legal services Archives | Rezultat Law firm

How to Register a Company in Georgia

Rezultat — Wed, 20 Nov 2019 10:18:17 +0000

Company registration in Georgia

To register a company in Georgia and actively develop your business not only nationally but internationally as well. It is quite possible that a country like Georgia can help you meet your business expectations.

Annually, Georgia confidently rises in the ranking of countries with the most comfortable business conditions, according to DOING BUSINESS. This country’s government has created favorable conditions for attracting investment, including the attractiveness of the tax system and simplicity of opening and running a business for both nationals and non-residents. In Georgia, as in Ukraine, there are different legal forms of legal entities, but the simplest in management and most common form of doing business is limited liability companies.

Register an LLC in Georgia

The required for registering an LLC package of documents is filed with the territorial directorate of the National Agency for State Registry, which is at the House of Justice or with authorized persons of the State Registry. In particular, the following documents are filed:

An application for registration of a legal entity.
The limited liability company’s charter.
Document of appointment of the company’s director.
Certificate of contribution costing (if the contribution is made by property).
International passports of the company’s director and founders (for non-residents—certified by the authorized body of the person’s country of origin by affixing Apostille).
Charter of the founder’s legal entity, an extract on its registration, and international passports of its director and founders (for non-residents—certified by the authorized body of the person’s country of origin, by affixing Apostille).
Receipt for payment of the state duty.

All documents must be in the state language of Georgia or have a translation into Georgian with the translator’s notarized signature.

The LLC founders can be individuals and legal entities without any restrictions on the residence of such individuals or entities.

The price of company registration in Georgia

A company registration in Georgia will be a great start for you if you value your time, because here, the registration process takes only one business day. If you need to register a legal entity urgently, then you will be able to receive an extract on its registration on the day of submission of documents, in case they are formalized with due diligence.

Taxes for Georgia companies

Georgia’s tax system is also a loyal and attractive component for attracting investors and developing the country’s economy. Thus, in Georgia, the corporate tax is:

15%—income tax.
0–18%—value added tax.
5%—dividend tax.
20%—personal income tax.

In addition to the general tax system in Georgia, there are the following tax regimes:

The virtual zone.
Free industrial zones.

The virtual zone for IT companies.

To register an IT company in Georgia for investors wishing to engage in information technology, the most advantageous option is to obtain the status of a virtual zone entity. The advantages are that an entity who exports its services abroad is exempt from all other corporate taxes, including the tax on the export of software products that it develops. The only tax to be paid by an entity with the virtual zone entity tax status is a dividend tax of 5%.

In order to get the virtual zone entity status, it is sufficient to submit an electronic application on the Ministry of Finance of Georgia’s website, which is reviewed within ten days. After you have been granted that status, you may already receive within two days a certificate confirming your special tax status. This certificate is valid for one year, after which it can be renewed.

Free industrial zones for companies in Georgia

A free industrial zone (hereinafter referred to as the FIZ) is an area with certain boundaries and a special status, subject to additional tax benefits and not covered by the competence of local governments.

It is a kind of free zone with additional tax benefits that are not covered by the competence of local governments.

On the FIZ territory there is allowed any business activity, except such as is prohibited by law, namely:

Manufacture and sale of weapons and ammunition.
Manufacture and sale of nuclear and radioactive substances.
Import, storage, manufacture, and (or) sale of narcotics and psychotropic substances.
Import, storage, manufacture, and (or) sale of tobacco products and (or) tobacco raw materials (except for import for own consumption).

Once registered in the FIZ, the entity must obtain a license to conduct the relevant business activity.

The entity registered in the FIZ is exempt from all taxes except the import and export tax between the FIZ and Georgia—a tax rate is 4%.

No matter which tax system you choose, you will need to open a corporate account with any Georgia bank by filing an appropriate application form with almost the same package of documents as for the entity’s state registration.

At first glance, the business registration procedure in Georgia is standard and simple, however, as practice shows, the registration authority often refuses because of the inconsistency of the documents filed. Therefore, we recommend that you consult the Rezultat law firm’s experts, who will provide you with competent advice or professional preparation of all necessary documentation, which will become a solid basis for a successful career and easy running of your business.

ALL NEWS

The post How to Register a Company in Georgia appeared first on Rezultat Law firm.

Cherkasy Rezultat Law Firm Marks the 9th Anniversary of its Activities

Rezultat — Tue, 29 May 2018 11:35:12 +0000

During the years of legal practice, the firm has conducted successful cases in the areas of investment projects, tax consulting, litigation, IT, land legal relations, registration of enterprises, foreign economic activity, entering the European Union markets, etc.

Rezultat has become a reliable partner for dozens of business organizations, companies, and individuals who ascertained the confidentiality, transparency, independence, and most importantly—the quality of the services provided and high performance.

“Nine years ago, the Rezultat law firm was a 12-square-meter office without windows, which had only a clothes hanger, a wardrobe, and a table, designed for two employees and one guest. But, besides equipment and furniture, Rezultat is primarily people. It was those people who believed that by providing professional legal services of the highest quality, one could take a decent place on the market. The people who believed that corruption was not a key factor in relations with the authorities. The people who believed that effective work and high professional standards could make a small local law firm successful.
Now, our firm is a leading player on the legal services market in the city of Cherkasy and Cherkasy district. We provide top quality legal services to many regional companies, including international ones. We’ve accompanied the attraction of millions of dollars of direct investment in the region. We help to make deals, invest, build, solve disputes. We promote the development of legal culture and legal services market in Cherkasy region”

Managing Partner and Founder Maxim Polishkevych says.

The law firm partners also share their experience of cooperation

“When faced with an urgent legal task, we turn to the Rezultat law firm. This firm always provides quality services in a timely manner, which is extremely important in our work”

Chief Technology Officer at Andersen Oleksandr Orlov points out.

Among those who thank the Rezultat law firm for its efficient and high quality service delivery is Cherkasy Chamber of Commerce and Industry, which, over the years of long-term cooperation, has been convinced of the reliability of the partnership.

“The Rezultat firm has proved itself as a reliable partner and a professional team. The team style is marked by transparency, confidentiality, and creative approach to solving the most complex issues. Lawyers of the firm actively participate in conferences, seminars, and trainings, including those conducted on the basis of Cherkasy CCI”

President of Cherkasy Chamber of Commerce and Industry Serhii Pershyn expresses his position with wishes of new achievements and further dynamic development.

“What is important in resolving legal issues, is efficiency without loss in qualitative indicators. That’s how professionals work. During the years of cooperation with the Rezultat law firm, we are always convinced of its responsibility, discipline, and most importantly— performance. Every time, you help us minimize risks and improve the legal support of the firm. We appreciate an individual approach to customer requirements. I hope that over the years, you will only be thriving and improving.”

Vadym Ovcharenko, Head of the Tryzovahro farming enterprise, also acknowledged the firm’s productive work

At the same time, Maxim Polyshkevych expresses his deep gratitude to the Clients who while choosing between the corrupt deals and sometimes longer and more complicated but legitimate way of solving the problem, choose the second option.

“Like it was nine years ago, we are still young and ambitious. Though now, we are also wise and experienced”

the Rezultat’s founder adds.

ALL NEWS

The post Cherkasy Rezultat Law Firm Marks the 9th Anniversary of its Activities appeared first on Rezultat Law firm.

NEW-BUILD HOUSING: HOW NOT TO HIT TROUBLE

Rezultat — Wed, 28 Mar 2018 12:21:42 +0000

An apartment in a brand-new high-rise or a two-storey townhouse is not only comfortable housing, but also possible problems. Lawyer, partner of the Rezultat law firm Artem Suchylo explains what documents should be checked, what to pay attention to, and whom to avoid.

CHECK WHO THE LAND OWNER IS

First, check the land plot title documents, namely, whether there is the right to use the land plot on which the construction of an apartment building is carried out. It may be the decision of Cherkasy City Council on leasing the land plot, a sublease agreement, an act for right of permanent land use, and so on. Target purpose of the land plot for residential and public construction. For townhouses, the intended purpose of the land may be individual cottage construction. These documents must be provided for inspection by the housing society as a developer. Without documents certifying the right to use a land plot, obtaining permits for construction and, in fact, construction itself is illegal.

PAY ATTENTION TO TOWN-PLANNING CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS

The following documents one needs to check are town-planning conditions and land plot development restrictions, which are provided to the developer by the Department of Architecture and Town-Planning of Cherkasy City Council. Town-planning conditions and restrictions are a document containing a complex of planning and architectural requirements for design and construction concerning the height and density of land plot development, setbacks of buildings and structures from the frontage lines, the boundaries of the land plot, its infrastructure development and landscaping, other requirements for objects construction, established by law.

A DECLARATION ON THE BEGINNING OF CONSTRUCTION WORKS OR A CONSTRUCTION PERMIT IS A MAJOR DOCUMENT WHICH GIVES THE RIGHT TO BUILD

A declaration on the beginning of construction works or a construction permit is the main document to be checked when signing a partnership agreement. After all, construction of an apartment building can only begin upon availability of such a document. The construction permit, including the declaration on the beginning of construction works, must be registered in the State Architectural and Construction Inspectorate of Ukraine. They can be easily found by the declaration number. This innovation is only a year old; earlier, the developer filed documents in print format and received them already with the registration stamp and the assigned number. Now, everything is in the electronic register and at the time of registration of the newly purchased apartment, the registrar of ownership rights to immovable property checks whether the new building permitting documents have been entered in this register.

PAY ATTENTION TO THE LEASE EXPIRY DATE

Reviewing the land plot documents, pay attention to the developer’s land lease/sublease expiry date (after the construction of a multistoried building, that land should pass into the use or ownership of the home owners’ association (HOA) through the City Council decision).

CONSIDER WHETHER THE DEVELOPER HAS PROVIDED FOR PENALTIES FOR HIMSELF/HERSELF IF HE/SHE FAILS TO MEET THE BUILDING COMPLETION DEADLINE

Usually in Cherkasy, developers do not provide for penalties for themselves in case they hand over the building for commissioning later than it was defined by the partnership agreement. A positive example is the service cooperative Forest 1CH housing society, which provided for its shareholders in the agreement the possibility of obtaining penalties at a rate of 500 hryvnias for each month of delay of handing over the building for commissioning. The building was handed over for commissioning later, but the Forest 1CH housing society fulfilled its obligations to pay a full penalty to its shareholders.

PROPOSE THE DEVELOPER YOUR CONDITIONS

A partnership agreement, an investment agreement, and/or any other agreement offered by housing societies and under which you will establish ownership of an apartment are similar and generally do not protect the shareholders in the case disputes occur. Few people know that this agreement is bilateral, and therefore you as a shareholder can offer your version of the agreement and/or edit its certain clauses. It’s a different story, that sometimes it’s easier for the developer to find a more tolerant shareholder than to rewrite an agreement specifically for you.

CHECK NOY ONLY THE DEVELOPER BUT THE HOUSING SOCIETY AS WELL

Remember that in the case of the developer’s bankruptcy or other force majeures, you’ll recover losses not from the individual or legal entity, but from the housing society, as it is the mediator, you enter into an agreement with and pay the contributions to. It is worth checking where this housing society is registered, who its founder is (an individual or a legal entity), which share capital it has. Both the developer and the housing society can be checked against the Unified State Register of Legal Entities, Individual Entrepreneurs, and Public Associations and the Unified State Register of Court Decisions. You can also look for feedback on this developer (if he/she has already built in other cities) and see if he/she is a case suspect.

HANDING OVER FOR COMMISSIONING DOES NOT MEAN MOVING IN

The biggest problem with buying a new-build housing is that shareholders cannot immediately start repairs in their new apartments, even if the house has been handed over on time. For these houses are often handed over without communications: gas, water, electricity. Thus, for example, some new builds in Cherkasy, which had already been handed over for commissioning, were waiting for hooking up to the gas supply system for more than a year. It is also necessary that the city take on the balance the new build’s water supply pipelines and its sewerage system. Therefore, before signing the agreement, you should be interested not only in the house commissioning, but also in the date of its connection to all utilities. So that, after the date discussed, the apartment owner could quietly begin to repair and use the apartment for its intended purpose.

INQUIRE WHO THE COMPOUND OWNER IS

The package of documents for townhouses is somewhat different, but the main issue is also the land. For the future shareholder, it is important to find out who owns the land under or around the house. Since developers often say that the compound behind the townhouse is sold with it and the future owner will use it at his/her own discretion. For example, he/she can build a garage there. However, in most cases, the housing society retains its right to use the land as one array without dividing it into land plots under each townhouse and assigning them a separate cadastral number with registration of the townhouse owners’ property rights.

CHEAPEST IS THE DEAREST

In theory, the buyer can try to independently deal with the registers and all agreement pitfalls, however due to the large number of nuances in this case it’s cheaper to hire a qualified lawyer for an hour or two, than to command the services of that very lawyer for court battles. A specialist will be able to ask the housing society representatives the right questions, check the developer’s permits, examine the agreement for compliance with current legislation and oral deals between a shareholder and a housing society, check out the society, the developer and the related firms against registers.

ALL NEWS

The post NEW-BUILD HOUSING: HOW NOT TO HIT TROUBLE appeared first on Rezultat Law firm.

Sales Promotion Tools in Residential Real Estate

Rezultat — Thu, 21 Sep 2017 10:49:35 +0000

Tools for increasing sales in residential real estate are a matter that deeply worries both Ukrainian and foreign investors in the Ukrainian housing sector. Due to the urgency of this issue for the URE Club members, on September 21, 2017, a meeting of the club members was organized, where the best marketing strategies of the Ukrainian real estate market were presented.

A Modern Approach to Increasing Sales of Real Estate

The main partner of the event was Zenvision, representatives of which presented a solution dealing with interactive visualization of real estate objects. Such hardware can enhance the functionality and effectiveness of sales departments, as they will add an emotional effect to the process of presenting real estate objects and will help managers present a house or an apartment in a convenient, visual form.

“It is well known,” Maxim Polishkevych, Managing Partner of the Rezultat law firm expressed his opinion, “that selling an apartment in a house that does not exist yet is an extremely difficult marketing task. After all, any buyer dreams to see and feel what he/she buys. For the Rezultat law firm, which has recently become the URE Club member and specialized in construction business support, the meeting on tools to increase sales of residential real estate became extremely useful.”

The speeches of Tetiana Tovmach (Digital Builders Agency) and Mykhailo Lysyi (HATS) were equally informative. In particular, Tetiana Tovmach made a presentation entitled “How to Make Digital Work for Yourself” on the importance of implementing analytics and call tracking to track the effectiveness of advertising channels and the proper management of advertising budgets for real estate projects. Mykhailo Lysyi presented the HATS Real Estate Showroom—all new buildings under one roof.

At the event, there also took place the presentation and sale of the book AUDIT OF SALES. NEW BUILDINGS from Audit of Sales. The book was prepared on the basis of a large-scale audit of the sales departments of housing societies of Kyiv and the Oblast, the Ukrainian Real Estate Club team directly helped to organize.

ALL NEWS

The post Sales Promotion Tools in Residential Real Estate appeared first on Rezultat Law firm.

Budharant Private Construction and Investment Enterprise (PCIE): Development on the Embankment

Rezultat — Fri, 15 Sep 2017 12:11:46 +0000

The Rezultat law firm’s position on the interference of Cherkasy City Council with the development carried out by the Budharant PCIE

The Budharant PCIE. Introduction

The Budharant PCIE has been fighting the bureaucracy and artificially generated problems posed by a variety of authorities for more than a decade. Taking into account the information resonance created around the enterprise’s activities, we decided to dispel certain myths and express our position.

This article will not describe the whole history of confrontation of bureaucracy and political populism that the enterprise encountered during its economic activities. Neither will it describe all litigation and hardship with the development of necessary documentation. It describes the part of the events that, in the opinion of Managing Partner of the Rezultat law firm Maxim Polishkevych, is directly related to the decisions of Cherkasy City Council of August 10, 2017, on the enterprise’s rights.

Similarly, the article deliberately misses the political part of the question. You are invited to consider the facts and their legal assessment from the point of view of domestic law and practice of the European Court of Human Rights.

And just for the record: since 2006, the Budharant PCIE has paid to the city budget 1,423,674.80 (one million four hundred twenty-three thousand six hundred seventy-four hryvnias 80 kopecks) of the rent (excluding currency rates and indexation).

A short chronology of events

December 28, 2005—Cherkasy City Council adopted the decision No. 8-962 On the Provision to the Budharant PCIE a Land Plot for Lease at the Crossroads of Kozatska and Heroes of the Dnieper Streets.
January 31, 2006—Cherkasy City Council adopted the decision No. 9-86 On the Provision to the Budharant PCIE a Land Plot for Lease in Peremoha Residential Area between Houses along 126 Smilianska and 8 30-richchya Peremohy Streets.
February 7, 2006—a land lease agreement was entered into by Cherkasy City Council and the Budharant PCIE. The leased property is a land plot at the crossroads of Kozatska and Heroes of the Dnieper Streets.
February 13, 2006—a land lease agreement was entered into by Cherkasy City Council and the Budharant PCIE. The leased property is a land plot at the crossroads of 126 Smilianska and 8 30-richchya Peremohy Streets.
February 18, 2006—a land lease agreement of February 7, 2017, was registered with the Cherkasy regional branch of the State Land Cadastre Center under the State Land Committee of Ukraine state enterprise under No. 040677500080. The leased property is a land plot at the crossroads of Kozatska and Heroes of the Dnieper Streets.
February 18, 2006—a land lease agreement of February 13, 2006, was registered with the Cherkasy regional branch of the State Land Cadastre Center under the State Land Committee of Ukraine state enterprise under No. 040677500081. The leased property is a land plot at the crossroads of 126 Smilianska and 8 30-richchya Peremohy Streets.
April 15, 2014 —the Architecture and Town-Planning Council of Cherkasy City Council considered the issue of providing the town-planning conditions and restrictions on the development of a land plot at the crossroads of Kozatska and Heroes of the Dnieper Streets.
May 14, 2014—the Executive Committee of Cherkasy City Council adopted the decision No. 500 which approved the town-planning conditions and restrictions on the development of a land plot at the crossroads of Kozatska and Heroes of the Dnieper Streets.
August 19, 2014—Cherkasy City Council adopted the decision No. 2-56 which overturned the Executive Committee’s decision No. 500 of May 14, 2014, on the provision of the enterprise with the town-planning conditions and restrictions on the development of a land plot at the crossroads of Kozatska and Heroes of the Dnieper Streets on the grounds (according to the City Council) of their non-compliance with the legislation.
October 13, 2014—the Economic Court of Cherkasy Oblast adopted the decision to accept for hearing the lawsuit of Cherkasy City Council against the Budharant Private Construction and Investment Enterprise for the recovery of arrears under the land lease agreement of February 18, 2006 (case No. 925/1726/14).
November 20, 2014—the Economic Court of Cherkasy Oblast adopted the decision to accept for hearing the lawsuit of the Prosecutor of the city of Cherkasy on behalf of the state represented by Cherkasy City Council against the Budharant PCIE on the land lease agreement cancelation and the obligation to return the land plot at the crossroads of Kozatska and Heroes of the Dnieper Streets (case No. 925/2128/14).
March 19, 2015—the Sosnivskyi District Court of Cherkasy adopted the resolution on case No. 712/17480/14-A which overturned the decision of Cherkasy City Council No. 2-56 of August 19, 2014, to overturn the Cherkasy City Council Executive Committee’s decision No. 500 of May 14, 2014.
August 13, 2015—the Supreme Economic Court of Ukraine adopted the resolution on case No. 925/1726/14 containing a reference to the illegality of debt calculations. Cherkasy City Council prematurely referred part of the disputed land to commercial lands and technical infrastructure. However, as stated in the lease agreement terms, for the period of development which, as established by the courts, is not yet completed, the land plot is referred to recreational lands and other open lands (lands occupied by the current development) and only after its completion, to commercial lands and technical infrastructure.
December 4, 2015—the Economic Court of Cherkasy Oblast adopted the decision on case No. 925/2128/14 concerning the demands of the Prosecutor of the city of Cherkasy of the land lease agreement cancelation and the obligation to return the leased land. The claim was entirely dismissed due to the fact that the Prosecutor unduly applied to the Economic Court against the Budharant PCIE on behalf of the state and did not prove the infringement; neither did Cherkasy City Council support the Prosecutor’s demands.
August 17, 2016—the Cherkasy City Council Executive Committee sent a letter No. 9143-01-25 which denied amending the Cherkasy City Council’s decision No. 8-962 of December 28, 2005, with the aim of correcting the made technical error which consisted in the fact that the land leased by the Cherkasy City Council’s decision No. 8-962 of December 28, 2005, to the Budharant Private Construction and Investment Enterprise with an area of 34,607 square meters at the crossroads of Kozatska and Heroes of the Dnieper Streets for 49 years for siting and further exploitation of the hotel complex, was mistakenly entirely referred to the water fund lands (the shoreline belt).
October 10, 2016—the Sosnivskyi District Court adopted the resolution on case No. 712/10864 /16A, in which the court came to the conclusion that the land plot leased by the Cherkasy City Council’s decision No. 8-962 of December 28, 2005, to the Budharant Private Construction and Investment Enterprise with an area of 34,607 square meters at the crossroads of Kozatska and Heroes of the Dnieper Streets for 49 years for siting and further exploitation of a hotel complex, was mistakenly entirely referred to the water fund lands (the shoreline belt), and therefore there was a need to amend the specified decision as due to the indicated error it was impossible to use the main part of the land plot for the purposes for which it had been provided, namely: for siting and further exploitation of a hotel complex.
November 17, 2016—Cherkasy City Council adopted the decision No. 2-1367 on amendments to its decision No. 8-962 of December 28, 2005, which according to the main target purpose referred the land plots with cadastral numbers 7110136400:01:013:0015 and 7110136400:01:013:0023 to residential and public development lands. According to its main target purpose, the land plot with the cadastral number 7110136400:01:013:0022 was referred to the water fund lands.
December 9, 2016—there was amended the land lease agreement of February 7, 2006, under which the land plots with cadastral numbers 7110136400:01:013:0015 and 7110136400:01:013:0023 were referred according to their main target purpose to residential and public construction lands. According to its main target purpose, the land plot with the cadastral number 7110136400:01:013:0022 was referred to the water fund lands.
December 21, 2016—with the State Architectural and Construction Supervision Authority of Cherkasy City Council, there was registered the declaration of the readiness for operation of the object belonging to the category of complexity І–ІІІ under No. СhK143163562194. The object is located on a leased land at the crossroads of 126 Smilianska and 8 30-richchya Peremohy Streets.
April 26, 2017—the Architecture and Town-Planning Council confirmed the Budharant PCIE’s pre-project proposals, namely: by cl. 17 of the Architecture and Town-Planning Council’s decision No. 35 of April 26, 2017, it was decided to: provide for the grading of a number of stories of buildings in a multistoried residential building neighborhoods (Shora PE, Budharant), 12, 9, 7, 5 stories with a descend towards the reservoir). The proposals related to the land plot located at the corner of Kozatska and Heroes of the Dnieper Streets.
May 25, 2017—according to the orders of the Director of the Department of Architecture and Town-Planning nos. 145, 146, the Budharant Private Construction and Investment Enterprise was provided with the town-planning conditions and restrictions on the development of a land plot located at the corner of Kozatska and Heroes of the Dnieper Streets.
May 26, 2017—according to the orders of the Director of the Department of Architecture and Town-Planning nos. 149, 150, 151, the Budharant Private Construction and Investment Enterprise was provided with the town-planning conditions and restrictions on the development of a land plot located at the corner of Kozatska and Heroes of the Dnieper Streets.
May 29, 2017—the service cooperative Cherkasybud 17 housing society and the Artproektbud LLC entered into the general contractor agreement for capital development No. 29/05-01 GP. The development site is a land plot at the corner of Kozatska and Heroes of the Dnieper Streets.
June 1, 2017—the declaration on the beginning of construction works (construction of a residential development with a parking lot at the corner of Kozatska and Heroes of the Dnieper Streets in the city of Cherkasy No. ChK083171520442) was registered with the State Architectural and Construction Supervision Authority of Cherkasy City Council.
June 6, 2017—with the State Architectural and Construction Supervision Authority of Cherkasy City Council, there were registered the declarations on the beginning of construction works (construction of a residential development with a parking lot at the corner of Kozatska and Heroes of the Dnieper Streets in the city of Cherkasy Nos. ChK08317153322, ChK083171573350, ChK083171572550, ChK083171572835).
June 8, 2017—with the State Architectural and Construction Supervision Authority of Cherkasy City Council, there was registered the declaration of the readiness for operation of the object belonging to the category of complexity І–ІІІ under No. СhK143163562194 located along 126 Smilianska and 8 30-richchya Peremohy Streets.
June 19, 2017—the service cooperative Cherkasybud 17 housing society and the Rembud Teremky LLC entered into the contractor agreement No. 17/33 for pile deepening. The work area is a land plot at the corner of Kozatska and Heroes of the Dnieper Streets.
July 12, 2017—there was registered on the City Council website the e-petition No. Che/150-EP against the development of the shoreline belt / the Dnieper river embankment in Cherkasy, initiated by Ruban Serhii Leonidovych.
August 5, 2017—the service cooperative Cherkasybud 17 housing society began to attract assessed contributions of the cooperative associate members.
August 10, 2017—Cherkasy city councilors at the thirty-third regular plenary meeting of the second session of Cherkasy City Council adopted the decision No. 2-2313 On Sending the Inquiry of Deputy O. R. Radutskyi.
August 10, 2017—Cherkasy city councilors at the thirty-third regular plenary meeting of the second session of Cherkasy City Council adopted the decision No. 2-2314 On Consideration of the E-petition of July 12, 2017, No. Che/150-EP, against the Development of the Shoreline Belt / the Dnieper River Embankment in Cherkasy.
August 10, 2017—Cherkasy city councilors at the thirty-third regular plenary meeting of the second session of Cherkasy City Council adopted the decision No. 2-2315 On Overturning the Orders on Provision of Town-Planning Conditions and Restrictions 145, 146 of May 25, 2017, and 149, 150, 151 of May 26, 2017.
August 10, 2017—Cherkasy city councilors adopted the decision No. 2-2322 On Agreement on Free Transfer in Ownership of the Territorial Community of the City of Cherkasy of External Engineering Networks to Residential Houses No. 126 along Smilianska and No. 8 along 30-richchya Peremohy Streets which provided for the free transfer in ownership of the city territorial community of external engineering networks for a total amount of UAH 2,366,499.
August 21, 2017—the Budharant PCIE and the Elektro-Bud LLC entered into the contractor agreement No. 75-BR.

The Council boundary regarding the Budharant PCIE development

The Code of Administrative Legal Proceedings of Ukraine (hereinafter referred to as the CALP of Ukraine) (namely: Part 3 of Article 2) reads that in cases concerning appeals against decisions, actions, or inactivity of the subjects of power, administrative courts shall check whether they have been adopted (committed): on the basis of, within the limits of authority, and in the manner stipulated by the Constitution and laws of Ukraine.

The Cherkasy City Council executive body which issues the town-planning conditions and restrictions on the development of a land plot is the Department of Architecture, Town-Planning, and Inspection.

According to Article 19 of the Constitution of Ukraine, local self-government bodies and their officials are obliged to act only on the basis of, within the limits of authority, and in the manner stipulated by the Constitution and laws of Ukraine.

In the appealed decisions of Cherkasy City Council No. 2-2314 of August 10, 2017, On Consideration of the E-petition No. Che/150-EP of July 12, 2017, against the Development of the Shoreline Belt / the Dnieper River Embankment in Cherkasy and No. 2-2315 On Overturning the Orders on Provision of Town-Planning Conditions and Restrictions 145, 146 of May 25, 2017, and 149, 150, 151 of May 26, 2017, the Respondent refers to Articles 25, 26, 31, 33 of the Law On Local Self-Government, however these norms do not provide for the authority of the local self-government body to overturn town-planning conditions and restrictions.

Instead, Part 8 of Article 29 of the Law of Ukraine On Regulation of Town-Planning Activity stipulates that amendments to town-planning conditions and restrictions may be made by the body that has granted them, upon the developer’s application, to execute the instructions of chief inspectors of construction supervision of the central executive body which implements the public policy on the state architectural and construction control and supervision, or upon court decision.

Overturning of town-planning conditions and restrictions is carried out:

upon the developer’s application;
by chief inspectors of construction supervision in order to realize the state architectural and construction supervision in the case of non-compliance of town-planning conditions and restrictions with town-planning legislation, town-planning documentation on a local level, building codes, standards, and regulations;
upon court decision.

Consequently, legislation provides neither for the authority nor for the order of overturning by the local self-government body’s decision on its own initiative the previously granted town-planning conditions and restrictions for designing the development object. Since Cherkasy City Council is not the appropriate control body and does not have such authority, the appealed decisions of Cherkasy City Council are unlawful and grossly violate the Complainant’s rights and interests, in particular, make it impossible to use the right to develop the territory.

A similar position was outlined in the Decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine No. 7-RP of April 16, 2009 (the case on overturning the acts of local self-government bodies), which stated the following:

• Clause 4: having analyzed the functions and authority of local self-government bodies, regulated by the Constitution of Ukraine and other laws of Ukraine, the Constitutional Court of Ukraine concluded that when local self-government bodies solve the local issues while representing the common interests of territorial communities of villages, towns, and cities, they take both normative and non-normative acts. Normative acts include those establishing, changing, or terminating the rules of law, having a local character, designed for a wide range of individuals and are applied repeatedly, while non-normative acts provide for specific requirements addressed to an individual entity or a legal entity, are applied once and after implementation their validity expires. This conclusion is consistent with the Constitutional Court of Ukraine’s legal positions, set forth in the decisions No. 20-RP/2001 of December 27, 2001, in the case of decrees of the Presidium of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine concerning the Communist Party of Ukraine registered on July 22, 1991 (Paragraph 1 of Clause 6 of the Preamble), No. 2-ZP of June 23, 1997, in the case of acts of organs of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine (Paragraph 4 of Clause 1 of the Preamble).

• Paragraph 4 of Clause 4.1: in accordance with the Law of Ukraine On Town-Planning Principles, the village, township, city councils are authorized to approve local rules of development of parts of the settlements and amend them as requested by the specially authorized bodies of town-planning and architecture (Part 2 of Article 12, Part 5 of Article 17). According to the Law of Ukraine On Planning and Development of Territories, the local council approves the town-planning documentation and after agreement with the specially authorized body on issues of town-planning and architecture, amends it by its own decision (Parts 3 and 4 of Article 10).

• Paragraphs 5 and 6 of Clause 5: the Constitutional Court of Ukraine states that the Constitution of Ukraine enshrines the principle according to which human rights and freedoms and their guarantees determine the content and orientation of the activities of the State which is responsible to the citizen for its activities (Article 3). Local self-government bodies are responsible for their activities to legal entities and individuals (Article 74 of the Law). Thus, local self-government bodies may not overturn their previous decisions and amend them if according to the requirements of these decisions there arose any legal relationships associated with the implementation of certain subjective rights and the legally protected interests, and the subjects of these relationships object to their amending or termination. It is “a guarantee of stability of social relations” between the local self-government bodies and citizens, forming the citizens’ confidence that their existing situation will not be affected by adoption of the later decision that is consistent with the legal position laid down in Paragraph 2 of Clause 5 of the Preamble of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine’s Decision No. 1-ZP of May 13, 1997, in the case concerning incompatibility with the deputy’s mandate.

Non-normative legal acts of the local self-government body are acts of one-time application, exhausting their validity by the fact of their implementation, therefore they cannot be overturned or changed by the local self-government body after their implementation.

Thus, in accepting the appealed decisions, the Respondent violated the aforementioned norms set forth in the decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine.

The following fact is also evidence that the appealed decisions of Cherkasy City Council are taken in violation of the grounds, limits, and authority stipulated by the Constitution and laws of Ukraine.

On July 12, 2017, Ruban Serhii Leonidovych registered on the City Council website the e-petition No. Che/150-EP against the development of the shoreline belt / the Dnieper river embankment in Cherkasy.

On August 10, 2017, Cherkasy city councilors at the thirty-third regular plenary meeting of the second session of Cherkasy City Council voted to support the e-petition.

The requirements for the petition were as follows:

To stop the split-up of OUR land and comply with the UKRAINIAN LAW.
To overturn the Cherkasy City Council’s decision №8-962 of December 28, 2005.
To cancel the land lease agreement of February 7, 2006, between Cherkasy City Council and the BUDHARANT Private Construction and Investment Enterprise.
To overturn the town-planning conditions and restrictions Nos. 145; 146; 149; 150; 151 of May 25, 26, 2017.
To appeal to law enforcement agencies to investigate the violatio of the law of Ukraine and the corruption actions of officials involved in this UNLAWFUL ACT.

Moreover, Article 23-1 of the Law of Ukraine On Citizens’ Appeals provides that support or non-support of an e-petition is publicly announced on the official website by the head of the respective local council regarding the e-petition, addressed to the local self-government body.

The response to the e-petition no later than the next working day after the end of its consideration is published on the official website of the authority to which it was addressed, and will be also sent in writing to the author (initiator) of the e-petition and the corresponding public association, which carried out collecting signatures in support of the respective e-petition. If considered appropriate, the proposals contained in the e-petition may be implemented by the body to which it was addressed by adopting a relevant decision on matters within its competence.

The response to the e-petition must contain the results of consideration of issues raised in it with the appropriate justification.

According to the results of consideration of the petition, the Respondent adopted the appealed decision of Cherkasy City Council No. 2-2314 of August 10, 2017, On Consideration of the E-petition No. Che/150-EP of July 12, 2017, against the Development of the Shoreline Belt / the Dnieper River Embankment in Cherkasy which was published on the official website, as a response to the petition, however the indicated decision contained no justification, except for the links to Articles 26, 31, 33 of the Law of Ukraine On Local Self-Government in Ukraine, which do not provide for the authority to overturn town-planning conditions and restrictions.

The validity of the Council’s decisions regarding the Budharant PCIE

In accordance with Part 3 of Article 2 of the CALP of Ukraine, in cases concerning appeals against decisions, actions, or inactivity of the subjects of power, administrative courts shall check whether they have been adopted (committed): reasonably, that is, taking into account all the circumstances relevant for the decision-making (commission of action).

Adoption of the appealed decisions was made unreasonably, without taking into account all the relevant circumstances. In particular, the Budharant Private Construction and Investment Enterprise, according to the land lease agreement registered with the Cherkasy regional branch of the State Land Cadastre Center state enterprise under No. 040677500080 of February 18, 2006, uses the land plot with the area of 34607 sq.m located at the corner of Kozatska and Heroes of the Dnieper Streets in the city of Cherkasy.

The land plot lessee’s right to farm on the plot on his/her own and develop residential, industrial, and other buildings and structures is secured by Clauses a, g of Part 1 of Article 95 of the Land Code of Ukraine, as well as clause 9.3 of the land lease agreement.

In accordance with paragraph 4 of Article 26 of the Law of Ukraine On Regulation of Town-Planning Documentation, the right to development of the land plot is implemented by its owner or user provided the land is used according to the requirements of town-planning documentation.

According to Clause 2 of Article 29 of the Law of Ukraine On Regulation of Town-Planning Activity, the Budharant Private Construction and Investment Enterprise filed a statement of intention to construct a residential development with a parking lot. The orders of the Director of the Department of Architecture and Town-Planning nos. 145, 146 of May 25, 2017, and nos. 149, 150, 151 of May 26, 2017, the Budharant Private Construction and Investment Enterprise was provided with the town-planning conditions and restrictions on the development of a land plot located at the corner of Kozatska and Heroes of the Dnieper Streets.

Part 5 of Article 29 of the Law of Ukraine On Regulation of Town-Planning Activity (as amended, applicable at the time of the issuance of orders) provides the only basis for the decision to refuse to provide town-planning conditions and restrictions: in case of inconsistency between the intentions to develop the land plot and the requirements of town-planning documentation at the local level.

The intentions to develop the land plot meet the requirements of town-planning documentation on the basis of the following.

In 2014, the Budharant Private Construction and Investment Enterprise intended to develop the land plot: the issue of provision of town-planning conditions and restrictions was the subject of consideration by the Architecture and Town-Planning Council, the authority of which was defined by Article 20 of the Law of Ukraine On Regulation of Town-Planning Activity and the Order of the Ministry of Regional Development, Construction, and Housing and Communal Services of Ukraine No. 108 of July 7, 2011, On Approval of Model Regulations on Architecture and Town Planning Councils.

In accordance with the minutes No. 6 of the Architecture and Town-Planning Council’s meeting of April 15, 2014, the said body resolved:

– to bring planning in line with the main drawing of the General Plan of Cherkasy;

– to provide a multi-storey garage and take into account planning restrictions from it;

– to take into account the location of the public catering company directly at the corner of Kozatska and Heroes of the Dnieper Streets;

– to provide in the project pedestrian passages from Heroes of the Dnieper Street to public institutions;

– to place a children’s preschool institution in the middle of a residential group after removing the housing section;

– residential buildings should not be five storeys high.

Taking into account the proposals presented by the Architecture and Town-Planning Council, the Planning and Architecture Office prepared town-planning conditions and restrictions on the development of a land plot which were later approved by the decision No. 500 of the Executive Committee of Cherkasy City Council of May 14, 2014.

Cherkasy City Council had already tried to overturn the town-planning conditions: thus, on August 19, 2014, the City Council adopted the decision No. 2-56, which overturned the Executive Committee’s decision on provision of town-planning conditions to the enterprise due to (according to the City Council) their incompatibility with the law. That decision became the subject of consideration in case No. 712/17480/14-A, which was in the proceedings of the Sosnivskyi District Court of Cherkasy. The court provided a legal assessment of the City Council’s decision No. 2-56 of August 19, 2014, and, accordingly, investigated the question of legality of the provision of town-planning conditions and restrictions on the development of a land plot approved by the decision No. 500 of the Executive Committee of Cherkasy City Council of May 14, 2014.

By the ruling of the Sosnivskyi District Court of Cherkasy of March 19, 2015, in case No. 712/17480/14-A, an administrative lawsuit of the Budharant Private Construction and Investment Enterprise against Cherkasy City Council, the third person was the Department of Architecture, Town-Planning, and Inspection of Cherkasy City Council, was satisfied, there was overturned the Cherkasy City Council’s decision No. 2-56 of August 19, 2014, on the overturning by the decision No. 500 of the Executive Committee of Cherkasy City Council of May 14, 2014.

Moreover, the Architecture and Town-Planning Council, the meeting of which was held on April 26, 2017, while considering the issue of a detailed plan for the Dnieper River Embankment’s territory in Cherkasy, confirmed its conclusion regarding the pre-project proposals of the Budharant Private Construction and Investment Enterprise, namely: by clause 17 of the Architecture and Town-Planning Council’s decision No. 35 of April 26, 2017, it was decided to: provide for the grading of a number of stories of buildings in a multistoried residential building neighborhoods (Shora PE, Budharant), 12, 9, 7, 5 stories with a descend towards the reservoir).

According to the General Plan of the city of Cherkasy, approved by the Cherkasy City Council’s decision No. 3-505 of December 29, 2011, the land plot belongs to the territory of low-rise residential development and multilevel garages. According to the Zoning Plan of Cherkasy territory, approved by the Cherkasy City Council’s decision No. 2-513 of December 4, 2014, the land plot belongs to the blocked low-rise residential development zone.

Among the permissible uses of the territory (according to the explanatory note to the Zoning Plan of Cherkasy territory, approved by the Cherkasy City Council’s decision No. 2-513 of December 4, 2014), separate apartment buildings are provided (only on condition of availability of town-planning calculations or a detailed plan of the territory).

According to section 1 of General Provisions of the explanatory note to the Zoning Plan of Cherkasy territory, approved by the Cherkasy City Council’s decision No. 2-513 of December 4, 2014, the permissible use of the territory (the land plot)—is the use that does not match the list of preferential and secondary uses for a given territorial zone but may be allowed subject to a special agreement.

In accordance with Section 5.2 entitled Special Zonal Agreements of the explanatory note to the Zoning Plan of Cherkasy territory, approved by the Cherkasy City Council’s decision No. 2-513 of December 4, 2014, there was established the procedure for obtaining the special zonal agreement involving the Architecture and Town-Planning Council and the public.

Given the availability of town-planning calculations and the fact that the issue of the land plot development has been repeatedly addressed by the Architecture and Town-Planning Council, particularly in the case of a comprehensive review, together with the detailed plan of development of the river embankment in Cherkasy and the further conduct of public discussion, the positive decisions of the Architecture and Town-Planning Council were taken into account by the Department as special zonal agreements.

Regarding the issues covered in the inquiry of deputy O. R. Radutskyi, they were already the subject of consideration in case No. 925/2128/14 on the lawsuit of the Prosecutor of the city of Cherkasy on behalf of the state represented by Cherkasy City Council against the Budharant PCIE on the land lease agreement cancelation and the obligation to return the land plot, indicating that for the period from October 1, 2011, until October 31, 2014, the Budharant PCIE had been charged UAH 376,199.17 of land rent. However, in violation of the contractual obligations it undertook, the Budharant PCIE did not pay rent for that period of using the land plot. As a result, it accumulated arrears in the amount of UAH 376,199.17, also pointing out that according to the State Tax Inspectorate in the city of Cherkasy of the Principal Directorate of the Ministry of Revenue in Cherkasy Oblast, it was found that within the declared by the Respondent land plots as on September 23, 2014, there were arrears of rent under the land lease agreements in the amount of UAH 844,833.17 which continued to increase.

In considering the case, the court made the following conclusions: “The resolution of the Supreme Economic Court of Ukraine of August 13, 2015, on case No. 925/1726/14, overturned the decision of the Economic Court of Cherkasy Oblast for the recovery of arrears of UAH 342,213.63 from the Respondent for use of the disputed land plot due to unreasonableness and inadequacy of claims. The case was sent to the Economic Court of Cherkasy Oblast for a new consideration. The Complainant and the Respondent on case No. 925/1726/14 signed a settlement agreement in respect of the amount of arrears and the order and period of repayment of arrears for the use of disputed land plot located along 1/1 Kozatska Street. The subject of the dispute was absent, as well as the will of the Complainant—Cherkasy City Council—to cancel the land lease agreement and to exempt the land plot from the Respondent—the Budharant PCIE. The Prosecutor appealed to the court on the basis of an examination of the completeness of rent payment for the use of land plots. He indicated the Complainant’s land payment arrears in the amount of UAH 844,833.17, but did not prove with primary evidence the existence of such arrears.”

Thus, the covered in the lawsuit demands did not find their confirmation, in addition, the Cherkasy City Council’s representative in the court did not support the Prosecutor’s demands indicating that the City Council and the Budharant PCIE signed a settlement agreement in respect of arrears repayment. At the time of considering the case, Cherkasy City Council had no claims to the Budharant PCIE and was interested in the Budharant PCIE’s using the land plot for housing development and supplying the city budget.

Thus, at the time of considering the case No. 925/2128/14, Cherkasy City Council had no claims to the Budharant PCIE, the court evaluated the Prosecutor’s arguments and as a result, the claim was entirely dismissed.

However, by adopting the appealed decision No. 2-2313 of August 10, 2017, On Sending the Inquiry of Deputy O. R. Radutskyi, Cherkasy City Council contradicts its own statements made in the case No. 925/2128/14 and invalidates the court’s conclusions in this regard.

Proportionality of the Council’s interference with the Budharant PCIE’s
activities

In accordance with Part 3 of Article 2 of the CALP of Ukraine, in cases concerning appeals against decisions, actions, or inactivity of the subjects of power, administrative courts shall check whether they have been adopted (committed): proportionally, including the observance of the necessary balance between any adverse consequences for the individual’s rights, freedoms, and interests and the objectives, this decision (action) aims to achieve.

The specified rule corresponds to the positions of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter referred to as the ECtHR) aimed at the protection of legal entities and individuals from violation of their rights under Article 1 of the First Protocol to the Convention (Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms). However, while adopting the decision, Cherkasy City Council did not observe the necessary balance between any adverse consequences for the individual’s rights, freedoms, and interests and the objectives, that decision aimed to achieve judging from the following.

Thus, let’s consider the ECtHR judgment in the case of Sukhanov and Ilchenko v. Ukraine (applications Nos. 68385/10 and 71378/10, in particular in the context of substantiating the admissibility of the above application: the Court reminds that under certain circumstances, the “legitimate expectation” for acquiring an “asset” may also be protected by Article 1 of the First Protocol. Thus, if the essence of the individual’s claim is related to a property right, the individual who was granted that right may be considered as having a “legitimate expectation” if there is sufficient reason for such a right in national law. These provisions also correspond with the conclusions drawn in the Kopecky v. Slovakia case, application No. 44912/98, clause 52, ECtHR 2004-IX).

Cherkasy City Council has unequivocally violated by its actions Article 1 of the First Protocol to the Convention, on the basis of the following:

– The land lease agreement was entered into by the enterprise and ChCC.

– Taking into account the proposals presented by the Architecture and Town-Planning Council, the Planning and Architecture Office prepared town-planning conditions and restrictions on the development of a land plot which were later approved by the decision No. 500 of the Executive Committee of Cherkasy City Council of May 14, 2014.

– The enterprise began development of the shoreline belt on the leased land plot in accordance with town-planning conditions and restrictions.

– On the leased land plot (at the crossroads of 126 Smilianska and 8 30-richchya Peremohy Streets), they already developed a residential building, which according to the declaration was ready for operation.

The enterprise pays rent, it observes town-planning conditions and restrictions, and besides there have been started construction works at the expense of individuals. The Budharant PCIE complying with the laws of Ukraine had all the grounds for a legitimate expectation of acquiring a private property object in the form of real estate (a residential building with annexes).

By the ECtHR’s decision it was established that violation of the individual’s right provided for by legitimate expectations was protected by Article 1 of the First Protocol to the Convention, and hence legitimate and justified expectations of acquiring property or property rights in the practice of the ECtHR got legal protection as property.

In addition, according to Article 6 of the Commercial Code of Ukraine, one of the general principles of economic management in Ukraine is, in particular, the prohibition of unlawful interference by state authorities and local self-government bodies and their officials with economic relations. Part 4 of Article 23 of the Commercial Code of Ukraine prohibits unlawful interference with and obstruction of economic activities of business entities by local self-government bodies and officials.

As has already been mentioned in the previous assertions, the enterprise performs the object development involving funds of individuals, however, ChCC systematically obstructs and interferes with economic activities of the Budharant PCIE. Thus, let’s consider the following:

1) On August 19, 2014, there was adopted the City Council’s decision No. 2-56, which overturned the Executive Committee’s decision on the provision of town-planning conditions to the enterprise due to (according to the City Council) their incompatibility with the law. That decision became the subject of consideration in case No. 712/17480/14-A, which was in the proceedings of the Sosnivskyi District Court of the city of Cherkasy. The court provided a legal assessment of the City Council’s decision No. 2-56 of August 19, 2014, and, accordingly, investigated the question of legality of the provision of town-planning conditions and restrictions on the development of a land plot approved by the decision No. 500 of the Executive Committee of Cherkasy City Council of May 14, 2014. By the ruling of the Sosnivskyi District Court of Cherkasy of March 19, 2015, in case No. 712/17480/14-A, an administrative lawsuit of the Budharant Private Construction and Investment Enterprise against Cherkasy City Council, the third person was the Department of Architecture, Town-Planning, and Inspection of Cherkasy City Council, was satisfied, there was overturned the Cherkasy City Council’s decision No. 2-56 of August 19, 2014, on the overturning by the decision No. 500 of the Executive Committee of Cherkasy City Council of May 14, 2014.

2) On October 3, 2014, there was accepted for hearing the lawsuit of Cherkasy City Council against the Budharant Private Construction and Investment Enterprise for the recovery of arrears under the land lease agreement of February 18, 2006 (case No. 925/1726/14). On August 13, 2015, there was adopted the Supreme Economic Court of Ukraine’s resolution on case No. 925/1726/14, containing a reference to the illegality of debt calculations. ChCC prematurely referred part of the disputed land to commercial lands and technical infrastructure. However, as stated in the lease agreement terms, for the period of development which, as established by the courts, is not yet completed, the land plot is referred to recreational lands and other open lands (lands occupied by the current development) and only after its completion, to commercial lands and technical infrastructure.

3) The ChCC’s decision No. 8-962 of December 28, 2005, On the Provision to the Budharant Private Construction and Investment Enterprise a Land Plot for Lease at the Crossroads of Kozatska and Heroes of the Dnieper Streets referred all land plots according to their main target purpose to the water fund lands. On September 27, 2016, the Sosnivskyi District Court of Cherkasy issued a decision on the opening of proceedings in an administrative lawsuit of the Budharant PCIE against Cherkasy City Council on the subject of power’s obligation to implement activities (case No. 712/10864 /16A). On October 10, 2016, the Sosnivskyi District Court adopted the resolution on case No. 712/10864 /16A in which the court came to the conclusion that the land plot leased by the Cherkasy City Council’s decision No. 8-962 of December 28, 2005, to the Budharant Private Construction and Investment Enterprise with an area of 34,607 square meters at the crossroads of Kozatska and Heroes of the Dnieper Streets for 49 years for siting and further exploitation of a hotel complex was mistakenly entirely referred to the water fund lands (the shoreline belt) and therefore, there was a need to amend the specified decision as due to the indicated error it was impossible to use the main part of the land plot for the purposes for which it had been provided, namely: for siting and further exploitation of a hotel complex.

4) the decisions adopted on August 10, 2017, at the thirty-third regular plenary meeting of the second session of Cherkasy City Council that directly violate Article 1 of the First Protocol to the Convention (the evidence of a violation is indicated above).

Thus, there is definitely unlawful interference of the local self-government body with the enterprise’s economic activities. Besides, this unlawful interference, while being systematic is still inconsistent, thus making it impossible to comprehend the ChCC’s motives and its end objective concerning depriving the enterprise of the right to legitimate expectations to acquire the property.

In addition, the judicial practice of the ECtHR, in particular, the case of Ukraine-Tyumen v. Ukraine (Application No. 22603/02), reveals the notion of proportionality of interference with the right to peaceful possession of property. The court reminds that interference with the right to peaceful possession of property must be performed observing a “fair balance” between the requirements of the general interest of society and the requirements of protection of the individual’s fundamental rights (see, among others, the decision in the case of Sporrong and Lonnroth v. Sweden of September 23, 1982, Series A no.52, p.26, paragraph 69). The requirement to achieve such balance is reflected in general in the construction of Article 1 of the First Protocol (994_535), including the second sentence, which should be understood in the light of the general principle set forth in the first sentence. In particular, there must be a reasonable proportionate correlation between the means employed and the objective one tries to achieve by any measure aimed at depriving the person of his/her property (see the decision in the case of Pressos Compania Naviera, S.A. and Others v. Belgium) of November 20, 1995, Series A no. 332, p. 23, paragraph 38).

Therefore, if the ChCC’s objective is to get funds from using the land plot leased by the enterprise (the land on which the enterprise legitimately expects to create the property object), the land lease agreement cancelation clearly will not contribute to supplying the city budget, as rent will no longer be paid. As is known, the Budharant PCIE pays rent, makes payments in accordance with the settlement agreement signed with ChCC, as well as repays arrears established by the courts. That is, an economic factor cannot be the objective according to which ChCC seeks to unilaterally cancel lease agreements.

If ChCC wants the leased by the enterprise land plots to be effectively used, the extremity of land lease agreement cancelation (as stated in the inquiry of deputy O. R. Radutskyi which contains the requirement to apply to the court for canceling the land lease agreement with the enterprise due to the motives of a systematic failure to fulfill the agreement terms) will on the contrary result in freezing the development and will indefinitely halt implementation of town-planning documentation.

The ECtHR position on this issue is as follows.

The court emphasizes the particular importance of the “proper governance” principle. It provides that in the case when it comes to questions of general interest, particularly if the case affects such fundamental human rights as property rights, the authorities must act in a timely, proper, and maximally consistent manner (see the decisions in the cases of Beyeler v. Italy [GC]), application No. 33202/96, cl. 120, ECHR 2000-I, Oneryildiz v. Turkey [GC], application No. 48939/99, cl. 128, ECHR 2004-XII, Megadat.com S.r.l. v. Moldova, no. 21151/04, cl. 72, of April 8, 2008, and Moskal v. Poland, application No. 10373/05, cl. 51, of September 15, 2009). In particular, the authorities are entrusted with the obligation to establish internal procedures that will enhance the transparency and clarity of their actions, minimize the risk of errors (see, for example, the decisions in the cases of Lelas v. Croatia, application No. 55555/08, cl. 74, of May 20, 2010, and Toscuta and Others v. Romania, application No. 36900/03, cl. 37, of November 25, 2008) and contribute to legal certainty in civil matters, affecting property interests (see the above decisions in the cases of Oneryildiz v. Turkey, cl. 128, and Beyeler v. Italy, cl. 119).

Practice of relations between the Budharant PCIE and ChCC shows that there is neither consistency of actions nor internal procedures that guarantee the transparency and clarity of the local self-government body’s actions.

Moreover, there is no legal certainty in civil matters.

In view of the adoption by ChCC of the appealed decisions, the question arises as to whether it (they) has (have) the right:

A) The Budharant PCIE: to continue the economic activities on the leased land plot (or the adoption of the petition has already canceled that agreement).

B) The Budharant PCIE: to carry out the development according to existing town-planning conditions and restrictions (or they have been overturned).

C) Individuals, at whose expense the development is carried out: in the future, to obtain the results of their activities (to register property rights to real estate).

As ChCC hastily adopted without clearly defined authority three illegal unjustified decisions without involving profile specialists and the business entity the specified decisions directly relate to, it has committed disproportionate interference with the Budharant PCIE’s economic activities, creating the illusion of protecting individual citizens from the shoreline belt development, not taking into consideration violation of real rights of individuals at whose expense the development was carried out.

In addition, of particular note is the fact that on August 10, 2017, Cherkasy city councilors adopted the decision No. 2-2322 On Agreement on Free Transfer in Ownership of the Territorial Community of the City of Cherkasy of External Engineering Networks to Residential Houses No. 126 along Smilianska and No. 8 along 30-richchya Peremohy Streets which provided for the free transfer in ownership of the city territorial community of external engineering networks for a total amount of UAH 2,366,499 (two million three hundred and sixty-six thousand, four hundred and ninety-nine). It should be noted that those engineering networks have been laid by the Budharant PCIE for the completion of the final stages of development. As stated above, the enterprise has already registered with the State Architectural and Construction Supervision Authority of Cherkasy City Council the declaration of the readiness for operation of the objects belonging to the category of complexity І–ІІІ under Nos. СhK143163562194 and ChK 143171590130. The objects are located on the leased land plot at the crossroads of 126 Smilianska and 8 30-richchya Peremohy Streets.

The appealed decision No. 2-2313 of August 10, 2017, On Sending the Inquiry of Deputy O. R. Radutskyi demanded to cancel the agreement with the Budharant PCIE on lease of the land plot at the crossroads of 126 Smilianska and 30-richchya Peremohy Streets. However, during the adoption, they did not take into account the fact that the houses (development of which was financed at the expense of individuals’ assessed contributions) were ready for operation.

Also, Cherkasy City Council while adopting the decision No. 2-2322 On Agreement on Free Transfer in Ownership of the Territorial Community of the City of Cherkasy of External Engineering Networks to Residential Houses No. 126 along Smilianska and No. 8 along 30-richchya Peremohy Streets failed to consider the already adopted decision on the land lease agreement cancellation.

Also, it should be noted that in the decision in the case of Svyato-Mykhaylivska Parafiya v. Ukraine of June 14, 2007, the European Court of Human Rights stated that “In national law, there should be a legal remedy from arbitrary interference by public authorities with the rights guaranteed by the Convention. Determining the discretionary powers conferred upon public authorities in the field of fundamental rights in a way that in effect makes these powers unlimited would be contrary to the rule of law principle. In accordance, the law must clearly define the powers of the competent authorities and clearly define the way in which they are implemented, taking into account the legitimate objective of the remedy being considered in order to guarantee the individual adequate protection against arbitrary interference.”

Ensuring the Budharant PCIE’s right to participate in the consideration
of issues regarding it

According to Part 3 of Article 2 of the CALP of Ukraine, in cases concerning appeals against decisions, actions, or inactivity of the subjects of power, administrative courts shall check whether they have been adopted (committed): taking into account the individual’s right to participate in the decision-making process. Taking the appealed decisions, the Respondent did not ensure the Budharant PCIE’s participation in the decision-making process that led to the gross violation of the Complainant’s right, depriving it of the opportunity to express its position and provide relevant approval documents substantiating the legitimacy of its actions.

Thus, there were adopted actually three consecutive decisions aimed at interfering with the Complainant’s economic activities, without its participation, without proper justification, without the Respondent’s proper authority to make such decisions, that indicated the Respondent’s obvious proprietary interest and the political put-up job.

And the last thing

The appealed decisions violate the subjective right and the legally protected Complainant’s interest regarding the development of the land plot transferred to the lessee by the same local self-government body particularly for the needs of development.

It should be noted that at the time of adopting the appealed decisions, the Complainant had already registered the declaration on the beginning of construction works and actually started those works for the Complainant was acting within the current legislation. Instead, by the appealed decisions, the Respondent has so far created legal uncertainty for the Complainant and the impossibility of lawful use of the mentioned above land plot for its intended purpose.

Given the above, the appealed decisions are contrary to the current legislation as are adopted without the Respondent’s proper authority, violate the norms contained in the decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, are unmotivated and deprived of proper legal grounds, and lead to the violation of the rights of the land plot lessee.

In accordance with Part 3 of Article 2 of the CALP of Ukraine, in cases concerning appeals against decisions, actions, or inactivity of the subjects of power, administrative courts shall check whether they have been adopted (committed): proportionally, including the observance of the necessary balance between any adverse consequences for the individual’s rights, freedoms, and interests and the objectives, this decision (action) aims to achieve.

Cherkasy City Council has unequivocally violated by its actions Article 1 of the First Protocol to the Convention, on the basis of the following:

– The land lease agreement was entered into by the enterprise and ChCC.

– The enterprise began development of the shoreline belt on the leased land plot in accordance with town-planning conditions and restrictions.

The ECtHR position on this issue is as follows.

Moreover, there is no legal certainty in civil matters.

In view of the adoption by ChCC of the appealed decisions, the question arises as to whether it (they) has (have) the right:

A) The Budharant PCIE: to continue the economic activities on the leased land plot (or the adoption of the petition has already canceled that agreement).

B) The Budharant PCIE: to carry out the development according to existing town-planning conditions and restrictions (or they have been overturned).

C) Individuals, at whose expense the development is carried out: in the future, to obtain the results of their activities (to register property rights to real estate).

Ensuring the Budharant PCIE’s right to participate in the consideration

of issues regarding it

And the last thing

ALL NEWS

The post Budharant Private Construction and Investment Enterprise (PCIE): Development on the Embankment appeared first on Rezultat Law firm.

Compensation for Losses to Land Owners and Land Users

Rezultat — Sun, 27 Aug 2017 14:20:55 +0000

Compensation for losses to land owners and land users is a rather topical issue from a legal point of view, as there is no holistic mechanism for its regulation. Regardless of whether you are the land owner that has suffered losses or you are a party to compensate for those losses, you will not find a single legal position on this issue not only in decisions of local courts, but also in decisions of higher instances. This is due to the fact that today, the Ukrainian lawmakers have adopted the main legislative acts that regulate only the general provisions for such compensation. The legal relations regarding the unlawful use of the land plot are not detailed at the legislative level. In our opinion, this leads to partial insecurity of the rights both of the party that has suffered losses and the party, whom they are trying to oblige to compensate for these losses.

The ownership right and right of permanent use of a land plot arise after the owner or user receives the document certifying the ownership right or the right of permanent use of a land plot, and its state registration. The right to lease a land plot arises after entering into the lease agreement and its state registration.

Using a land plot before establishing its physical layout, obtaining a document certifying the right to it, and its state registration is prohibited.

The Land Code of Ukraine provides that land owners and land users are compensated for losses resulting from, inter alia, temporary occupation of forest lands and non-receipt of income during temporary non-use of a land plot. Loss compensation to land owners and land users is paid by legal entities that use land plots, as well as legal entities the activities of which restrict the rights of owners and land users.

How to determine the amount of compensation for losses to land owners and land users?

The loss amount is calculated according to Methodology of Determining the Amount of Losses Caused as a Result of Unauthorized Occupation of Land Plots, Use of Land Plots Not for Intended Purpose, Removal of Soil (Fertile Soil Layer) Without a Special Permit, approved by the Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine No. 963 of July 25, 2007, and in accordance with the provisions of the Procedure for the Loss Determination and Compensation to Land Owners and Land Users, approved by the Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine No. 284 of April 19, 1993.

To choose correctly a regulatory act, according to which to determine the loss amount, is an important moment for the legal relations of both parties.

Loss compensation. Methodology vs Procedure

The Methodology should be used in the following cases: causing damage to the state, territorial communities, legal entities, and individuals in all categories of land as a result of unauthorized occupation of land plots, the use of land plots not for the intended purpose, removal of soil (fertile soil layer) without a special permit.

The Procedure applies to determine the amount of losses caused by withdrawal (buyout) and temporary occupation of land plots, establishment of restrictions on their use, deterioration of the quality of soil and other useful properties of land plots or rendering them unusable, and non-receipt of income in connection with temporary non-use of land plots.

The Managing Partner of the Rezultat law firm Maxim Polishkevych observes, “In practice, there arise controversial issues: the definition of losses for almost identical offenses occurs in accordance with various regulatory acts. Different application of the rules of law by cassation courts leads to confusion in the need to use the Methodology and Procedure.”

In particular, rather indicative is the resolution of the Supreme Economic Court of Ukraine No. 27/29-09 of November 10, 2009, which clearly delineates the scope of application of the Methodology and Procedure. The Commission determined the total loss amount on the basis that the respondent was the actual land plot user and exploited it without the relevant legal documents. The respondent, on the basis of the sales and purchase agreement, used non-residential buildings but without legal documents for the land plot that belonged to the state forest fund lands. When drawing up the act, the Commission was guided by Articles 116, 125, 156, 157, 206 of the Land Code of Ukraine and by the Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine No. 284 of April 19, 1993, On the Procedure for the Loss Determination and Compensation to Land Owners and Land Users.

In accordance with Article 126 of the Land Code of Ukraine, the ownership right and the right of permanent use of a land plot are certified by state acts. The right to lease land is executed as an agreement, which is registered in accordance with the law.

According to Part 1 of Article 1 of the Law of Ukraine On State Control over the Use and Protection of Lands No. 963-IV of June 19, 2003, any actions that indicate the actual use of the land plot in the absence of a corresponding decision of the executive body or local self-government body on its transfer to the possession or provision for use (lease) or, in the absence of the closed deal regarding this land plot, are the unauthorized occupation of the land plot. According to Article 156 of the Land Code of Ukraine, land owners and land users are compensated for losses resulting from, inter alia, non-receipt of income during temporary non-use of a land plot.

According to Article 157 of the Land Code of Ukraine, loss compensation to land owners and land users is paid by legal entities that use land plots, as well as legal entities the activities of which restrict the rights of owners and land users.

Furthermore, the amount of losses caused as a result of unauthorized occupation of land plots, use of land plots not for intended purpose, removal of soil (fertile soil layer) without a special permit, is calculated according to a special methodology approved by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine On Approval of Methodology of Determining the Amount of Losses Caused as a Result of Unauthorized Occupation of Land Plots, Use of Land Plots Not for Intended Purpose, Removal of Soil (Fertile Soil Layer) Without a Special Permit No. 963 of July 25, 2007. The court decided to dismiss the prosecutor’s claim and to leave the appellate instance’s decision unchanged.

At the same time, the study of judicial practice provides grounds for arguing that the Methodology’s use is often simply ignored. In the identical situations (the person purchased real estate but did not complete the registration of the land plot used), cassation courts take into account calculations made on the basis of the Procedure.

The decision of the Supreme Court of Ukraine No. 703/5377/214-TS of September 14, 2016, is rather interesting.

The complainant appealed to the Supreme Court of Ukraine on the grounds of the unequal use by cassation courts of the same norms of substantive law. The appellate court dismissed the claim for compensation for losses caused by the use of land without legal documents, and the ruling of the High Specialized Court of Ukraine for Civil and Criminal Cases did not overturn the decision on the appeal. The Supreme Court established that the courts of the previous instances proceeded from the fact that among the grounds for the occurrence of civil liability in the form of compensation for losses to land owners and land users, set forth in Article 156 of the Land Code of Ukraine, there was no such ground as the unexecuted legal document (a lease agreement) in accordance with the procedure and deadlines determined by the local self-government body, due to which the complainant’s claim to impose on the respondent an obligation to compensate the local self-government body for damage caused as a result of using land without legal documents was unjustified.

Furthermore, pursuant to Article 623 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, in determining the loss of revenue (lost profit), the measures taken by the creditor in relation to its receipt are taken into account. Neither did the complainant provide any objective evidence that he was taking measures to induce the respondent to enter into a lease agreement, nor did the complainant appeal to the court with the relevant claim.

Instead, the SCU came to the conclusion that the decisions of the appellate and cassation courts should be overturned on the basis of the following. The complainant was informed about the necessity to execute a land lease agreement in accordance with the legislation. The calculation of losses was carried out by the Commission which drew up a record later approved by the district state administration’s order. Also, a systematic analysis of the rules of substantive law governing the legal relations concerning loss compensation to land owners and land users, makes it possible to conclude that in the case of non-signature of a land lease agreement, superficies, or other transactions as legal grounds for using the land plot due to the user’s fault there arise legal consequences, stipulated by Article 157 of the Land Code of Ukraine and the Procedure.

The Executive Committee’s decision to approve the commission’s act on the loss determination and compensation to land owners and land users does not infringe the individual’s rights and interests.

The panel of judges of the Judicial Chamber for Administrative Cases of the Supreme Court of Ukraine in case No. 500/2776/14-A, having examined in the written proceedings the action brought by the individual entrepreneur against the Executive Committee of Izmail City Council, the Executive Committee represented by the Commission for the loss determination and compensation to land owners and land users seeking declaration of the actions unlawful and invalidity of the decisions and their annulment, reached the following conclusions:

– The powers assigned to the Executive Committee include determination, in the prescribed manner, of the amount of losses incurred by the local self-government body.

– The Executive Committees’ powers are limited only to the calculation of the amount of losses in the prescribed manner. As for the compensation for the detected losses, they cannot be compulsorily compensated for on the basis of the city council’s decision. Such losses are compensated for on a voluntary basis or by way of appeal to a court with a corresponding claim.

– The Executive Committee’s decision on the approval of the Act of the Commission for the loss determination and compensation to land owners and land users does not infringe the complainant’s rights, obligations, or interests, and therefore, in the opinion of the panel of judges of the Judicial Chamber for Administrative Cases of the Supreme Court of Ukraine, it is necessary to dismiss the claim, since it is unjustified.

Loss compensation. The Civil Code of Ukraine (CCU) / Commercial Code of Ukraine (CCU) vs the Land Code of Ukraine (LCU)

Another interesting decision, but now of the Judicial Chamber for Commercial Cases of the Supreme Court of Ukraine is the resolution of June 14, 2017, in case No. 923/2075/15.

According to the conclusion of the first-instance court, the complainant calculated the losses on the basis of the actual data which he substantiated by the accounting data and reporting information, that in accordance with the requirements of Article 22 of the CC, was missed profit. The complainant referred neither to the Procedure nor to the Methodology, neither did he carry out the loss calculation on their basis.

The appellate court, with the conclusions of which the cassation court agreed as well, noted that the calculation of the amount of losses should be made solely on the basis of the Methodology. The complainant didn’t adhere to the specified norms, the materials of the case didn’t contain the correct calculation of the amount of losses incurred, so the respondent’s actions lacked elements of the civil offense, which, in turn, made it impossible to impose on the respondent an obligation to compensate for losses. However, there is no unity of judicial practice in the application of norms. In particular, this is evidenced by the decisions:

– In case No. 12/5026/339/2012, in which the cassation court came to the conclusion that the basis for the satisfaction of a claim was the existence of a causal connection between such behavior of the respondent and the losses suffered by the complainant in the form of the lost revenue.

– In case No. 922/2838/13 the court reached a conclusion on the proof and validity of claims for recovery of the amount of the lost revenue in connection with the unauthorized occupation by the respondent of the land plots received by the complainant for lease.

In order to ensure the unity of judicial practice, the Supreme Court resolved the following. According to Articles 15 and 16 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, one of the remedies is loss compensation and other ways of property damage compensation.

According to Article 22 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, a person who has suffered losses as a result of infringing his/her civil right has the right to compensation. Losses, in particular, are revenues that a person could actually receive under normal circumstances, if his/her right were not infringed (missed profit).

The said norm corresponds to the provisions of Articles 224 and 225 of the Commercial Code, according to which a participant in commercial relations, who has infringed a commercial obligation or established requirements for the implementation of commercial activities, shall compensate for the losses caused to an entity whose rights or legitimate interests are infringed.

The Court’s analysis of the statutory regulations gives grounds for the conclusion that the loss compensation (missed profit) is a type of civil liability, the application of which requires the presence of a set of all elements of a civil offense which are: unlawful conduct, a negative result of this conduct (losses), causality between the unlawful conduct and the losses, the fault of the offender.

The appellate court erroneously confined itself to citing the fact that the complainant failed to adhere to the provisions of the Methodology as the exclusive basis for the calculation of the amount of losses, that was, according to that court’s conclusion, a consequence of the absence of a set of elements of a civil offense in the respondent’s actions and the impossibility of imposing on the latter the duty to compensate for losses suffered by the complainant.

Indeed, in accordance with the provisions of Part three of Article 157 of the Land Code, the procedure for loss determination and compensation to land owners and land users shall be established by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine. However, the rules of substantive law governing the controversial legal relations do not require the complainant to confirm his/her claims exclusively by calculations made in accordance with the Methodology (part two of the Code of Commercial Procedure of Ukraine).

ALL NEWS

The post Compensation for Losses to Land Owners and Land Users appeared first on Rezultat Law firm.

Obtaining a Postal Address Outside the Settlement

Rezultat — Thu, 17 Aug 2017 10:58:34 +0000

Obtaining a postal address is an issue that today, unfortunately, is not regulated at the legislative level. This situation causes problems both for public authorities and for those who seek to assign a postal address to their own real property item.

An example of such state of affairs is the problem of the ECO-CHE limited liability company which has recently gained publicity. Thus, the company has tried for four months to assign a postal address to the land plot on which the construction of a garbage processing plant was planned. The land plot is located within the administrative boundaries of Chervonoslobidska Village Council, but beyond the boundaries of the settlement, which has become the cause of misunderstandings.

Obtaining a Postal Address. Normative base

At the legislative level, the procedures for assigning a postal address on land plots located outside the settlement are not clearly defined. However, according to the Decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR On Procedure for Determining the Issues of Administrative and Territorial Structure of the USSR of March 12, 1981, which is still valid today, “Naming and renaming avenues, streets, alleys, squares, public gardens, parks, bridges, and other structures that are on the territory subject to city, township, village councils, and assigning to them names of the state and public figures are held by the executive committees of the respective councils of people’s deputies.”

Also, the village council’s powers, in accordance with subclause 10 of clause B of Article 30 of the Law of Ukraine On Local Self-Government, include the accounting in accordance with the law of the real property items, regardless of the forms of ownership.

According to Article 37 of this Law, the competence of executive bodies of village, township, and city councils includes the following (self-governing) authorities: preparation and application to the Council of the proposals on administrative and territorial structure in the manner and within the authorities determined by the law.”

Obtaining a Postal Address. Judicial practice

Investigations of judicial practice on this issue have produced quite clear results. Judicial decisions on issues of obtaining a postal address within the administrative boundaries of the village council (outside of settlements) is the competence of local councils.

In particular, a prime example is the case considered by Sumy District Court of Sumy Oblast chaired by judge I. V. Dashutin No. 587/2240/13-A: the complainant applied to court with a lawsuit in which requested to recognize illegal the actions of Kosivshchynska Village Council, concerning a refusal to assign a postal address to the summer house, which was located on the territory of Kosivshchynska Village Council of Sumy district of Sumy Oblast, and to oblige Kosivshchynska Village Council to assign a postal address to the summer house, located on the territory of Kosivshchynska Village Council of Sumy district of Sumy Oblast.

The Court’s ruling recognized the actions of Kosivshchynska Village Council of Sumy district of Sumy Oblast concerning a refusal to assign a postal address to the summer house, which was located on the territory of Kosivshchynska Village Council of Sumy district of Sumy Oblast, illegal. Also, it obliged Kosivshchynska Village Council of Sumy district of Sumy Oblast to assign a postal address to the summer house, which was located on the territory of Kosivshchynska Village Council of Sumy district of Sumy Oblast.

The ruling was challenged at the Kharkiv Administrative Court of Appeal which overturned it by its decision. The panel of judges disagreed with the first-instance court’s conclusions, based on the fact that clause 3.1 of the Procedure for Assigning and Changing the Postal Address of the Real Property Item Located on the Village Council Territory, approved by the decision of the 26th session of the 5th sitting of Kosivshchynska Village Council of Sumy district of Sumy Oblast decided that assigning and changing postal addresses of a real property item is carried out by relevant decisions taken by the village council’s executive committee.

In turn, clause 2.1 of the Procedure stipulates that for assigning postal addresses to real property items or changing them, business entities and individuals submit an application to the executive committee of Kosivshchynska Village Council. Thus, it’s the competence not of the village council, but of its executive committee.

The Court of Appeal’s decision was challenged by submitting a cassation appeal directly to the High Administrative Court of Ukraine. The HACU’s Resolution No. k/800/2695/14 of August 6, 2015, adopted the new resolution which granted the primary complainant’s claim in part: it recognized as illegal the respondent’s refusal to consider the complainant’s claim to assign a postal address to the summer house and obliged Kosivshchynska Village Council of Sumy district of Sumy Oblast to consider the complainant’s claim in the procedure established by the law.

Obtaining a Postal Address. Common practice

In accordance with established practice, and given that, in accordance with delegated authority established by the Law of Ukraine On Local Self-Government in Ukraine, accounting of real property items, irrespective of the form of ownership, and organization of work related to the creation and running of settlement town-planning cadastre belong to the competence of local councils in the face of their executive bodies.

Monitoring the activities of numerous local councils in Cherkasy Oblast showed that the assignment of a postal address is carried out both by decisions of local councils and by corresponding administrative acts of executive bodies of such councils. Significantly less common is the practice of assigning a postal address by the authorities of town-planning and architecture of the relevant local state administrations.

Obtaining a Postal Address. The lawyer’s commentary

Let’s return to the realities of Cherkasy district. The study of the rules of law and of judicial practice provides an opportunity to assert that Chervonoslobidska Village Council, namely its executive body, has the authority for assigning the address to the land plot located in the Village Council’s administrative boundaries outside the settlement.

The Managing Partner of the Rezultat law firm Maxim Polishkevych says, “It is obvious that the assignment of address to the garbage processing plant, the ECO-CHE seeks to build, is the competence of Chervonoslobidska Village Council. Despite the fact that there is no direct provision which would mean that it is the competence of the Village Council, the analysis of different norms of current legislation and judicial practice proves the opposite. Moreover, it would be illogical to assume that the address outside the boundaries and within the boundaries of a settlement is assigned by two different bodies. It is impossible, since the address will still have the name of Chervona Sloboda village, street (some of Chervona Sloboda streets), and number by order. Consequently, two different bodies of public authority cannot assign an address within the administrative boundaries of one settlement.”

Obtaining a postal address in the city of Cherkasy

To obtain an address, assign the numbering to real property items or change it, citizens and legal entities in Cherkasy should contact the Center for the Provision of Administrative Services (170 Blahovisna Street) with a list of necessary documents. The result of rendering services for the provision of addresses, assignment the numbering to real property items or its change is the order of the Department of Architecture, Town-Planning, and Inspection of Cherkasy City Council.

A complaint against officials’ actions or inaction is submitted to the director of the Department of Architecture, Town-Planning, and Inspection, or the Deputy Mayor on the activities of the Council’s executive bodies, or the Mayor. Challenging actions or inaction, decisions of the administrative body and the body that makes the decision to render the service, is carried out in court.

ALL NEWS

The post Obtaining a Postal Address Outside the Settlement appeared first on Rezultat Law firm.

Eight Years of Rezultat

Rezultat — Mon, 29 May 2017 11:28:10 +0000

The Rezultat law firm has celebrated its eighth birthday! And let the skeptics say that it is not such a milestone anniversary, but the Greeks considered that figure sacred, as it symbolized the infinity of creative power, thought, and idea. For partners and lawyers of our team, it is only an occasion to draw a small line.

During those eight years, we have allocated to ownership and usage of our clients almost 16 thousand hectares of land, won more than 200 lawsuits, put into operation more than 27 thousand square meters of residential and commercial real property, worked out almost 1.5 thousand hours pro bono in the interests of combatants, low income people, and non-profit non-governmental organizations.

Now, the Rezultat law firm employs experts in the field of agricultural and building law, land relations and real property, corporate law and taxes, foreign economic activity and intellectual property law. The firm has proved itself as a reliable partner due to the observance of the principles of independence, transparency, confidentiality, individuality, expertise, and effectiveness in its activities.

We build our activities taking advantage of the experience of the best foreign practices, and despite the skepticism of some of our colleagues and competitors regarding building a Western-style law firm within the context of an extremely high level of corruption, we have succeeded in ensuring a high-quality representation of our clients’ interests in relations with contractors, public authorities, and in litigation. Due to this, we have gained enough client confidence to implement the unpopular in Ukraine model of hourly wage.

Among our clients are leaders in agribusiness, construction business, companies specializing in international trade and IT companies. Thank you, our friends, for supporting us and growing with us. We, in turn, promise to further enhance our professionalism and quality of services.

ALL NEWS

The post Eight Years of Rezultat appeared first on Rezultat Law firm.

Housing Construction: News and Legislation Change

Rezultat — Tue, 16 May 2017 11:24:53 +0000

Housing construction: legal support

Housing construction is one of the important areas of work of the Rezultat law firm’s clients. Supporting such activities includes: obtaining permits, legal support of construction and commissioning of objects. One of the successfully implemented projects in this direction is the commissioned by our client at the end of last year multi-apartment residential building, located at the crossroads of 126 Smilianska and 8 30-richchya Peremohy Streets, Peremoha microdistrict (Cherkasy city).

Housing construction always requires maximum attention and concentration on achieving the set goal. This is absolutely consistent with one of the principles of the Rezultat law firm’s activities, and therefore, before starting work, we agree with the client the variants of possible results and do not take on cases we won’t be able to fully realize.

Declaration of the object commissioning

Housing construction: news and legislation changes

Housing construction and its support require constant monitoring of actual changes in the current legislation in this area. Thus, among the legislative novelties is the Law of Ukraine On Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of Ukraine Concerning Improvement of Construction Practices (hereinafter—the Law) which was approved by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine on April 13, 2017. The Law provides for improvement of conditions for conducting construction activities and simplifies procedure for obtaining permits by developers.

In particular, state statistical reports on acceptance into operation of completed objects are from now on submitted by bodies of state architectural and building control in the form and within the terms provided by the reporting and statistical documentation approved by the central executive body, which implements the state policy in the field of statistics.

Also, they have changed the conditions of certification of citizens that perform or provide services in the field of architectural work creation: “Professional certification is permitted to citizens who received higher education in the field of professional certification in accordance with the qualification requirements and have relevant work experience not less than three years.”

One of the positive changes for the developers has become the fact that the entities of construction activities from now on do not need to obtain the initial data and technical specifications from the State Emergency Service.

In addition, according to the Law, the examination of the strength, reliability, and durability of construction objects is mandatory only for construction objects that are in the 3rd category of complexity and are being constructed in areas with complex geo-engineering and technogenic conditions.

At present, the Law is signed by the President of Ukraine and will come into force on the day following the day of its publication.

ALL NEWS

The post Housing Construction: News and Legislation Change appeared first on Rezultat Law firm.

Maxim Polishkevych: Employment in Europe

Rezultat — Sat, 19 Sep 2015 12:24:56 +0000

Maxim Polishkevych comments on the situation on the migration services market

As part of our practice of promoting the European Union market entry, we face a variety of challenges. In particular, we provide consultations concerning business trips and pay for specialists during their staying abroad. Recently, however, the Hromadske. TV journalists have asked us to comment on a situation in which ordinary Ukrainians were deceived by organizations allegedly engaged in citizens’ employment abroad.

ALL NEWS

The post Maxim Polishkevych: Employment in Europe appeared first on Rezultat Law firm.

legal services Archives | Rezultat Law firm

How to Register a Company in Georgia

Company registration in Georgia

Register an LLC in Georgia

The price of company registration in Georgia

Taxes for Georgia companies

The virtual zone for IT companies.

Free industrial zones for companies in Georgia

Cherkasy Rezultat Law Firm Marks the 9th Anniversary of its Activities

The law firm partners also share their experience of cooperation

NEW-BUILD HOUSING: HOW NOT TO HIT TROUBLE

CHECK WHO THE LAND OWNER IS

PAY ATTENTION TO TOWN-PLANNING CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS

PAY ATTENTION TO THE LEASE EXPIRY DATE

CONSIDER WHETHER THE DEVELOPER HAS PROVIDED FOR PENALTIES FOR HIMSELF/HERSELF IF HE/SHE FAILS TO MEET THE BUILDING COMPLETION DEADLINE

PROPOSE THE DEVELOPER YOUR CONDITIONS

CHECK NOY ONLY THE DEVELOPER BUT THE HOUSING SOCIETY AS WELL

HANDING OVER FOR COMMISSIONING DOES NOT MEAN MOVING IN

INQUIRE WHO THE COMPOUND OWNER IS

CHEAPEST IS THE DEAREST

Sales Promotion Tools in Residential Real Estate

A Modern Approach to Increasing Sales of Real Estate

Budharant Private Construction and Investment Enterprise (PCIE): Development on the Embankment

The Rezultat law firm’s position on the interference of Cherkasy City Council with the development carried out by the Budharant PCIE

The Budharant PCIE. Introduction

A short chronology of events

The Council boundary regarding the Budharant PCIE development

The validity of the Council’s decisions regarding the Budharant PCIE

Proportionality of the Council’s interference with the Budharant PCIE’s activities

Ensuring the Budharant PCIE’s right to participate in the consideration of issues regarding it

And the last thing

Compensation for Losses to Land Owners and Land Users

How to determine the amount of compensation for losses to land owners and land users?

Loss compensation. Methodology vs Procedure

The Executive Committee’s decision to approve the commission’s act on the loss determination and compensation to land owners and land users does not infringe the individual’s rights and interests.

Loss compensation. The Civil Code of Ukraine (CCU) / Commercial Code of Ukraine (CCU) vs the Land Code of Ukraine (LCU)

Obtaining a Postal Address Outside the Settlement

Obtaining a Postal Address. Normative base

Obtaining a Postal Address. Judicial practice

Obtaining a Postal Address. Common practice

Obtaining a Postal Address. The lawyer’s commentary

Obtaining a postal address in the city of Cherkasy

Eight Years of Rezultat

Housing Construction: News and Legislation Change

Housing construction: news and legislation changes

Maxim Polishkevych: Employment in Europe

Proportionality of the Council’s interference with the Budharant PCIE’s
activities

Ensuring the Budharant PCIE’s right to participate in the consideration
of issues regarding it