Why veto the law that nullified claims against Yanukovych-era carve-outs?
On March 17, 4 petitions demanding a veto of the draft law “On Amendments to the Civil Code to Strengthen the Rights of a bona fide Purchaser” (12089) appeared on the website of the Office of the President of Ukraine. The petitions had not been made public since Thursday, March 14, and appeared on the website of the President’s Office only on the day the law was signed by the Speaker and urgently sent to the President for his signature. Moreover, many citizens complained from the very first hours of signature collection that their votes on the petition were being blocked.
In fact, this draft law does not protect bona fide purchasers. This was emphasized during a meeting of the Legal Policy Committee by Larysa Rohach, the head of the Commercial Court of Cassation:
The legislative initiative makes it possible to nullify claims against those who took possession of forests or coasts during Yanukovych’s time. In other words, everything that was carved up before 2015. And if 10 years have not yet passed since the illegal seizure of the plots and the prosecutor’s office decides to sue in the interests of the state or the community, the budget will have to make a “deposit” that the carve-up will keep if they lose the case.
The author of the petition, which collected more than 1,700 votes in less than half a day, is Michel Tereshchenko, a descendant of the well-known Ukrainian Tereshchenko family. He was born in Paris, moved to Ukraine, received Ukrainian citizenship in 2015 after the Revolution of Dignity, and a few months later won the election over a representative of the Party of Regions and became mayor of Hlukhiv. This is the homeland of his ancestors.
Tereshchenko called on citizens to sign the petition, and his position coincides with that of the Head of the Economic Court of Cassation, Rohach. Moreover, he calculated how much it could cost the budgets of different levels:
Ada Rogovtseva also supported this petition:
Several environmental and anti-corruption organizations oppose this draft law, including WWF Ukraine, the Ukrainian Nature Protection Group,the Anti-Corruption Action Center, and others.
Before the Verkhovna Rada vote, Bohdan Kucherenko, a specialist in the climate department of the Ecodia organization, noted the risks and analyzed in detail who could benefit from such a project:
It is worth recalling that when the Kyiv community sued to return the Tereshchenko estate on Shevchenko Boulevard to the ownership of Kyiv residents, the courts were held against Tsentrelevatormlynbud. According to media reports and Youcontrol, Oksana Palytsia is listed as the beneficiary of Tsentrelevatormlynbud. She was the wife of MP and businessman Ihor Palytsia, a longtime associate of Ihor Kolomoisky, accused of embezzling over UAH 5.3 billion. Eventually, the Kyiv City Commercial Court canceled the state ownership of the Tereshchenko estate by Centraleventormlynbud.
But the lawmakers’ decision essentially undermines the judicial protection of forests, coasts, archeology, and cultural heritage. Such a law can nullify the efforts of active citizens who have been fighting for green areas for more than 10 years. The fact that the bill is aimed at activists is not even hidden.
Before the first reading, it was supported by the deputy head of the Presidential Office, Oleh Tatarov. He personally called for support for draft law 12089 at the committee. Here is the official transcript. Tatarov’s position is simple: “The so-called activists earn… a lot of money.” Please note that if the court rules in favor of the community or the state, it is not the activist who becomes the owner of the green zone, coastline, or cultural heritage, but the community or the state, respectively.
Excerpt from the transcript of the meeting of the Legal Policy Committee, where Oleh Tatarov spoke before the first reading
MacPaw development near the village of Tsybly. Photo by Volodymyr Gerasymov for Forbes Ukraine
If we look at the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, we will hear the case of Depal v. France. The Frenchman Depal bought a house partially located on the sea coast, which is state property, more than half a century ago (in 1960). The authorities decided that Depal should demolish his house without compensation because, according to the permits he had received, he knew he could not claim such compensation. The European Court upheld this position of the state.
Photo: In France, a house on the coast, purchased in 1960, is being demolished (Depal v. France case)
In its ruling, the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court noted that, unlike in the Depal case, in Ukraine, unscrupulous purchasers of land plots in coastal protection zones receive them for free and illegally for the construction and maintenance of housing and outbuildings by decision of the authorities and resell them further.
Moreover, construction on these lands in Ukraine is prohibited; they cannot be privately owned, and leasehold rights can be issued for limited purposes unrelated to housing construction.
Developers disagree with this case law, which is why last year, when lobbyists were promoting initiatives in the Parliament in the interests of “fair business,” several Telegram channels disseminated content with the signs of pre-paid materials in the case of Igor Mazepa. A study conducted by the Holka Civic Initiative proves this. This is how the information field was shaped to influence public opinion, including MPs who eventually supported the legislative initiative.
An analysis of the roll call vote shows that almost all factions, including some MPs from the Voice party, voted in favor of draft law 12089.
Only the EU faction did not vote for this draft law.
Earlier, the expert community emphasized the risks of “urban planning reform” (Draft Law 5655). Citizens collected signatures for Zelenskyy to veto the project. In the end, the European Parliament and the European Commission also emphasized the risks of this legislative initiative, which was lobbied by the head of the Servant of the People party, Oleh Shuliak. The Royal Chatham House Institute sees risks in the emergence of construction cartels in this project. The president never signed this law.
Specially for “Livyi Bereh“
