» commented Oleksandr Nahorniuk-Danyliuk, Doctor of Law, First Deputy Director General of the Directorate for Justice and Law Enforcement of the Office of the President of Ukraine.
«An additional layer of complexity was created by the approach of the Supreme Court to resolving such disputes, as in many cases the outcome depended on the category of land and the type of fund to which it was attributed.»

Participants discussed whether the law had changed the situation in law enforcement practice. Ihor Zudak, Deputy Head of the Department for Representation of State Interests in Courts of the Office of the Prosecutor General, noted that the activities of the prosecution authorities had remained stable.
«Prosecutors have always acted within the law, and even after the adoption of Law No. 4292-IX, the number of claims has not changed. This confirms that the new rules do not create an additional burden on the market, but rather systematize practice.» He also noted that the prosecutor`s office has already begun asking local self-government bodies about their readiness and the amounts for which they may seek recovery of property from a bona fide purchaser.

However, the legal community expressed concerns regarding the wording of the law and its potential to become a tool for abuse.
«The law was conceived as a protective mechanism, but due to gaps in its wording, it turns into an instrument of procedural gaming, where the outcome often depends not on justice but on the quality of the ‘loopholes’ found,» shared Yurii Mytsa, PhD in Law, attorney, and member of the Scientific Advisory Council of the Supreme Court.

Andrii Vahin, an expert in environmental protection and former First Deputy Head of the State Environmental Inspectorate of the Capital District and the Department of Ecology and Natural Resources of the Kyiv City State Administration, added that practical implementation poses serious challenges due to inconsistencies between registers and the speed of institutional response.
«Law No. 4292-IX seeks to regulate complex issues related to the protection of the rights of a bona fide purchaser; however, in practice serious challenges arise: not all land plots are entered into registers, there are conflicts with the Land Code and especially valuable lands, and authorities are not always able to respond promptly. For example, when a territory is subdivided, a person builds a house there, and an inspection arrives to check a water body located on private land—the law here outpaces the real institutional capacity and creates risks.»

From the perspective of the investment climate, Daria Svystula, Head of the Business Protection Committee of the Federation of Employers of Ukraine, emphasized the critical importance of effective protection mechanisms.
«Investors will not invest in land in Ukraine without effective instruments to protect their rights and investments. Unfortunately, this law has not improved the investment climate: it does not provide systemic investor protection and operates only on a point-by-point basis,» she noted. «At the same time, the emergence of a case that goes through all judicial instances and ends with real compensation to a bona fide purchaser could serve as a signal for the market to restore investors’ understanding and faith in the state and its laws.»

In the context of judicial proceedings, lawyers emphasized the importance of a comprehensive approach and time limits.
«Only a comprehensive approach by prosecutors, lawyers, and courts is capable of forming a proper legal order,» believes Sviatoslav Bolinskyi, CEO of Bolinskyi & Team. «The key issue today is time limits and the burden of proving the good faith or bad faith of the purchaser. To a large extent, this already depends on the creativity of the lawyer, because while prosecutors have sufficient time to collect evidence, the defense operates under much stricter time constraints.»

Taras Shtokalo, associate at EQUITY, stated:
«As of today, in my opinion, we have made a significant step toward protecting investors’ rights. The first part of the draft law now needs to be reflected upon, amended, and improved. Thanks to today’s discussion, we were able to identify key gaps and understand what needs to be worked on further,» he concluded.

The discussion also featured active contribu Vitalii Zhadobin, Founding Partner of SENSUM Law Firm, and Ihor Lavrynenko, Counsel at TOTUM Law Firm, attorney, PhD in Law, also took an active part in the discussion and exchange of practical experience, sharing their own developments and specific cases on protecting clients’ interests in this complex category of disputes.

Bohdan Khytryk, Head of the Second Division of the Department for Representation of State Interests in Courts of the Office of the Prosecutor General, also joined the discussion.