The Supreme Court of Ukraine considered case No. 209/5477/13-c (production No. 61-27184sv18) on the collection of lease arrears for land that the tenant-land user had been using for a long time free of charge, since he had not documented it!
Background and analysis of the dispute!
The Supreme Court of Ukraine considered the case on the claim of the city prosecutor’s office, acting in the interests of the state, on the recovery of damages in favor of the local council in the form of lost profits in the amount of almost 200 thousand hryvnias.
In the course of previous “pre-cassation” litigation, the following was established:
- Between the JSC and the defendant, an agreement was concluded for the sale and purchase of a construction and household complex – the defendant acquired a complex of industrial premises located on a land plot
- The land plot became the “reason” for the claim, since the land for lease in fact was not formalized, the lease was not paid for it, although it should have been, since it was used to locate real estate.
- The subject of the dispute in this claim is the collection from the owner of the immovable property of funds for the actual use of the land plot on which the purchased property is located.
“Based on the results of the consideration of the case in the Supreme Court of Ukraine, a legal opinion was formed, stating that the actual land user of the land plot, who, without sufficient legal foundations at the expense of the owner, saved the money that he had to pay for the use of the land, is obliged to return it to its full owner on the basis of Part 1 Art. 1212 CCU “.
The final cassation verdict!
The Supreme Court of Ukraine drew the parties’ attention to the fact that for condicional obligations, proving the guilt of a person does not matter, only the fact of the illegality of the acquisition (preservation) of property by one person at the expense of another is significant (the legal regulations are determined by Articles 1212-1214 of the Civil Code).
The Supreme Court of Ukraine fixing the “condictality”, and not the “delinquency” of the disputed legal relationship in question, indicating that the claim for damages in such cases is based on the above legislative requirements, and any legal representation in court should be implemented by the parties exclusively in this context.
He supported his decision of the Supreme Court of Ukraine with actual legal conclusions on similar cases No. 629/4628/16-c of 23.05.2018, No. 922/3412/17 dated 20.11.2018 and No. 917/1739/17 dated 04.12.2019.
