1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of ownership of unauthorized construction.
2. The court of cassation overturned the ruling of the appellate court to close the appellate proceedings, considering it erroneous, since the appellate court did not have the authority to close the appellate proceedings on the basis of its erroneous opening, even if it established that the renewal of the term for appellate appeal took place on the basis of unreliable data provided by the prosecutor. Instead, the appellate court should have recognized the prosecutor’s actions as an abuse of procedural rights and left the appeal without consideration. The court of cassation emphasized that the prosecutor was aware of the decision of the court of first instance earlier than the DIAC, in whose interests he filed an appeal, and that the creation of a new state authority does not give rise to the right to appeal a court decision after the expiration of the term for this appeal. Similarly, the transfer of powers from the village council to the city council does not affect the start of the term for appeal. **:** The court took into account the conclusions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court regarding the application of the norms of procedural law, formulated after the cassation appeal was filed, and departed from the previous position regarding the possibility of closing appellate proceedings in similar cases.
3. The court of cassation ruled to grant the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, overturning the appellate court’s ruling and sending the case to the appellate court for further consideration.
Skip to content
Skip to sidebar
Skip to footer
