UA-Times learned about this from the Unified State Register of Court Decisions. According to the register, on December 3, 2020, the Kyiv Court of Appeals ruled that the claims of the Office of the Prosecutor General Office of Ukraine to return the lands illegally acquired by companies related with the ex-regional were dismissed and the concerned fields remained at the property the defendants in the case.
For friends – everything, for others – the Law
The right of ownership of land plots within the object of nature reserve fund – landscape reserve of local significance “Zhukiv Island” (the Reserve) . Then the Kyiv City Council under the leadership of the disgraced Leonid Chernovetskyi by Decision № 355/3189 “On the transfer of land to the service cooperative housing cooperative KOTMIST for housing construction on the 21st km of Stolychna highway in Holosiivskyi district of Kyiv’ almost 80 ha of the Reserve was passed to rogue entrepreneur.
According to the text of the Resolution, the court simultaneously takes into account and agrees with the Prosecutor’s Office’s references to the inconsistency of decisions and provisions of environmental legislation adopted by the Kyiv City Council, lack of legal grounds for acquiring land ownership that is part of the Reserve and cannot be privately owned.
In particular, in accordance with the Decision of the Supreme Commercial Court of Ukraine of July 11, 2017, the Decision of the Kyiv City Council of October 1, 2007 №355 / 3189 “On the transfer of land plots SCHC “Kotmist” was declared invalid. The decision came into force, so the legal grounds for the land plots by cadastral numbers: 8000000000:90:371:0172; 8000000000:90:371:0173; 8000000000:90:371:0174; 8000000000:90:371:0175; 8000000000:90:371:0165, which are in the territory of the Reserve in someone else’s illegal possession – are absent.
The law as a ” a steering wheel”…
However, having agreed with all the above circumstances, the Kyiv Court of Appeal still insists that: “… The statute of limitations provides legal certainty and finality, preventing violation of the rights of defendants, which may occur if the court decides on the basis of evidence, which became incomplete the time flowed out ”. What exactly is the evidence and why with the expiration of 5 years of illegal possession of land Ivaniushchenko’s retinue became incomplete, and how this is possible in a dispute where the illegality of one of the parties is directly established by a court decision, the court itself does not specify.
What’s interesting is that this definition was not created by the judges of the Kyiv Court of Appeal themselves. It is based on the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of OJSC Yukos Oil Company against Russia.
This is not the first time that a statute of limitations has appeared in this case. However, it is used two times exclusively for the same reason in the interests of companies associated with ex-regional Yura Ivaniushchenko, who until recentlly was on an international wanted list.
As times change, Yura Yenakiyevskii’s estate can now be considered legal. Source: Avtomaidan
Thus, on August 9, 2016, the decision of the Supreme Economic Court of Ukraine partially satisfied the cassation appeal of the SCHS KOTMIST, which is related to Ivaniushchenko. Having the conclusions of two previous instances on the illegality of the transfer of protected lands, the Supreme Economic Court of Ukraine, after hearing the arguments of SHCH KOTMIST, considered that: “the courts of [previous instances] did not investigate clarification of the circumstances of the case. The English of this is the court was interested in the question: during what time could the decision of the Kyiv City Council on illegal transfer of lands be appealed and has this term expired up to date?
Here lies the rub – the court sends for reconsideration the case in which it is interested whether the term for appeal has expired up to date, being clearly aware that such a procedure will further prolong the case and as a result – all possible and impossible deadlines for appeal will be already played out!
The only thing that hindered the implementation of Ivaniushchenko’s plans at this stage was the Kyiv City Council, which could independently claim protected lands from someone else’s illegal possession. However, as already mentioned, the lobbyist of this project from the very beginning was personally Denis Komarnytsky, who is considered an unofficial “warden” for the capital’s land market. What will the Supreme Court say?
Translated by Ilona Veretelnyk