Call Leave a request
BC-SCU should regulate the right to exchange land shares

BC-SCU should regulate the right to exchange land shares

The procedure for resolving land disputes in Ukraine can be called “order” with a stretch! Due to the endlessly extended land moratorium, controversial issues in the field of land relations arise systematically.

In fact, the presence of registration of ownership of land implies that it is the property of a specific person with all the ensuing legal consequences, but …

There is a moratorium!

It restricts this right of Ukrainians and does not allow them to fully dispose of this type of real estate.

Arising in connection with this “misunderstanding” are resolved in court! And misunderstandings of a higher order, called exceptional legal problems, are resolved in the Supreme Court of Ukraine!

So, in the near future, the highest judicial instance should solve another legal problem related to the moratorium on the sale of land. The case regarding the alienation of land under a land exchange agreement will be considered.

On January 23, 2019, the Supreme Court of Ukraine adopted a ruling in case No. 227/1506/18, by which it submitted to the Grand Chamber for consideration the prosecutor’s cassation complaint regarding the recognition of the agricultural land exchange agreement as invalid, since it became necessary to deviate from the current legal conclusions.

BC-SCU will consider the need to derogate from the withdrawal of the SCU

“Now the exchange of land shares (shares) in the period between the holding of meetings of the owners of shares regarding the distribution of land plots and the issuance of state certificates for the right of ownership to their owners is allowed according to the “share for share” scheme under Art. 14th Law of Ukraine “On the procedure for allocation in kind (on the ground) of land plots to owners of land shares (shares)”.

The above position is regulated by the already irrelevant conclusion in case No. 6-464tss16, since it was made public before the decision of the European Court in the case of Zelenchuk and Tsitsyura v. Ukraine regarding the illegality of the moratorium on the sale of land.

In it, the ECHR made it clear to the Ukrainian authorities that the moratorium must end, as it unbalances the interests of owners and restricts their rights, violating the Convention on Human Rights.

Finally

In its ruling, the Supreme Court of Ukraine indicated that the decision of the ECHR clearly defines the fact that the land moratorium in our country violates the Civil Code and the Convention, therefore, the owners of land shares have the right, independently or through a legal services center, to demand in court compensation for damage caused by state restriction of their property rights.

14.02.2019

453

YOU MAY BE INTERESTED IN
Ukrainian courts are cutting lawyer fees to the maximum

Every self-respecting judge considers it his duty to reduce the lawyer’s fee as much as possible. This “phenomenon” is especially painful for lawyers working on an hourly basis. Why is that? God only knows! God knows, but for human rights defenders – absolutely incomprehensible, because the law and practice of the Armed Forces of Ukraine […]

The new owner is not entitled to evict the debtor from mortgage housing

The Supreme Court of Ukraine considered the case on the eviction of the former owner (debtor of the bank) from the apartment purchased (by the new owner). A relevant legal conclusion has been published, informative for real estate buyers and bank borrowers. Thus, a new non-owner who has bought “risky” real estate from a mortgagee […]

SCU: PASSING THE MEDICAL COMMISSION AT WORKING HOURS – NOT ABSENTEEISM!

The Supreme Court of Ukraine considered case No. 699/640/18 (production No. 61-17310sv19) and on 04.12.2019 formed a legal conclusion, which “put in place” the employer who dismissed the employee under the “absenteeism” article. He counted as a truancy the day when she underwent a medical examination. DETAILS OF THE PROCEEDINGS The military unit’s employee filed […]

CCC: customers are not obliged to pay for the “mistakes” of ATMs!

“For the extra money issued by the ATM, the client is not responsible if there is no proof of receipt of funds!” – the Civil Court of Cassation expressed its decision in case No. 296/3921/15-c. The situation is in detail! A PrivatBank client withdraws a certain amount of money from a credit card at a […]

Procedure for judicial debt collection

Judicial debt collection is an important tool for restoring justice and recovering the debt after an unsuccessful settlement of the dispute by peaceful means. This process requires precision, compliance with the law and procedures, and is a legal mechanism. In this article, we will look at the foreclosure procedure and the key rules that must […]

Ukrainian Supreme Court: Responsibility of a bona fide purchaser

Due to the “carelessness” of the notary, the person almost lost the housing they bought for their own money! The APU “saved” him. Case No. 645/4220/16-ts of 13.11.2019 The citizen applied to the court with a claim against two persons and a third party – a notary, demanding the invalidation of the sale and purchase […]

Address

01133, Kyiv, blvd. Lesi Ukrainky 26 (block L26), office 613

Email

info@grandliga.com.ua

Phone number

+380443395088

We work

Schedule: from 10:00 to 18:00
Weekend: Sunday

Make a route