1. The subject of the dispute was the appeal of decisions of the Chernihiv City Council and its architecture department regarding the approval and granting of urban planning conditions and restrictions for the construction of a multi-story residential building, initiated by the Prosecutor’s Office in the interests of the state.
2. The court of cassation instance decided that the prosecutor did not have sufficient grounds for representing the interests of the state in court, since the State Inspection of Architecture and Urban Planning of Ukraine (DIAU) did not detect violations in the field of urban planning activity at the disputed construction object. The court indicated that the prosecutor may appeal to the court when the competent authority does not exercise or improperly exercises the protection of the interests of the state, but in this case, the DIAU did not exercise its powers to detect violations. The Court refers to its previous practice in cases No. 380/13877/21 and No. 460/23417/23, which also considered the issue of representation by the prosecutor of the interests of the state represented by the DIAU, emphasizing that such representation requires prior detection of violations by the competent authorities.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances and dismissed the prosecutor’s claim without consideration.
Leave a comment
