{"id":7022,"date":"2025-03-20T09:36:48","date_gmt":"2025-03-20T07:36:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/03\/case-no-465-6631-20-dated-12-03-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-03-20T09:36:48","modified_gmt":"2025-03-20T07:36:48","slug":"case-no-465-6631-20-dated-12-03-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/03\/case-no-465-6631-20-dated-12-03-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 465\/6631\/20 dated 12\/03\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Subject of the Dispute: Dismantling of a Fence and Gates on the Plaintiff&#8217;s Land Plot without Establishing a Land Easement or Purchasing the Land Plot.<\/p>\n<p>Main Arguments of the Court:<br \/>\n1. The Appellate Court incorrectly recognized the actions of local authorities as lawful, as it did not investigate the possibility of establishing a land easement.<br \/>\n2. There is no evidence that the land plot was seized for public needs and compensated to the owner.<br \/>\n3. The dismantling of the fence effectively deprived the plaintiff of property ownership without following the legally established procedure.<\/p>\n<p>Court Decision: Revoke the appellate court&#8217;s ruling and refer the case for a new hearing to fully investigate the circumstances of the case.<\/p>\n<p>Note: The Supreme Court deviated from previous practice regarding the assessment of the legitimacy of property dismantling by local self-government bodies.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/125843148\"><strong>Full text by link<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Subject of the Dispute: Dismantling of a Fence and Gates on the Plaintiff&#8217;s Land Plot without Establishing a Land Easement or Purchasing the Land Plot. Main Arguments of the Court: 1. The Appellate Court incorrectly recognized the actions of local authorities as lawful, as it did not investigate the possibility of establishing a land easement.&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-7022","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\/7022","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=7022"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7022\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7022"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7022"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7022"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}