1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of unreasonably saved funds in the amount of unpaid rent for the use of a land plot and the recognition of the lease agreement for the same land plot as concluded.<\/p>\n
2. The court of cassation, satisfying the cassation appeal of IMS Consulting LLC, proceeded from the fact that, according to Article 120 of the Land Code of Ukraine, the Kyiv City Council had a direct obligation to transfer the land plot to the Company for lease, on which its real estate is located, since the Company repeatedly applied to the City Council with relevant petitions. The court also took into account that the City Council evaded making a decision on granting permission for the development of a land management project and the conclusion of a lease agreement, which created a situation of legal uncertainty for the Company. The court noted that the recovery of funds from the Company for actual land use without granting it the appropriate rights of land user violates the balance of interests of the parties. The court also indicated that if there are real estate objects on the land plot of communal ownership that belong to the defendant by right of private ownership, such a plot cannot be transferred by its owner for use to anyone other than the owner of such an object. The court departed from the conclusion regarding the discretionary powers of the City Council to conclude or not conclude a land lease agreement, since there is currently a norm that establishes the obligation to grant a land plot for use to the owner of the real estate located on it.<\/p>\n
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling and upheld the decision of the court of first instance, which partially satisfied the counterclaim of IMS Consulting LLC to recognize the lease agreement as concluded.<\/p>\n