{"id":5627,"date":"2025-02-21T09:35:45","date_gmt":"2025-02-21T07:35:45","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/02\/case-no-495-1240-21-dated-17-02-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-02-21T09:35:45","modified_gmt":"2025-02-21T07:35:45","slug":"case-no-495-1240-21-dated-17-02-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/02\/case-no-495-1240-21-dated-17-02-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 495\/1240\/21 dated 17\/02\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Subject of Dispute: The Prosecutor Attempted to Declare the Transfer of a Land Plot to Private Ownership Illegal and Return It to Communal Ownership.<\/p>\n<p>Main Arguments of the Court:<\/p>\n<p>1. The Court considers that the prosecutor chose an inappropriate method of protecting the right &#8211; instead of vindication (claiming property), he requested to declare the decisions illegal and cancel them.<\/p>\n<p>2. According to the judicial practice of the Supreme Court, to return a land plot, a vindictive claim must be filed against the person who currently has ownership rights to the plot.<\/p>\n<p>3. Declaring local self-government body decisions illegal is not an effective method of protecting property rights.<\/p>\n<p>Court Decision: To leave the prosecutor&#8217;s cassation appeal unsatisfied, court decisions of previous instances &#8211; unchanged.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/125191902\"><strong>Full text by link<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Subject of Dispute: The Prosecutor Attempted to Declare the Transfer of a Land Plot to Private Ownership Illegal and Return It to Communal Ownership. Main Arguments of the Court: 1. The Court considers that the prosecutor chose an inappropriate method of protecting the right &#8211; instead of vindication (claiming property), he requested to declare the&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-5627","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\/5627","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=5627"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5627\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5627"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5627"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5627"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}