{"id":7008,"date":"2025-03-20T09:30:10","date_gmt":"2025-03-20T07:30:10","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/03\/case-no-320-20288-23-dated-13-03-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-03-20T09:30:10","modified_gmt":"2025-03-20T07:30:10","slug":"case-no-320-20288-23-dated-13-03-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/03\/case-no-320-20288-23-dated-13-03-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 320\/20288\/23 dated 13\/03\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"

Here is the translation:<\/p>\n

1. Subject of Dispute: Challenging the decision of the Department of Urban Planning and Architecture regarding refusal to provide urban planning conditions and restrictions for the reconstruction of non-residential buildings on a land plot.<\/p>\n

2. Key Court Arguments:
\n– The land plot’s intended purpose (12.11 – for road service facilities placement) does not match the functional purpose of the territory according to the General Plan (streets and roads territory)
\n– Change of functional purpose of the territory does not automatically mean a change in the land plot’s intended purpose
\n– The respondent did not provide convincing evidence of construction impossibility
\n– The refusal decision is unjustified and unlawful<\/p>\n

3. Court Decision: Satisfied the claim of LLC “Etalon-2021”, canceled the appellate court resolution and upheld the first instance court decision recognizing the Department’s decision as unlawful.<\/p>\n

Full text by link<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Here is the translation: 1. Subject of Dispute: Challenging the decision of the Department of Urban Planning and Architecture regarding refusal to provide urban planning conditions and restrictions for the reconstruction of non-residential buildings on a land plot. 2. Key Court Arguments: – The land plot’s intended purpose (12.11 – for road service facilities placement)…<\/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-7008","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\/7008","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=7008"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7008\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7008"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7008"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7008"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}