1. **Subject of the dispute:** The prosecutor filed a lawsuit seeking the recovery of land plots from a private enterprise in favor of the territorial community, arguing that the enterprise had unlawfully acquired ownership of the land plots without having legal succession from the collective agricultural enterprise.
2. **Main arguments of the court:** The court agreed with the prosecutor, stating that for the recognition of legal succession, formal attributes alone, such as mentioning legal succession in the charter or identifying the EDRPOU code, are not sufficient; it is necessary to establish the continuity of membership of the former participants of the collective agricultural enterprise in the newly created enterprise. Since the defendant failed to prove that the members of the former collective agricultural enterprise became participants in its enterprise, it did not lawfully acquire ownership of the land. The court also emphasized that the acquisition of private ownership of land that belonged to the former collective agricultural enterprise and should have been transferred to the ownership of the territorial community violates the interests of the community and is grounds for reclaiming these lands. The court also noted that the local self-government body timely appealed to the court, as the lawsuit was filed in compliance with the statute of limitations.
The court departed from the formal approach to determining legal succession, which was applied previously, emphasizing the importance of continuity of membership.
3. **Decision of the court:** The court dismissed the enterprise’s cassation appeal, upholding the decisions of the previous instances on the recovery of the disputed land plots in favor of the territorial community.
