1. The subject of the dispute is the eviction of “STEN” LLC from leased state-owned immovable property, namely a part of the site with reinforced concrete pavement.
2. The Supreme Court, considering the cassation appeal of “STEN” LLC, concluded that the appellate court erroneously qualified the grounds for termination of the lease agreement, stating that the decision to terminate the agreement was made on the grounds of the need to use the property for the lessor’s own needs, and not the balance holder’s needs. The court emphasized that the basis for the order to terminate the agreement was precisely the letters from the balance holder regarding the need to use the property for its own needs. The Court departed from the previous conclusion stated in the Supreme Court’s decision of April 12, 2023, in case No. 917/565/22, regarding the interpretation of the term “premises” in the context of Article 19 of the Law of Ukraine “On Lease of State and Municipal Property,” noting that this term should be understood more broadly, including not only the internal volumes of buildings, but also other objects of lease, as defined in Article 3 of this Law. The Supreme Court indicated that the balance holder rightfully demanded the return of the property for its own needs, and this is the basis for terminating the lease agreement.
3. The Supreme Court ruled to amend the reasoning part of the appellate court’s decision, stating it in a new wording, but left the rest of the appellate court’s decision unchanged, confirming the decision to evict “STEN” LLC from the leased property.
Skip to content
Skip to sidebar
Skip to footer
