{"id":5733,"date":"2025-02-23T09:22:13","date_gmt":"2025-02-23T07:22:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/02\/case-no-902-71-24-dated-12-02-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-02-23T09:22:13","modified_gmt":"2025-02-23T07:22:13","slug":"case-no-902-71-24-dated-12-02-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/02\/case-no-902-71-24-dated-12-02-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 902\/71\/24 dated 12\/02\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Here is the translation:<\/p>\n<p>Subject of Dispute: Recognition of the Order as Invalid Regarding the Transfer of Land Plots to Communal Ownership, Partially Located within the Border Strip.<\/p>\n<p>Key Arguments of the Court:<br \/>\n1. Land plots located within the border strip are automatically classified as defense lands, which can only be in state ownership.<br \/>\n2. The Supreme Court deviated from the previous position of the appellate court, which considered that the location of a land plot within the border strip does not make it defense land.<br \/>\n3. The absence of a separate land management project does not cancel the status of defense lands, as their dimensions are established by legislation.<\/p>\n<p>Court Decision: To cancel the appellate court&#8217;s resolution and refer the case for a new hearing to conduct additional investigation of evidence regarding the overlapping of land plots with the border strip.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/125264847\"><strong>Full text by link<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Here is the translation: Subject of Dispute: Recognition of the Order as Invalid Regarding the Transfer of Land Plots to Communal Ownership, Partially Located within the Border Strip. Key Arguments of the Court: 1. Land plots located within the border strip are automatically classified as defense lands, which can only be in state ownership. 2.&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-5733","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\/5733","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=5733"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5733\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5733"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5733"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5733"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}