{"id":7879,"date":"2025-04-05T10:47:25","date_gmt":"2025-04-05T07:47:25","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/04\/case-no-911-26-24-dated-25-03-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-04-05T10:47:25","modified_gmt":"2025-04-05T07:47:25","slug":"case-no-911-26-24-dated-25-03-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/04\/case-no-911-26-24-dated-25-03-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 911\/26\/24 dated 25\/03\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Subject of Dispute: Invalidation of the Land Lease Agreement for Water Fund Land and Its Return to the State.<\/p>\n<p>Main Arguments of the Court:<br \/>\n1. The Bila Tserkva District State Administration did not have the authority to lease the land plot, as it incorrectly equated the concepts of &#8220;water management&#8221; and &#8220;fish farming&#8221;.<br \/>\n2. The lease agreement was concluded without conducting land auctions, which violates land legislation requirements.<br \/>\n3. The Court deviated from previous practice regarding inheritance of land lease rights, pointing to the need for a detailed investigation of all case circumstances.<\/p>\n<p>Court Decision: Rescind previous court decisions and refer the case for a new review to the court of first instance for a comprehensive and thorough examination of the case circumstances.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/126258932\"><strong>Full text by link<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Subject of Dispute: Invalidation of the Land Lease Agreement for Water Fund Land and Its Return to the State. Main Arguments of the Court: 1. The Bila Tserkva District State Administration did not have the authority to lease the land plot, as it incorrectly equated the concepts of &#8220;water management&#8221; and &#8220;fish farming&#8221;. 2. The&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-7879","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\/7879","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=7879"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7879\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7879"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7879"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7879"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}