The case concerns challenging the normative monetary valuation of land plots of two joint-stock companies.
Main arguments of the court:
1. The prosecutor does not have the right to file an appellate complaint solely due to the lack of funds from the local council to pay the court fee.
2. The interests of the state should primarily be defended by the relevant authorities, not the prosecutor. The prosecutor may intervene only in exceptional cases of complete inaction of the authorities.
3. Improper financing of authorities is not a basis for the prosecutor’s intervention in the court process.
The court decided to leave the prosecutor’s cassation complaint unsatisfied and support the appellate court’s decision to close the appellate proceedings.
