{"id":7098,"date":"2025-03-21T09:34:06","date_gmt":"2025-03-21T07:34:06","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/03\/case-no-466-12737-21-dated-13-03-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-03-21T09:34:06","modified_gmt":"2025-03-21T07:34:06","slug":"case-no-466-12737-21-dated-13-03-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/03\/case-no-466-12737-21-dated-13-03-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 466\/12737\/21 dated 13\/03\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Subject of Dispute: Return of a Forestry Land Parcel Illegally Alienated from State Ownership.<\/p>\n<p>Main Court Arguments:<\/p>\n<p>1. The court established that the forestry land parcel was illegally transferred from state ownership to private individuals through a series of consecutive legal transactions.<\/p>\n<p>2. The court concluded that the most effective method of protecting the state&#8217;s right is a vindicatory claim (recovery of the land parcel), rather than a negatory claim for removing obstacles, which was filed by the prosecutor&#8217;s office.<\/p>\n<p>3. The court emphasized that the state, as the owner of the land parcel, has the right to demand its return, even if it is not the actual possessor.<\/p>\n<p>Court Decision: Uphold the previous court decisions refusing to satisfy the prosecutor&#8217;s claim, as the method of protection was chosen incorrectly.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/125876281\"><strong>Full text by link<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Subject of Dispute: Return of a Forestry Land Parcel Illegally Alienated from State Ownership. Main Court Arguments: 1. The court established that the forestry land parcel was illegally transferred from state ownership to private individuals through a series of consecutive legal transactions. 2. The court concluded that the most effective method of protecting the state&#8217;s&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-7098","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\/7098","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=7098"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7098\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7098"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7098"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7098"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}