{"id":7514,"date":"2025-03-28T09:29:59","date_gmt":"2025-03-28T07:29:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/03\/case-no-907-860-17-dated-19-03-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-03-28T09:29:59","modified_gmt":"2025-03-28T07:29:59","slug":"case-no-907-860-17-dated-19-03-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/03\/case-no-907-860-17-dated-19-03-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 907\/860\/17 dated 19\/03\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Here is the translation:<\/p>\n<p>Subject of Dispute: Vynohrativ City Council attempts to recover a residential house from the Farming Enterprise &#8220;Kolos&#8221; by challenging the state registration of ownership rights to this house.<\/p>\n<p>Main Arguments of the Court:<br \/>\n1. The court established that state registration of ownership rights is not an indisputable proof of ownership, but creates a presumption of possession.<br \/>\n2. The disputed house belongs to communal property by law, as it was previously on the balance sheet of the state farm &#8220;8 March&#8221;.<br \/>\n3. The Farming Enterprise &#8220;Kolos&#8221; is not a legal successor of the state farm and did not have legal grounds for registering ownership rights to the house.<\/p>\n<p>Court Decision: The court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, canceling the requirement to cancel the state registration entry, but confirming the city council&#8217;s right to recover the house.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/126054204\"><strong>Full text by link<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Here is the translation: Subject of Dispute: Vynohrativ City Council attempts to recover a residential house from the Farming Enterprise &#8220;Kolos&#8221; by challenging the state registration of ownership rights to this house. Main Arguments of the Court: 1. The court established that state registration of ownership rights is not an indisputable proof of ownership, but&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-7514","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\/7514","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=7514"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7514\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7514"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7514"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7514"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}