{"id":7242,"date":"2025-03-24T09:13:08","date_gmt":"2025-03-24T07:13:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/03\/case-no-354-680-15-c-dated-20-03-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-03-24T09:13:08","modified_gmt":"2025-03-24T07:13:08","slug":"case-no-354-680-15-c-dated-20-03-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/03\/case-no-354-680-15-c-dated-20-03-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 354\/680\/15-c dated 20\/03\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Subject of the Dispute: The Prosecutor is attempting to invalidate state certificates for private ownership of forest fund land plots that were transferred to an individual contrary to legislation.<\/p>\n<p>Main Court Arguments:<\/p>\n<p>1. Invalidating a state certificate is not an effective method of protecting the violated rights of the state.<\/p>\n<p>2. The Supreme Court deviated from previous practice and clearly indicated that to reclaim a land plot, it is not necessary to declare previous decisions and acts illegal.<\/p>\n<p>3. The appropriate method of protection is a vindicatory claim &#8211; that is, a demand to recover the land plot from the current owner (in this case, LLC &#8220;Bukovel&#8221;).<\/p>\n<p>Court Decision: Deny the prosecutor&#8217;s claim to invalidate state certificates for land plots.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/125985572\"><strong>Full text by link<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Subject of the Dispute: The Prosecutor is attempting to invalidate state certificates for private ownership of forest fund land plots that were transferred to an individual contrary to legislation. Main Court Arguments: 1. Invalidating a state certificate is not an effective method of protecting the violated rights of the state. 2. The Supreme Court deviated&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-7242","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\/7242","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=7242"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7242\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7242"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7242"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7242"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}