{"id":5675,"date":"2025-02-22T09:51:25","date_gmt":"2025-02-22T07:51:25","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/02\/case-no-626-2235-20-dated-12-02-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-02-22T09:51:25","modified_gmt":"2025-02-22T07:51:25","slug":"case-no-626-2235-20-dated-12-02-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/02\/case-no-626-2235-20-dated-12-02-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 626\/2235\/20 dated 12\/02\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Subject of Dispute: Recognition of Ownership Right to a Part of a Residential House by Acquisitive Prescription.<\/p>\n<p>Main Arguments of the Court:<\/p>\n<p>1. The Court of Appeal incorrectly assessed the evidence regarding PERSON_4&#8217;s residence in the disputed premises, without examining all submitted documents and not clarifying the legal basis for their settlement.<\/p>\n<p>2. The Court of Appeal did not establish how the first instance court&#8217;s decision affects the rights and obligations of PERSON_4, prematurely concluding the possibility of appeal.<\/p>\n<p>3. The Supreme Court confirmed that in cases of acquisitive prescription, the proper defendants are the owner, their legal successor (heirs), and in their absence &#8211; territorial communities represented by local self-government bodies.<\/p>\n<p>Court Decision: To cancel the resolution of the Court of Appeal and refer the case for a new review to the appellate instance for proper examination of all circumstances of the case.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/125227907\"><strong>Full text by link<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Subject of Dispute: Recognition of Ownership Right to a Part of a Residential House by Acquisitive Prescription. Main Arguments of the Court: 1. The Court of Appeal incorrectly assessed the evidence regarding PERSON_4&#8217;s residence in the disputed premises, without examining all submitted documents and not clarifying the legal basis for their settlement. 2. The Court&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-5675","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\/5675","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=5675"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5675\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5675"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5675"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5675"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}