Subject of Dispute: Granting the Right to Apply to Urban Planning Authority for Obtaining a Construction Passport without the Consent of a Co-Owner of Real Estate.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The method of rights protection chosen by the plaintiff is not effective and will not lead to a real solution for obtaining a construction passport.
2. The legislation clearly defines the list of documents required for obtaining a construction passport, and the court decision is not included in this list.
3. The defendant does not obstruct the plaintiff from applying to urban planning authorities, therefore there is no need for a court decision granting such right.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court cancelled previous court decisions and denied the plaintiff’s claim.
Note: The court deviated from previous positions regarding methods of protecting co-owners’ rights, emphasizing the need for a thorough analysis of the effectiveness of the chosen method of protection.
