Skip to content Skip to sidebar Skip to footer
Ваш AI помічникНовий чат
    Open chat icon

    Case No. 161/15225/23 dated 06/04/2025

    1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the unlawful inaction of local self-government bodies and the obligation to make a decision on the transfer of the apartment to the ownership of the plaintiff in the order of privatization.

    2. The Supreme Court, considering the cassation appeal, noted that the courts of previous instances did not take into account a number of important circumstances. In particular, the courts did not properly assess the fact that the plaintiff legally moved into the disputed apartment and has been living there for a long time. It was also not taken into account that the defendants did not dispute the legality of the plaintiff’s residence and did not make demands to eliminate obstacles to the use of the dwelling. The court of cassation instance emphasized that the list of grounds for refusal of privatization is exhaustive and cannot be interpreted expansively. An important argument was that the refusal of privatization is essentially due to improper accounting of the housing stock, which cannot be imposed as a burden on citizens who have the right to privatization. In addition, the Supreme Court drew attention to the fact that the claim for recognition of the unlawful inaction of the defendants as privatization bodies regarding the failure to make a decision on the transfer of the apartment to the ownership of the plaintiff is not a proper way of protection. The Court took into account the conclusions regarding the application of the rules of law set out in the resolution of the Supreme Court as part of the Joint Chamber of the Cassation Civil Court dated May 05, 2025 in case No. 759/1426/22 (proceedings No. 61-15198svo23).

    3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, overturning the decisions of the courts of previous instances in the part of the refusal to satisfy the claim to oblige to make a decision on the transfer of the apartment to ownership and sent the case in this part for a new trial to the court of first instance, and in the other part – changed in the reasoning part.

    Full text by link

    Leave a comment

    E-mail
    Password
    Confirm Password
    Lexcovery
    Privacy Overview

    This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.