{"id":7753,"date":"2025-04-03T10:21:10","date_gmt":"2025-04-03T07:21:10","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/04\/case-no-463-5124-21-dated-27-11-2024\/"},"modified":"2025-04-03T10:21:10","modified_gmt":"2025-04-03T07:21:10","slug":"case-no-463-5124-21-dated-27-11-2024","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/04\/case-no-463-5124-21-dated-27-11-2024\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 463\/5124\/21 dated 27\/11\/2024"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Here is the translation of the legal analysis:<\/p>\n<p>1. Subject of Dispute: Reconstruction of an apartment by the defendant in a multi-apartment building without permission from other co-owners and without state registration.<\/p>\n<p>2. Main Arguments of the Court:<br \/>\n&#8211; The defendant carried out apartment reconstruction extending beyond its original volume, interfering with the building&#8217;s load-bearing structures without consent from other co-owners<br \/>\n&#8211; State registration of ownership rights to the reconstructed apartment occurred with legislative violations<br \/>\n&#8211; Expert examination confirmed technical feasibility of reconstruction, but did not cancel the requirement to obtain necessary permits<\/p>\n<p>3. Court Decision: Obligate the defendant to restore the apartment and garage to their previous dimensions, as fixed in technical documentation, at their own expense.<\/p>\n<p>Note: The court deviated from previous practice, clearly defining that state registration does not legalize unauthorized construction.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/126182554\"><strong>Full text by link<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Here is the translation of the legal analysis: 1. Subject of Dispute: Reconstruction of an apartment by the defendant in a multi-apartment building without permission from other co-owners and without state registration. 2. Main Arguments of the Court: &#8211; The defendant carried out apartment reconstruction extending beyond its original volume, interfering with the building&#8217;s load-bearing&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-7753","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\/7753","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=7753"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7753\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7753"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7753"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7753"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}