{"id":5438,"date":"2025-02-17T09:08:30","date_gmt":"2025-02-17T07:08:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/02\/case-no-127-12891-20-dated-21-08-2024\/"},"modified":"2025-02-17T09:08:30","modified_gmt":"2025-02-17T07:08:30","slug":"case-no-127-12891-20-dated-21-08-2024","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/02\/case-no-127-12891-20-dated-21-08-2024\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 127\/12891\/20 dated 21\/08\/2024"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Subject of Dispute: Granting the Right to Apply to Urban Planning Authority for Obtaining a Construction Passport without the Consent of a Co-Owner of Real Estate.<\/p>\n<p>Main Arguments of the Court:<br \/>\n1. The method of rights protection chosen by the plaintiff is not effective and will not lead to a real solution for obtaining a construction passport.<br \/>\n2. The legislation clearly defines the list of documents required for obtaining a construction passport, and the court decision is not included in this list.<br \/>\n3. The defendant does not obstruct the plaintiff from applying to urban planning authorities, therefore there is no need for a court decision granting such right.<\/p>\n<p>Court Decision: The Supreme Court cancelled previous court decisions and denied the plaintiff&#8217;s claim.<\/p>\n<p>Note: The court deviated from previous positions regarding methods of protecting co-owners&#8217; rights, emphasizing the need for a thorough analysis of the effectiveness of the chosen method of protection.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/125124949\"><strong>Full text by link<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Subject of Dispute: Granting the Right to Apply to Urban Planning Authority for Obtaining a Construction Passport without the Consent of a Co-Owner of Real Estate. Main Arguments of the Court: 1. The method of rights protection chosen by the plaintiff is not effective and will not lead to a real solution for obtaining a&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-5438","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\/5438","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=5438"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5438\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5438"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5438"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5438"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}