UNAUTHORIZED CONSTRUCTION OR CAPITAL REPAIRS: LBASE’s SUCCESSFUL CASE BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT
The owner of a mini-market could have lost its property because of… replacing windows and repairing the roof.
Absurd, isn’t it? Yet this is precisely the situation the LBASE team had to resolve.
The company has owned the mini-market since 1999 and has lawfully operated its business there ever since.
The property is located on a land plot owned by the territorial community and used on the basis of a lease agreement.
In 2022, the owner decided to carry out capital repairs of the торговельних pavilionів in order to improve conditions for entrepreneurs and visitors.
What was done?
– the windows were replaced;
– new doors were installed;
– the roof was repaired.
At first glance, this appeared to be nothing more than an ordinary refurbishment of privately owned property. But then the situation took an unexpected turn.
The prosecutor’s office initiated criminal proceedings under the article concerning “unauthorized construction” and filed a claim seeking the demolition of the mini-market structures.
The argument was based on the allegation that the structure:
– had allegedly been placed without a siting passport;
– did not comply with planning restrictions;
– was located within the protected zone of a gas pipeline;
– lacked the approvals of the relevant operating organisations.
Worst of all, both the court of first instance and the appellate court supported the prosecutor’s position.
In practical terms, this meant one thing:
the owner could have been deprived of title to property it had owned for more than 20 years.
It was at this stage that the client turned to the LBASE team.
We carried out a comprehensive analysis of the case, developed a legal strategy, and filed a cassation appeal.
The result:
The Commercial Cassation Court within the Supreme Court allowed the appeal.
The decisions of the court of first instance and the appellate court were set aside, and the case was remitted for a new trial.
The Supreme Court agreed that the lower courts had:
– applied irrelevant substantive law provisions;
– failed to properly examine the legal status of the property;
– used the most severe remedy, effectively depriving the owner of its property.
This case is an example of how a well-structured legal strategy and a professional approach can change the outcome even after losing in two instances.
The fight for the client’s interests continues — but now within the framework of a new hearing, where all the circumstances of the case will be properly examined.
11.03.2026
