1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the parking site operation agreement between an individual entrepreneur and a communal enterprise as concluded for a new term.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decision of the appellate court, which refused to satisfy the claim, citing the fact that the parking site operation agreement is void, as it was concluded in violation of the public procedure for leasing land plots. The Supreme Court noted that the appellate court incorrectly qualified the disputed legal relations, since the parking site operation agreement is a communal property lease agreement, and not a land lease agreement, and is regulated by special legislation on the lease of communal property, and not by land legislation. The Court also pointed out that the appellate court did not take into account the conclusions of the Joint Chamber of the Commercial Cassation Court as part of the Supreme Court, set out in the resolution of March 15, 2024 in case No. 910/1248/23, which deviated from previous conclusions regarding the legal nature of such agreements. The court of cassation emphasized the need to establish the presence or absence of the plaintiff’s preferential right to conclude an agreement for a new term in accordance with the terms of the agreement and the norms of legislation governing the procedure for acquiring such a right.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of appellate instance.
