{"id":5777,"date":"2025-02-24T09:21:13","date_gmt":"2025-02-24T07:21:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/02\/case-no-918-456-24-dated-05-02-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-02-24T09:21:13","modified_gmt":"2025-02-24T07:21:13","slug":"case-no-918-456-24-dated-05-02-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/02\/case-no-918-456-24-dated-05-02-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 918\/456\/24 dated 05\/02\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"

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

Subject of Dispute: Renewal of a land lease agreement between LLC “Mineral Water Plant ‘Malomydska'” and Kostopil City Council.<\/p>\n

Main Arguments of the Court:
\n1. The Supreme Court thoroughly analyzed changes in legislation regarding the procedure for renewing land lease agreements, particularly changes introduced by Law No. 340-IX.
\n2. The Court established that in resolving the dispute, Article 33 of the Law “On Land Lease” should be applied in the version valid at the time of court appeal.
\n3. The grounds for refusing to renew the agreement were the lessee’s violation of land use conditions, specifically using the land plot not for its intended purpose.<\/p>\n

Court Decision: Uphold the appellate court’s resolution, modifying only the reasoning part of the decision.<\/p>\n

Note: The Court essentially deviates from its previous position regarding the interpretation of the land lease agreement renewal procedure, detailing the mechanism of 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 court decision analysis: Subject of Dispute: Renewal of a land lease agreement between LLC “Mineral Water Plant ‘Malomydska’” and Kostopil City Council. Main Arguments of the Court: 1. The Supreme Court thoroughly analyzed changes in legislation regarding the procedure for renewing land lease agreements, particularly changes introduced by Law…<\/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-5777","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\/5777","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=5777"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5777\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5777"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5777"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5777"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}