[Case No. 370/2251/23 dated July 23, 2025](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/129113590)
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the recognition of a state act on the right of ownership of a land plot as invalid and the cancellation of the state registration of the right of ownership to this plot.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the court of appeal, which overturned the decision of the court of first instance, motivating it by the fact that the plaintiff did not prove the fact of violation of her rights by the disputed state act and registration of the defendant’s right of ownership, since by the court decision she had already been recognized as the owner of 1/2 part of the disputed land plot, which the defendant does not claim. The court noted that the plaintiff did not provide evidence that the disputed state act violates her rights, taking into account her existing registered right of ownership to 1/2 part of the disputed plot. The court of cassation also emphasized that the establishment of the circumstances of the case and the evaluation of evidence is the prerogative of the courts of first and appellate instances, and it has no authority to interfere in this evaluation. The court of cassation noted that the conclusions of the court of appeal do not contradict the conclusions of the Supreme Court, which the applicant referred to in the cassation appeal.
3. The court of cassation left the cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the decision of the court of appeal – without changes.
[Case No. 757/33591/22-ц dated July 23, 2025](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/129113674)
The subject matter of the dispute is an application for the distribution of court costs, namely, the costs of professional legal assistance incurred by a private enforcement officer in connection with the cassation review of the case.
The court of cassation considered the application of the representative of the private enforcement officer for the adoption of an additional decision regarding the distribution of expenses for professional legal assistance. The court noted that it has the right to evaluate the declared amount of legal assistance subject to reimbursement, taking into account the criteria of proportionality, substantiation and reasonableness. The court also took into account that the legal position of the private enforcement officer was consistent throughout the consideration of the case, and no evidence of additional complex study of the legal nature of the dispute by the lawyer was provided. Considering these circumstances, as well as the principles of fairness, good faith and reasonableness, the court decided to partially satisfy the application for reimbursement of expenses for professional legal assistance.
The court partially satisfied the application, recovering from PERSON_1 in favor of private enforcement officer Fesyк M. O. UAH 15,000 of expenses for professional legal assistance in the court of cassation.
[Case No. 389/387/24 dated July 23, 2025](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/129113685)
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the recovery of expenses for professional legal assistance incurred by the plaintiff in connection with the review of the case in the court of appeal.
2. The court of cassation established that the appellate court mistakenly
refused to satisfy the application for recovery of expenses for legal assistance, citing the inadequacy of evidence of payment of the attorney’s fee to the lawyer. The Supreme Court emphasized that expenses for professional legal assistance are subject to allocation regardless of actual payment, if the scope of services provided and their cost are confirmed. Also, the court of cassation indicated that the appellate court did not consider the defendant’s motion to reduce the amount of expenses for legal assistance and did not examine the reasonableness of the claimed amount. The court of cassation emphasized that the absence of a specific form of document to confirm payment for the services of a lawyer does not make a certificate of receipt of a fee an inappropriate piece of evidence. The court also noted that reducing the amount of court costs for professional legal assistance is possible only on the basis of a motion from the other party in the event that, in its opinion, the requirements regarding the proportionality of costs with the complexity of the relevant work, its scope, and the time spent on performing the work are not met.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court and sent the case for a new trial to the court of appellate instance to resolve the issue of the allocation of expenses for professional legal assistance.
**Case No. 906/1121/24 dated July 16, 2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as invalid of the decisions of the general meeting of the condominium association regarding the construction of a fence and the procedure for financing the project.
2. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, indicating that the courts of previous instances did not fully investigate the circumstances of the case and did not take into account important aspects, in particular, did not properly assess the plaintiff’s arguments regarding the violation of his rights as the owner of a non-residential premise, which is used for commercial purposes, as a result of the installation of a fence, which may complicate access for customers and restrict his right of ownership. The court also noted that the courts did not substantiate the refusal to order an expert examination, which could establish the technical feasibility of access to the plaintiff’s premises after the installation of the fence and the degree of restriction of his rights. In addition, the Supreme Court emphasized the need to take into account the balance of interests of all co-owners, and not only the majority, and to ensure compliance with the interests of owners of commercial real estate when establishing a access control regime. The court pointed out that the condominium association is obliged to ensure compliance with the interests of all co-owners when establishing the terms of use of common property.
3. The court overturned the decisions of the previous instance courts and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
**Case No. 925/556/24 dated July 8, 2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from the “Biloozerskyi” National Nature Park of damages caused to the state as a result of illegal logging of trees on the territory of the park.
2. The Court o
grounded its decision on the fact that the park, as a permanent forest user, did not ensure proper protection of the forest fund in the subordinate territory, which led to illegal logging. The court established that the park issued logging permits for volumes of timber that exceeded the established limits and permits, which is a violation of forestry and environmental legislation. Also, the court took into account the conclusions of the judicial engineering and environmental expertise, which confirmed the fact of illegal logging and the amount of damage caused. The court emphasized that the obligation to protect forest plantations rests specifically with permanent forest users, who are responsible for non-performance or improper performance of these obligations, including cases of failure to protect forests from illegal logging. The court noted that in order to impose liability on the forest user, it is necessary to establish the fact of violation of the rules of forest use by him, which was done in this case.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances on the recovery of UAH 1,646,859.00 from the “Biloozerskyi” National Nature Park as damages remained unchanged.
Case No. 182/6681/21 dated 07/23/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the elimination of obstacles to the exercise of the right to use and dispose of the land plot by returning it to the state.
2. The court refused to satisfy the prosecutor’s claim, because it believes that the prosecutor chose an ineffective way to protect the violated right of the state. The court noted that the disputed land plot is registered to an individual, and the prosecutor did not state the demand to recover this plot from someone else’s illegal possession to the last owner. The court indicated that the proper way of protection in this case is a vindication claim, and not a negatory one, since the disputed plot belongs to the lands of the forest fund. The court also took into account that the reclamation of the land plot requires an assessment of the good faith of the acquirer and the proportionality of the interference with his right of ownership. The court did not agree with the prosecutor’s arguments that the entire plot belongs to the nature reserve fund, since only part of it has such a status.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 606/9/24 dated 07/23/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of ownership of inherited property, namely 1/2 part of a residential building with outbuildings and structures.
2. The court satisfied the claim, because the plaintiff is an heir of the first degree by law, applied to the notary in a timely manner to accept the inheritance, but was refused due to the lack of title documents in the name of the testator. The court took into account the certificate of the village council that the testator was the owner of the house.
assessing it in conjunction with other evidence. The appellate court agreed with the conclusion of the court of first instance, noting that the district court correctly established the circumstances of the case and made a decision in compliance with the norms of substantive and procedural law. The court of cassation also agreed with the conclusions of the previous instances, noting that they are correct.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the previous instances unchanged.
Case No. 916/2869/22 dated 01/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s claim in the interests of the Odesa City Council to terminate the right to perform construction works, terminate land lease agreements and oblige the return of these plots due to violation of the terms of the lease agreements.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the previous instances, which dismissed the claim, stating that the courts did not properly examine the terms of the lease agreements in their entirety, did not clarify the essential circumstances of the case regarding the performance and compliance by the defendants with the terms of these agreements. In particular, the courts did not take into account that the availability of urban planning documentation does not allow the use of the land plot for a purpose other than that specified in the lease agreements, and obtaining a construction permit does not replace the decision of the landowner to consent to its development. The court also referred to the practice of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court and other cassation instances, which emphasizes the need to use the land plot in accordance with its intended purpose, defined in the lease agreement and the decision of the local self-government body. The court noted that the previous instances did not investigate whether there was a material breach of the terms of the agreements by the defendants, in particular, whether the land plots were developed without the will of their owner – the city council.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 733/435/24 dated 28/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of expenses for professional legal assistance incurred by LLC APK “Magnat” in connection with the consideration of the cassation appeal of PERSON_1.
2. The court of cassation, considering the application of LLC APK “Magnat” for the adoption of an additional decision regarding the recovery of legal assistance expenses, proceeded from the fact that the issue of the distribution of these expenses was not resolved by the previous ruling. The court renewed the term for submitting evidence regarding the amount of expenses incurred, recognizing the reasons for missing the deadline as valid. At the same time, the court took into account the submitted act of acceptance and transfer of services provided, but reduced the amount to be recovered, excluding the costs of preparing the application for the adoption of an additional
of appeal, as such expenses are not subject to reimbursement. Also, the court did not satisfy the request for reimbursement of expenses for filing a motion to close the cassation proceedings, as it was not mandatory and was denied.
3. The court partially granted the application of LLC APK “Magnat” and ordered OSOBA_1 to pay LLC APK “Magnat” UAH 10,000.00 for professional legal assistance in the court of cassation instance.
Case No. 210/4/23 dated 07/23/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the claim of OSOBA_1 against the state of Ukraine for compensation for moral damage caused, as he claims, by illegal detention.
2. The court refused to satisfy the claim, as the criminal proceedings, within the framework of which OSOBA_1 was chosen a preventive measure in the form of detention, have not yet been completed, and there is no acquittal or decision to close the proceedings based on rehabilitating circumstances. The court of appeal changed the preventive measure to house arrest, but this does not automatically mean that the detention was illegal. The court of cassation emphasized that the ruling of the court of appeal does not contain conclusions about the illegality of the actions of the investigating judge, but only states the possibility of applying a milder preventive measure. The Supreme Court noted that the right to compensation for damages may arise not only after an acquittal, but in this case there is no court decision that clearly establishes the fact of the plaintiff’s illegal detention. The court also took into account that OSOBA_1 exercised the right to appeal the preventive measure, which is a standard procedure in criminal proceedings.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the previous instance courts remained unchanged.
Case No. 2-5939/11 dated 07/23/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the replacement of a party to the enforcement proceedings due to the death of the debtor and the determination of his legal successor.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusion of the court of appeal on the replacement of a party to the enforcement proceedings, since the wife of the deceased debtor did not refuse the inheritance and actually lived with the testator at the time of the opening of the inheritance, which, according to the Civil Code of Ukraine, is considered acceptance of the inheritance. The Supreme Court emphasized that the absence of a certificate of inheritance does not deprive the heir of the right to the inheritance and cannot be the basis for refusing to satisfy the creditor’s claims. The court also noted that the arguments of the cassation appeal amount to disagreement with the established circumstances of the case and the need to re-evaluate the evidence, which goes beyond the powers of the cassation court. It is important that the Supreme Court referred to the practice of the European Court of Humanregarding the mandatory nature of court decisions.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal without satisfaction and upheld the appellate court’s ruling, reinstating its execution.
Case No. 750/18240/23 dated 07/21/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of contracts (commission and sale) for a car as invalid, the cancellation of state registration of the vehicle, and the recovery of property from someone else’s illegal possession.
2. The court of cassation instance agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances that the disputed car left the possession of the plaintiff by her will, since she voluntarily transferred it to another person along with the documents, receiving funds for this, which indicates her expression of will to transfer the property. The court noted that in such a case, the recovery of property from a bona fide purchaser is impossible, since there are no legal grounds for applying Article 388 of the Civil Code of Ukraine. Also, the court agreed with the conclusion about the inefficiency of the method of protecting her rights chosen by the plaintiff by recognizing the commission and sale contracts as invalid, since satisfying such claims will not lead to effective protection of the plaintiff’s rights. The court of cassation instance also supported the decision of the appellate court regarding the recovery of expenses for professional legal assistance from the plaintiff, since they were justified and confirmed by relevant evidence. The court emphasized that the plaintiff is not deprived of the opportunity to protect her right by applying to the court with a claim for compensation for damages to the person to whom she transferred the item for use and possession. The court of cassation instance noted that the establishment of the circumstances of the case, the examination and evaluation of evidence are the prerogative of the courts of first and appellate instances.
3. The court of cassation instance dismissed the cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances – without changes.
Case No. 638/3305/21 dated 07/16/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the termination of the loan agreement between the plaintiff and the bank.
2. The court of cassation instance partially agreed with the decision of the appellate court to refuse to satisfy the claim, but changed the reasoning part of the decision. The court noted that the plaintiff chose an inappropriate method of protection, since the bank had already initiated a court process regarding the recovery of debt under the loan agreement, and the plaintiff can effectively protect her rights by objecting to the bank’s claim within this case. The court also indicated that the appellate court mistakenly refused to satisfy the claim, citing the unsubstantiated nature of the plaintiff’s claims due to the untimely notification of the bank about the loss of the financial number. The Supreme Court emphasized that choosing an inappropriate method of protection is an independent basis for rejecting the claim, and that the appellate court did
reached erroneous conclusions regarding the motives for the decision.
3. The court of cassation partially granted the cassation appeal, amended the reasoning part of the appellate court’s decision, and left the rest unchanged.
Case No. 462/6683/24 dated July 23, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of an apartment from someone else’s illegal possession.
2. The court granted the claim because it found that the apartment was sold at auction on the basis of an invalid certificate of inheritance, and therefore, the transferor had no right to sell it. The court noted that the plaintiff is a cousin of the deceased owner of the apartment and accepted the inheritance, therefore she has the right to protect her property right. The court also took into account that the defendant is not a bona fide purchaser, as she knew or should have known about the encumbrances on the apartment and the invalidity of the documents on the basis of which it was sold. The court rejected the arguments of the cassation appeal that the plaintiff did not prove family ties with the deceased, since this fact had already been established by a court decision that had entered into legal force. The court also rejected the reference to the fact that the defendant is a bona fide purchaser, since she did not exercise due diligence when purchasing the apartment.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the previous instances unchanged.
Case No. 910/2/24 dated July 22, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of monetary claims of Debt Force LLC against individual OSOBA_1 in the case of her insolvency.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous instances, which recognized the monetary claims of Debt Force LLC, since the claims are confirmed by contracts, a court decision that has entered into legal force, and have not been refuted by the debtor. The court noted that in a bankruptcy case, the commercial court does not consider disputes on the merits, but only establishes the existence of an obligation on the basis of primary documents or a court decision. The court also indicated that the provisions of Article 1083 of the Civil Code of Ukraine do not indicate the nullity of the agreement on the subsequent assignment by the factor of the right to monetary claim to a third party, and such an agreement may be declared invalid by the court at the suit of a party or an interested person. The court also took into account that the right of Factoring Partners LLC to assign the right of claim was stipulated in the factoring agreement.
3. The court dismissed the appeal of OSOBA_1 and left the decision of the Commercial Court of Kyiv and the decision of the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal unchanged.
Case No. 824/38/25 dated July 24, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the application of A.X.AGROSLAVINVEST s.r.o. to set aside the decision of the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry
in the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Ukraine (ICAC at the CCI of Ukraine) regarding the recovery from it in favor of LLC “TB “Novaagro” of the amount of funds for the delivered goods, penalties, and other expenses.
2. The court, refusing to satisfy the complaint, noted that A.X.AGROSLAVINVEST s.r.o. did not prove the existence of grounds for annulment of the decision of the ICAC at the CCI of Ukraine, provided for by Article 459 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine and the Law of Ukraine “On International Commercial Arbitration”. The court took into account that A.X.AGROSLAVINVEST s.r.o. initially objected to the resolution of the dispute in the Commercial Court of Kharkiv Oblast, and then changed its position, insisting on its jurisdiction, which indicates contradictory behavior. The court also took into account the absence of the original additional agreement to the contract, which would change the jurisdiction of the dispute, and the fact that at the time of the dispute, the parties had not completed the procedure for concluding this agreement. The court emphasized that the national court does not have the authority to review the decision of an international commercial arbitration on the merits, but only verifies the existence of grounds for annulment defined by law.
3. The court ruled to leave the appeal of A.X.AGROSLAVINVEST s.r.o. without satisfaction, and the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal – without changes.
Case No. 205/2112/23 dated July 23, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of a land plot from someone else’s illegal possession and the annulment of the decision on state registration of the right to lease.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances that the prosecutor did not prove with proper and admissible evidence the illegal acquisition by the defendant of the ownership right to the disputed land plot, in particular, did not provide evidence of forgery of the order of the State Geocadastre, on the basis of which the ownership right was registered. The court noted that the mere fact of the existence of two orders with the same details, but with different content, is not sufficient proof of the illegality of the acquisition of ownership right. The court also took into account that the prosecutor did not provide originals of documents, but referred to copies, which makes it difficult to establish the reliability of the circumstances of the case. At the same time, the Supreme Court pointed out the error of the courts of previous instances regarding the consideration of the dispute in terms of claims against a legal entity (SE “Illich-Agro Donbas”) in the order of civil procedure, since such a dispute is subject to consideration in a commercial court.
3. The court of cassation partially satisfied the cassation appeal, canceling the decisions of the courts of previous instances in the part of the claims against SE “Illich-Agro Donbas” and closing the proceedings in this part, and left the decision unchanged in the other part.
Case No. 495/12830/23 dated July 23, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the establishment of the fact of permanent residence of the applicant’s parents on the territory of Ukraine before August 24, 1991, for the acquisition of money
of Citizenship of Ukraine by territorial origin.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the court of appeal because the court of appeal took a formal approach to the issue of reinstatement of the term for appeal, without properly assessing the arguments of the State Migration Service (SMS) regarding the reasons for missing the term. The court of cassation emphasized that the court of appeal should have motivated its conclusion on the existence of valid reasons for reinstatement of the term, and a simple indication of their existence is insufficient. The SC emphasized that the impossibility of paying court fees due to the lack of budget financing is not a valid reason for missing the term, referring to the practice of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court. Also, the SC noted that the court of appeal did not take into account the conditions under which reinstatement of the term is possible in case of repeated filing of an appeal.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the resolution of the court of appeal and the ruling on the opening of appellate proceedings, sending the case for a new trial to the court of appeal from the stage of resolving the issue of opening appellate proceedings.
Case No. 724/1084/24 dated 23/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the decision of the city council to hold land auctions for a plot of land for which the plaintiff claims renewal of the lease agreement.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decision of the court of appeal, noting that for the renewal of the land lease agreement, the lessee must comply with the procedure established by Article 33 of the Law of Ukraine “On Land Lease”, in particular, to notify the lessor in a timely manner of the intention to renew the agreement and provide a draft additional agreement. The court indicated that the plaintiff did not provide evidence of sending a letter of notification and a draft additional agreement, and the decision of the city council to grant permission to extend the lease is not a sufficient basis for automatic renewal of the agreement without complying with the established procedure. The court also took into account that the city council made a decision to terminate the lease agreement, which was not appealed by the plaintiff. The court emphasized that since the plaintiff did not exercise his preferential right to renew the lease agreement in the established manner, the city council had the right to put the plot up for land auctions.
3. The court of cassation overturned the resolution of the court of appeal and upheld the decision of the court of first instance dismissing the claim.
Case No. 175/4494/24 dated 24/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the establishment of the fact of living as one family without registration of marriage and the fact of being dependent for the purpose of obtaining benefits and payments in connection with the death of a serviceman.
2. The court of appeal overturned the decision of the court of first instance, considering that the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence of cohabitation and joint householdof the household with the deceased, in particular, did not confirm the existence of a common budget, mutual rights and obligations inherent in spouses, and also did not establish which rights and interests of the military unit that filed the appeal were violated by the decision of the court of first instance. The Supreme Court, in turn, indicated that the appellate court did not take into account that in the event of an appeal by a person who did not participate in the case, and if the appellate court establishes that the court decision did not resolve the issue of the rights, freedoms, interests and (or) obligations of such person, the appellate proceedings are subject to closure, and the decision of the court of first instance should not be reviewed on the merits. The court of cassation emphasized the need for the appellate court to establish exactly which rights and interests of the military unit were violated by the decision of the court of first instance, as well as to take into account the applicant’s objections regarding the absence of violation of the rights of the military unit. The Supreme Court also emphasized that the appellate court should not have reviewed the decision of the court of first instance on the merits, if a violation of the rights of a person who did not participate in the case had not been established.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling and sent the case for a new trial to the appellate court.
Case No. 377/738/15-ц dated July 16, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the replacement of the claimant in the enforcement proceedings, namely the replacement of JSC “UkrSibbank” with LLC “Bengal Incorporated” as the legal successor in the enforcement proceedings regarding the recovery of debt under a loan agreement and foreclosure on the subject of mortgage.
2. The courts of previous instances refused to satisfy the application for the replacement of the claimant, motivating this by the fact that LLC “Bengal Incorporated” did not provide sufficient evidence of legal succession, in particular, the fact of crediting funds to the account of JSC “UkrSibbank” in accordance with the factoring agreement was not confirmed, as well as to the account of LLC “FC “Ukrtechfinance” in accordance with the assignment of claim rights agreement. The courts also drew attention to the fact that in the factoring agreement, the amount of financing is crossed out with a correction fluid, and the previous real estate purchase and sale agreement was not notarized, which, according to the courts, casts doubt on the legality of the transfer of claim rights. The Supreme Court did not agree with such conclusions, noting that the courts did not take into account the presumption of legality of the transaction, did not request originals of documents for examination, and did not properly assess the available evidence, in particular, the acts of acceptance and transfer of claim rights signed by the parties to the agreements. In addition, LLC “Bengal Incorporated” objectively could not provide confirmation of payment under the agreements to which it was not a party.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling and remanded the case for a new trial to the appellate court.
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/129113665](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/129113665)
**Case No. 363/2068/23 dated 07/23/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the annulment of the decision of the local self-government body on the approval of the land management project and the transfer of the land plot to the ownership of another person, since the plaintiff believes that he has the priority right to obtain this plot.
2. The court dismissed the claim, since at the time of the adoption of the disputed decision, the plaintiff had no rights to the disputed land plot that could be violated. The court noted that obtaining a permit to develop a land management project is not a guarantee of obtaining ownership of land. It is important that the defendant received permission to develop the land management project earlier than the plaintiff submitted his petition. The court also took into account that the Vyshhorod City Council made a decision to refuse the plaintiff permission to develop the land management project, which was not appealed. In addition, the court emphasized that the plaintiff did not provide evidence of ordering a land management project on his own, which he had the right to do.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/129113628](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/129113628)
**Case No. 442/9251/21 dated 07/23/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the order on granting ownership of a land plot as invalid, termination of ownership, cancellation of state registration and obligation to return the land plot, which, according to the prosecutor’s office, was illegally transferred to private ownership and belongs to the lands of the forest fund.
2. The court, satisfying the claim, proceeded from the fact that the disputed land plot belongs to the lands of the forest fund, is in the permanent use of SE “Drohobych Forestry”, the successor of which is SHSE “Forests of Ukraine”, and was not withdrawn in accordance with the established procedure and its intended purpose was not changed. The court took into account the letters of the Lviv State Forest Management Expedition, which confirm that part of the land plot is located in the forestry quarter. The court also took into account the conclusion of experts, according to which the plot is actually located on the territory of the forestry and should be used for forestry. The court noted that the withdrawal of state-owned land plots of forestry purpose for non-forestry needs was within the competence of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, which did not make the relevant decisions. The court of appeal examined the evidence provided by the plaintiff in its entirety and in connection with other evidence, in particular a copy of the forestry tablet, expert opinions, letters from the forestry and forest management expedition, the Public Cadastral Map of Ukraine, a map-diagram of the location of the forestry territory, and proceeded from the fact that they confirm the fact that the disputed land plot is located in k
