Below is a detailed analysis of the court decision in case No. 914/1893/25:
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the recognition as concluded of an agreement for the right to temporary use of separate structural elements of improvement for the placement of a temporary structure for conducting business activities.
2. The Supreme Court substantiated its decision by stating that the court of appellate instance committed significant procedural violations by failing to properly evaluate all evidence and arguments of the parties in their entirety. In particular, the appellate court ignored the motion of the Stryi City Council to include in the case files the rulings in case No. 914/585/22, which have entered into legal force and have prejudicial significance for the resolution of this dispute. In the aforementioned decisions, it was established that a capital structure, rather than a temporary one, is actually located on the disputed plot, which casts doubt on the possibility of concluding an agreement for the right to use elements of improvement. The appellate court approached the review formally, failing to provide motives for rejecting the appellant’s arguments regarding the impossibility of executing the decision in this case due to the existence of court decisions on the vacation of the land plot and the dismantling of the pavilion. The Supreme Court emphasized that the legal assessment of the parties’ actions and the establishment of factual circumstances are the duty of the court, which was not performed properly. The Court also provided a detailed explanation of the position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court regarding the application of Clause 8, Part 1, Article 310 of the Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine, departing from previous conclusions (in particular, in cases No. 569/20510/19, No. 521/8184/20, and No. 910/17662/19) regarding the conditions for overturning decisions due to the failure to involve persons in the case.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the resolution of the Western Commercial Court of Appeal and remanded the case for a new review to the court of appellate instance.
