{"id":5569,"date":"2025-02-20T09:45:44","date_gmt":"2025-02-20T07:45:44","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/02\/case-no-146-882-22-dated-05-02-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-02-20T09:45:44","modified_gmt":"2025-02-20T07:45:44","slug":"case-no-146-882-22-dated-05-02-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/02\/case-no-146-882-22-dated-05-02-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 146\/882\/22 dated 05\/02\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"

Here is the translation of the legal analysis:<\/p>\n

1. Subject of Dispute: Invalidation of the emphyteusis agreement and cancellation of state registration of land use rights.<\/p>\n

2. Main Arguments of the Court:
\n– Emphyteusis and land lease rights cannot be simultaneously established on the same land plot.
\n– The plaintiff (Farm Enterprise “Agat Podillia”) did not send a notification to the lessor about the intention to extend the lease agreement, which precludes the protection of its preferential right.
\n– The emphyteusis agreement has a suspensive condition and does not violate the rights of the current lessee until the end of their contract term.<\/p>\n

3. Court Decision: Reject the claim for invalidation of the emphyteusis agreement and recover court fees from the plaintiff in favor of the defendant.<\/p>\n

Important: The court deviated from previous practice in considering similar cases, clearly explaining the conditions for protecting the lessee’s preferential right.<\/p>\n

Full text by link<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Here is the translation of the legal analysis: 1. Subject of Dispute: Invalidation of the emphyteusis agreement and cancellation of state registration of land use rights. 2. Main Arguments of the Court: – Emphyteusis and land lease rights cannot be simultaneously established on the same land plot. – The plaintiff (Farm Enterprise “Agat Podillia”) did…<\/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-5569","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\/5569","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=5569"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5569\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5569"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5569"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5569"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}