Case No. 640/524/20 dated 03/01/2025
The court noted that the decision of the personnel commission regarding unsuccessful certification must be properly substantiated and contain specific facts and evidence, rather than just general formulations about ‘reasonable doubts’. At the same time, the absence of bringing the prosecutor to responsibility does not exclude the possibility of evaluating their actions from the perspective of professional ethics during certification. The personnel commission has the right to assess the prosecutor’s compliance with integrity requirements, regardless of the NACP’s conclusions regarding declarations.
Case No. 758/10967/22 dated 03/01/2025
The court rejected the application because the tax service did not prove the impossibility of conducting an inspection in the standard procedure. In particular, the tax service limited itself to only checking the legal address of the cooperative but did not take measures to search for its director and founders at their known addresses. That is, all possibilities for conducting an inspection in the legally established procedure were not exhausted.
Case No. 567/93/23 dated 03/01/2025
In rendering the decision, the court was guided by the fact that the plaintiff did not prove by proper evidence the fact of living together as one family with the defendant before marriage, maintaining a joint household, and having a common budget during the period of acquiring the disputed property. The mere fact of close relations and subsequent marriage registration are not sufficient evidence for recognizing the property as joint shared ownership. Witness testimonies and photographs do not confirm the stability of relationships inherent to a married couple at the time of house purchase.
Case No. 641/4876/21 dated 03/01/2025
The court was guided by the fact that the plaintiff provided proper evidence (birth, marriage, death certificates, and other documents) confirming his family connection to the testator. It was also established that the plaintiff timely (within 6 months) applied to a notary with a statement about accepting the inheritance but received a refusal due to the inability to confirm family ties. As the testator’s nephew, the plaintiff has the right to inherit by representation the share that would have belonged to his deceased father (the testator’s brother).
Case No. 216/300/21 dated 03/01/2025
The court was guided by the fact that the disputed apartment was privatized by the husband in 2007 when the legislation was in effect, under which privatized housing was transferred to the ownership of only the spouse who participated in privatization. Only from February 8, 2011, to June 12, 2012, was privatized housing considered joint marital property. In other periods, such property was the personal property of the spouse who privatized it.
Case No. 754/7860/22 dated 03/01/2025
The court was guided by the fact that both parties (the wife and the deceased’s daughter) are first-order legal heirs and timely accepted the inheritance. Since a dispute arose between the heirs regarding the distribution of inherited property, and the property belonged to the testator as private ownership, the court found it reasonable to determine the share of each heir. The daughter did not prove that the disputed property belonged to her parents as joint shared ownership.
