1. The subject of the dispute is the eviction of “STANDARTBUD T” LLC from the leased part of the site with reinforced concrete pavement, which belongs to state ownership.
2. The court of cassation overturned the appellate court’s ruling, which satisfied the claim for eviction, pointing out the need to take into account the conclusions of the Supreme Court regarding the interpretation of the term “premises” in the context of the lease of state property, as well as the need for the balance holder to provide substantiated evidence of the need to use the leased property for its own needs. The court noted that the appellate court did not establish whether the balance holder’s notice contained sufficient justification for the need to use the leased object for its own needs, which is important for resolving the dispute. The court of cassation also pointed out the error of the appellate court’s reference to Article 7 of the Law of Ukraine “On Lease of State and Communal Property,” since it regulates the issue of including/excluding property from the lists for lease, and not the grounds for refusing to extend the lease agreement. The court of cassation noted that the appellate court did not properly examine the evidence and circumstances that are essential for the correct resolution of the dispute. The Court departed from the conclusion stated in the Supreme Court’s ruling of April 12, 2023, in case No. 917/565/22, that asphalt concrete pavement is not a premise by virtue of the provisions of the law, and therefore does not fall under the second paragraph of the first part of Article 19 of the Law of Ukraine “On Lease of State and Communal Property”.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of appeal.
