{"id":6711,"date":"2025-03-14T09:23:10","date_gmt":"2025-03-14T07:23:10","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/03\/case-no-916-4116-23-dated-04-03-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-03-14T09:23:10","modified_gmt":"2025-03-14T07:23:10","slug":"case-no-916-4116-23-dated-04-03-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/03\/case-no-916-4116-23-dated-04-03-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 916\/4116\/23 dated 04\/03\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Here is the analysis of the court decision:<\/p>\n<p>1. Subject of the dispute: Invalidation of the lease agreement for hard surface area of 56.58 m2 and obligation to vacate the land plot.<\/p>\n<p>2. Main arguments of the court:<br \/>\n&#8211; Lease agreement may relate to hard surface as a separate individually defined property<br \/>\n&#8211; There are no indisputable evidence that the agreement is simulated and conceals land plot lease<br \/>\n&#8211; Previous instance courts improperly investigated the circumstances of the case and did not provide a comprehensive legal assessment of evidence<\/p>\n<p>3. Court decision: Cancel the decisions of previous instances and refer the case for a new consideration to the court of first instance for a complete and comprehensive investigation of circumstances.<\/p>\n<p>: The Supreme Court deviated from the previous practice of considering similar cases, detailing approaches to qualification of hard surface lease agreements.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/125709892\"><strong>Full text by link<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Here is the analysis of the court decision: 1. Subject of the dispute: Invalidation of the lease agreement for hard surface area of 56.58 m2 and obligation to vacate the land plot. 2. Main arguments of the court: &#8211; Lease agreement may relate to hard surface as a separate individually defined property &#8211; There are&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-6711","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\/6711","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=6711"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6711\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6711"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6711"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6711"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}