{"id":5773,"date":"2025-02-24T09:19:47","date_gmt":"2025-02-24T07:19:47","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/02\/case-no-922-488-22-dated-12-02-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-02-24T09:19:47","modified_gmt":"2025-02-24T07:19:47","slug":"case-no-922-488-22-dated-12-02-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/02\/case-no-922-488-22-dated-12-02-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 922\/488\/22 dated 12\/02\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Subject of Dispute: Claiming Non-Residential Premises That Were Illegally Privatized and Alienated in Favor of the Territorial Community.<\/p>\n<p>Main Arguments of the Court:<br \/>\n1. It has been established that the Kharkiv City Council illegally chose a method of privatization of non-residential premises through purchase by the tenant without making any integral improvements.<br \/>\n2. The change of premises status from non-residential to residential occurred formally, without actual reconstruction, which may indicate an artificial creation of obstacles for property recovery.<br \/>\n3. Property acquirers, exercising reasonable caution, should have noticed the inconsistency of the premises&#8217; technical characteristics with residential fund requirements.<\/p>\n<p>Court Decision: The Supreme Court canceled the appellate court&#8217;s resolution and referred the case for a new hearing to thoroughly investigate the circumstances of possible property recovery in favor of the territorial community.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/125291901\"><strong>Full text by link<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Subject of Dispute: Claiming Non-Residential Premises That Were Illegally Privatized and Alienated in Favor of the Territorial Community. Main Arguments of the Court: 1. It has been established that the Kharkiv City Council illegally chose a method of privatization of non-residential premises through purchase by the tenant without making any integral improvements. 2. The change&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-5773","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\/5773","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=5773"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5773\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5773"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5773"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5773"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}