{"id":5362,"date":"2025-02-15T09:34:22","date_gmt":"2025-02-15T07:34:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/02\/case-no-619-1143-21-dated-05-02-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-02-15T09:34:22","modified_gmt":"2025-02-15T07:34:22","slug":"case-no-619-1143-21-dated-05-02-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/02\/case-no-619-1143-21-dated-05-02-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 619\/1143\/21 dated 05\/02\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Here is the translation:<\/p>\n<p>1. Subject of Dispute: Recognition of the illegal transfer of a forestry land plot into private ownership and its return to the state.<\/p>\n<p>2. Main Arguments of the Court:<br \/>\n&#8211; The prosecutor cannot represent the interests of a state enterprise in court<br \/>\n&#8211; Declaring decisions and agreements invalid is not an effective method of protecting property rights<br \/>\n&#8211; The land plot was unlawfully removed from state possession, as the legally established procedure was not followed during its alienation<br \/>\n&#8211; The court has the right to independently determine the method of protecting the violated right<\/p>\n<p>3. Court Decision: The case was partially referred for a new hearing to clarify the method of protecting the state&#8217;s right to the land plot.<\/p>\n<p>Key Thesis: The court supported the principle of protecting state property, but pointed out the need for proper legal formulation of the claim.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/125063330\"><strong>Full text by link<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Here is the translation: 1. Subject of Dispute: Recognition of the illegal transfer of a forestry land plot into private ownership and its return to the state. 2. Main Arguments of the Court: &#8211; The prosecutor cannot represent the interests of a state enterprise in court &#8211; Declaring decisions and agreements invalid is not an&hellip;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"pmpro_default_level":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[57,42],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5362","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-court-practice-ukraine","category-eu-legislation-important","pmpro-has-access"],"acf":{"patreon-level":0},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5362","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5362"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5362\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5362"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5362"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5362"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}