{"id":7082,"date":"2025-03-21T09:28:28","date_gmt":"2025-03-21T07:28:28","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/03\/case-no-681-1466-21-dated-05-03-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-03-21T09:28:28","modified_gmt":"2025-03-21T07:28:28","slug":"case-no-681-1466-21-dated-05-03-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/03\/case-no-681-1466-21-dated-05-03-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 681\/1466\/21 dated 05\/03\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"

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

1. Subject of Dispute: The Prosecutor’s Office sought to recover a land plot of 0.7483 hectares from LLC “A.T.K.”, which was illegally withdrawn from state ownership contrary to the land conservation decision.<\/p>\n

2. Main Court Arguments:
\n– The land plot was part of degraded lands subject to conservation through afforestation
\n– The State Geocadaster order on transferring the plot to private ownership was adopted with legislative violations
\n– The Court indicated that claims against LLC “A.T.K.” should be considered in economic, not civil court proceedings<\/p>\n

3. Court Decision: To leave unchanged the appellate court resolution on closing proceedings regarding the claim against LLC “A.T.K.” and refer the case to the economic court.<\/p>\n

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

Here is the translation: 1. Subject of Dispute: The Prosecutor’s Office sought to recover a land plot of 0.7483 hectares from LLC “A.T.K.”, which was illegally withdrawn from state ownership contrary to the land conservation decision. 2. Main Court Arguments: – The land plot was part of degraded lands subject to conservation through afforestation –…<\/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-7082","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\/7082","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=7082"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7082\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7082"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7082"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7082"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}