“Let the buyer beware”. What jurisprudence is the Supreme Court forming a year after Zelenskyy signed the “Ihor Mazepa law”
A year ago, the parliament amended the Civil Code of Ukraine with Law No. 4292 regarding a bona fide purchaser. This Law was nicknamed the “Ihor Mazepa law” in honor of one of the lobbyists of this initiative – businessman Ihor Mazepa, who was suspected of creating a criminal organization and seizing land and the Kyiv Hydroelectric Power Plant. Under the law, if 10 years have passed, neither the community nor the state can return green zones, coastlines, or cultural heritage sites. And if 10 years have not yet passed, a deposit from the budget – the market value of the object – must be paid into the court’s account.
Protasiv Yar became the first victim of such a law. This is a green zone in the capital, which the deceased intelligence officer Roman Ratushnyi defended from development together with the community. When the prosecutor’s office filed a lawsuit, they were refused a hearing on the merits without a deposit. A year later, the prosecutor’s office defended its right in the Supreme Court to sue for Protasiv Yar without a deposit. The judges of the Cassation Economic Court had their say: a deposit from the budget is not needed to hear a case on the merits if the plaintiff considers the acquirer of the property to be acting in bad faith. The same position in similar cases was supported by the judges of the Cassation Civil Court. The court itself will establish whether the acquirer was bona fide.
Earlier, the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court protected the Tereshchenko estate, Syretskyi Hai, and historical burial mounds, and the judges of the Cassation Administrative Court within the Supreme Court protected the Bilychanskyi forest. And the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, instead of taking into account judicial practice and making appropriate changes to the legislation, decided to destroy this judicial practice that is positive for the state. And now the people’s deputies are completely rewriting the Civil Code of Ukraine, which will significantly worsen the situation in all areas of people’s daily relations.
For the anniversary of the president signing the “Ihor Mazepa law”, the public initiative “Holka” prepared a special issue “My Dear Kyiv, Fair” and invited judges from two cassation courts for an interview – the head of the Cassation Economic Court within the Supreme Court, Larysa Rohach, and the judge of the Supreme Court in the Cassation Civil Court, Dmytro Hudyma. Together with their colleagues, they formed the jurisprudence that makes it possible to protect green zones and cultural heritage and saves budget funds for both the state and communities.
“Glavkom” is the information partner of the project.
Nataliia Sokolenko
Journalist, co-author of the "My Dear Kyiv" project
We will talk about both the new law and how to protect green zones and cultural heritage under the new conditions. But given that the "My Dear Kyiv" project is designed to form the Kyiv identity, we first want to ask if you feel like Kyivans? We know that Dmytro Hudyma comes from Lviv, and Larysa Rohach is from Uzhhorod. What are your favorite places in the capital?
Larysa Rohach
Head of the Cassation Economic Court within the Supreme Court
I came from Uzhhorod to study in Kyiv and lived here from 1986 to 1991. This is, of course, the student campus and the famous 38th bus, if anyone remembers it. At that time, the subway did not go to the student campus... Anyone who has been there before and comes now will see that the place has radically changed. Back then, there was almost no development: orchards grew, there was a place to walk. We understand that progress is inevitable, the city is expanding. But those times and that area can now be remembered with nostalgia.
Later I returned to Kyiv in 2005 and have been living and working here for over 20 years. I have fallen in love with this beautiful city, although it differs significantly from Uzhhorod. In the capital, I love the botanical garden in Pechersk. We went there for a toloka (community cleanup), unfortunately, only once. Supreme Court judges go to the toloka, and I urge Kyivans to do the same.
Later I returned to Kyiv in 2005 and have been living and working here for over 20 years. I have fallen in love with this beautiful city, although it differs significantly from Uzhhorod. In the capital, I love the botanical garden in Pechersk. We went there for a toloka (community cleanup), unfortunately, only once. Supreme Court judges go to the toloka, and I urge Kyivans to do the same.
Supreme Court judges at a toloka in the capital’s botanical garden
Larysa Rohach
Head of the Cassation Economic Court within the Supreme Court
I also love, of course, the National Museum of Folk Architecture and Life of Ukraine in Pyrohovo, because there you can literally not travel far and see all of Ukraine, including Zakarpattia.
Serhii Kostianchuk
Founder of the Museum of Outstanding Kyivans, co-author of the "My Dear Kyiv" project
Green zones and cultural heritage are exactly what Kyivans are trying to preserve. A year ago, the parliament passed the "Ihor Mazepa law" (No. 4292) and activists sounded the alarm, while the Supreme Court immediately appealed to the Constitutional Court of Ukraine. Why?
Larysa Rohach
Head of the Cassation Economic Court within the Supreme Court
It is not for nothing that I mentioned the period of studying in Kyiv and living on the student campus. Here we are talking about what is an inalienable right of every citizen of Ukraine. This is free access to riverbanks and the right to visit green areas, to admire the scenery...
As for the mentioned Law, the Plenum of the Supreme Court did indeed appeal to the Constitutional Court of Ukraine. We are interested in what to do when a case is reconsidered, and this Law has just entered into force. The judges began hearing the case for the first time before the adoption of the Law: the court fee has been paid, the court has already checked whether there are enough materials to open the proceedings, and has opened them. That is, the stage for deciding whether to open proceedings is already in the past. So, with this Law, the legislator introduced such a strange nuance that the court must review its own decision, which it made when the Law did not yet exist. And then the question of the aforementioned deposit arises. Actually, this is an interference with the discretion and powers of the procedural court. Therefore, we are asking the Constitutional Court of Ukraine to check whether this Law can be given retroactive effect.
As for the mentioned Law, the Plenum of the Supreme Court did indeed appeal to the Constitutional Court of Ukraine. We are interested in what to do when a case is reconsidered, and this Law has just entered into force. The judges began hearing the case for the first time before the adoption of the Law: the court fee has been paid, the court has already checked whether there are enough materials to open the proceedings, and has opened them. That is, the stage for deciding whether to open proceedings is already in the past. So, with this Law, the legislator introduced such a strange nuance that the court must review its own decision, which it made when the Law did not yet exist. And then the question of the aforementioned deposit arises. Actually, this is an interference with the discretion and powers of the procedural court. Therefore, we are asking the Constitutional Court of Ukraine to check whether this Law can be given retroactive effect.
Serhii Kostianchuk
Founder of the Museum of Outstanding Kyivans, co-author of the "My Dear Kyiv" project
Protasiv Yar became the first victim of the "Ihor Mazepa law". The court of first instance, immediately after the Law was signed, told the prosecutors that there would be no hearing without a deposit. I will add here that no funds were provided for this in the state budget, and local communities should have replanned their budgets too. However, if the local authorities are in collusion with the developer, they will not give funds for prosecutors' lawsuits. The ten-year period is slowly running out, and the lawsuits are not being considered. But the Supreme Court has already formed judicial practice, in particular, in the case regarding Protasiv Yar and deposits. What is it?
Larysa Rohach
Head of the Cassation Economic Court within the Supreme Court
Cases reach the Supreme Court later, and therefore we see in which direction this is moving in the first and appellate instances. There was different court practice. So can the prosecutor independently determine whether the acquirer is acting in good faith or bad faith? And what should the court do in this case? Both the Cassation Civil Court and the Cassation Economic Court came to the common opinion that this is the prosecutor's authority. It is the prosecutor who determines what they want from the court. And then the court considers the case and decides whether the prosecutor has confirmed their claims or not.
You cannot tell the prosecutor, when they have just filed a relevant statement, that it was filed incorrectly, and therefore the court returns the statement to them. This, again, is not that stage of the case consideration.
Our panel considered the case regarding Protasiv Yar. When questions arise about how to apply the law, the task of the Supreme Court is to determine this jurisprudence. Here we supported the appellate instance, which said that the prosecutor does not need to make a deposit. The prosecutor has made a decision: they want to go to court. And then the ball is in the prosecutor's court. They must provide the evidence that prompted them to file this lawsuit.
You cannot tell the prosecutor, when they have just filed a relevant statement, that it was filed incorrectly, and therefore the court returns the statement to them. This, again, is not that stage of the case consideration.
Our panel considered the case regarding Protasiv Yar. When questions arise about how to apply the law, the task of the Supreme Court is to determine this jurisprudence. Here we supported the appellate instance, which said that the prosecutor does not need to make a deposit. The prosecutor has made a decision: they want to go to court. And then the ball is in the prosecutor's court. They must provide the evidence that prompted them to file this lawsuit.
Hosts Nataliia Sokolenko and Serhii Kostianchuk together with Supreme Court judges Dmytro Hudyma and Larysa Rohach during the recording
of the “My Dear Kyiv” project
Nataliia Sokolenko
Journalist, co-author of the "My Dear Kyiv" project
That is, it is the prosecutor who, when going to court, must justify their position based on documents and state that someone dishonestly took the Dnipro embankment from the community or the state. And if the prosecutor saw that this is really a bona fide acquirer, then what – deposit money from the budget into the court's account?
Larysa Rohach
Head of the Cassation Economic Court within the Supreme Court
Yes. A bad faith acquirer is one who saw that they were acquiring a lake, a river, an embankment, but ignored these circumstances. They decided: "Well, somehow it will pass. It's okay, time will pass, in 10 - 20 years the property will remain with me, because I managed it this way. What a great guy I am!"
But there are other cases. It is very important that the court finds a balance and considers whether the business had the intent to commit a certain violation, otherwise, the legal order in the state – legal certainty – could be violated. However, we usually talk about the "ultimate acquirer", whom the prosecutor is "chasing". But before the property appeared with them, there were decisions of local self-government bodies or state authorities. And their officials often remain out of sight. Perhaps there was some agreement between them and this acquirer. Perhaps they deliberately acted so that the property left the ownership of the community or the state.
If that representative of the authorities is not punished, then this story will be endless for us. The prosecutor will constantly "chase" the last acquirer, and the person who started this violation will go unpunished and will continue to do the same, feeling impunity.
But there are other cases. It is very important that the court finds a balance and considers whether the business had the intent to commit a certain violation, otherwise, the legal order in the state – legal certainty – could be violated. However, we usually talk about the "ultimate acquirer", whom the prosecutor is "chasing". But before the property appeared with them, there were decisions of local self-government bodies or state authorities. And their officials often remain out of sight. Perhaps there was some agreement between them and this acquirer. Perhaps they deliberately acted so that the property left the ownership of the community or the state.
If that representative of the authorities is not punished, then this story will be endless for us. The prosecutor will constantly "chase" the last acquirer, and the person who started this violation will go unpunished and will continue to do the same, feeling impunity.
Nataliia Sokolenko
Journalist, co-author of the "My Dear Kyiv" project
So who then should be held accountable if, for example, there can be dozens of deputies in the local council? In the Kyiv City Council, by the way, there are 120 of them.
Dmytro Hudyma
Judge of the Supreme Court in the Cassation Civil Court
There have been no such cases in the Supreme Court yet. But, indeed, it is complete nonsense that the authorities remain behind the scenes, because it is they who make decisions about the alienation of state or community property.
However, if we talk about the mentioned Law, we must pay attention to its ideology. The explanatory note had two main motives for its adoption. The first is the practice of the European Court of Human Rights. And this is generally correct. But what the lawmakers wrote down hardly has much in common with the practice of the European Court, because it does not state an obligation to pay the market value of the property from the budget in all cases without exception. The law gives such an acquirer the opportunity to return the funds, in particular, from the one from whom they purchased this property.
And there was also a second motive in the explanatory note – to review the established practice of the Supreme Court. And this motive is doubtful from the point of view of social progress. The development of legislation should proceed by introducing the conclusions of the Supreme Court into legislation, and not vice versa. Judicial practice regarding objects of cultural heritage that are not subject to privatization, lands of historical and cultural significance, nature reserve and water funds is clear and predictable.
In the case of the coast, its acquirer can see exactly what they are getting into ownership. Architectural monuments that are not subject to privatization, lands of historical and cultural significance or nature reserve and water funds are those objects where the acquirer can, showing reasonable prudence, make sure of what they are taking into ownership: privatizing for free or buying.
For example, someone bought a plot near a stream, which overflows in a certain season and becomes a river. And he says: "I did not see that it was a river. It was not visible when I approached it." But when you buy property, you should have collected information, and the villagers could exactly say that it is a river and what happens to the riverbed in the spring. That is, the acquirer of such property perfectly understands that such property can never belong to them. And this is the position of the Supreme Court.
To return such objects, the statute of limitations continues throughout the entire time of the violation of the rights of the state or community. And the plaintiffs in such cases are mostly prosecutors.
However, if we talk about the mentioned Law, we must pay attention to its ideology. The explanatory note had two main motives for its adoption. The first is the practice of the European Court of Human Rights. And this is generally correct. But what the lawmakers wrote down hardly has much in common with the practice of the European Court, because it does not state an obligation to pay the market value of the property from the budget in all cases without exception. The law gives such an acquirer the opportunity to return the funds, in particular, from the one from whom they purchased this property.
And there was also a second motive in the explanatory note – to review the established practice of the Supreme Court. And this motive is doubtful from the point of view of social progress. The development of legislation should proceed by introducing the conclusions of the Supreme Court into legislation, and not vice versa. Judicial practice regarding objects of cultural heritage that are not subject to privatization, lands of historical and cultural significance, nature reserve and water funds is clear and predictable.
In the case of the coast, its acquirer can see exactly what they are getting into ownership. Architectural monuments that are not subject to privatization, lands of historical and cultural significance or nature reserve and water funds are those objects where the acquirer can, showing reasonable prudence, make sure of what they are taking into ownership: privatizing for free or buying.
For example, someone bought a plot near a stream, which overflows in a certain season and becomes a river. And he says: "I did not see that it was a river. It was not visible when I approached it." But when you buy property, you should have collected information, and the villagers could exactly say that it is a river and what happens to the riverbed in the spring. That is, the acquirer of such property perfectly understands that such property can never belong to them. And this is the position of the Supreme Court.
To return such objects, the statute of limitations continues throughout the entire time of the violation of the rights of the state or community. And the plaintiffs in such cases are mostly prosecutors.
Serhii Kostianchuk
Founder of the Museum of Outstanding Kyivans, co-author of the "My Dear Kyiv" project
Well, then, maybe the people's deputies are not familiar with the practice of the Supreme Court?
Larysa Rohach
Head of the Cassation Economic Court within the Supreme Court
Even people without special education understand well that there are objects that are not for sale. This is, for example, the National Reserve "Sophia of Kyiv". Since Roman times there has been a catchphrase: "Let the buyer beware." Somehow in a case, it happened that the defendant objected when lands near the Dnipro were taken from him. This is where the Kyiv Reservoir is. He said: "When I bought the plot, I didn't know it was located on the coast. I didn't go and see where it is located." Will you believe it? Of course not. There is property that cannot be in circulation.
As for the statute of limitations, we need to increase it. In Germany, Austria, it is stipulated that for real estate the statute of limitations is thirty years. Thirty! Why are we establishing some other rules? Our statute of limitations remains three years. And these 10 years are the period after which it is impossible to renew the statute of limitations.
However, there are cases when the premises were sold and it was possible to influence the sale of the property, but no objections were raised. 20 - 30 years passed, the premises were resold, and they want to take the property from the new owner, which was purchased without any restrictions. Here the Supreme Court had its say: a bona fide acquirer is a bona fide acquirer.
As for the statute of limitations, we need to increase it. In Germany, Austria, it is stipulated that for real estate the statute of limitations is thirty years. Thirty! Why are we establishing some other rules? Our statute of limitations remains three years. And these 10 years are the period after which it is impossible to renew the statute of limitations.
However, there are cases when the premises were sold and it was possible to influence the sale of the property, but no objections were raised. 20 - 30 years passed, the premises were resold, and they want to take the property from the new owner, which was purchased without any restrictions. Here the Supreme Court had its say: a bona fide acquirer is a bona fide acquirer.
Serhii Kostianchuk
Founder of the Museum of Outstanding Kyivans, co-author of the "My Dear Kyiv" project
But now it turns out that the Verkhovna Rada protects private property better, and not state or communal property. If your apartment is stolen, for example, you can sue at any time, but the state and communities are limited to a period of 10 years. And similarly, a citizen, when suing for their property, does not have to deposit the market value of their property. Can there really be such an imbalance?
Dmytro Hudyma
Judge of the Supreme Court in the Cassation Civil Court
A very interesting and correct question. Perhaps, after this interview, there will be those who can raise the relevant issue before the Constitutional Court of Ukraine. Just imagine that without my knowledge, someone once re-registered my property, which I was not interested in. Then the mentioned Law, which provides for a 10-year limit and making a deposit, will not apply here. This seems quite strange for civil law, which has the principle of equality of all subjects of property rights.
Article 13 of the Constitution of Ukraine, which provides for the equality of all subjects of property rights before the law
Dmytro Hudyma
Judge of the Supreme Court in the Cassation Civil Court
I would also like to add that in many cases the plaintiffs – and these can be, for example, not only prosecutors, but also authorities – do not use all the possibilities to prove the bad faith of the acquirers of state or municipal property. Data from public registers and the cadastral map could be used more effectively. Yes, currently the cadastral map is restricted, but this is only a short period of time compared to the period when all the data was available on it.
Registers and the cadastral map make it possible to trace connections between those who acquired the plot and those who facilitated its alienation. These can be family ties, and business ties, when these people could work together at the same enterprises, be members of societies, could have joint contracts that are highlighted on the Internet. And this can be seen and confirmed.
The introduction of the Law we are discussing should have pushed plaintiffs to take care of arguments to prove the bad faith of acquirers of state and municipal property.
Registers and the cadastral map make it possible to trace connections between those who acquired the plot and those who facilitated its alienation. These can be family ties, and business ties, when these people could work together at the same enterprises, be members of societies, could have joint contracts that are highlighted on the Internet. And this can be seen and confirmed.
The introduction of the Law we are discussing should have pushed plaintiffs to take care of arguments to prove the bad faith of acquirers of state and municipal property.
Nataliia Sokolenko
Journalist, co-author of the "My Dear Kyiv" project
A submission to the Constitutional Court could be made by people's deputies. 45 signatures are needed. And this is not just their right, but also their duty, because they took an oath. But what to do now? We know that in Kyiv the most large-scale schemes were during the time of Mayor Leonid Chernovetskyi. And now more than 10 years have passed, so is that it and nothing can be done?
Larysa Rohach
Head of the Cassation Economic Court within the Supreme Court
Both the Civil Code and the Economic Code, which was canceled, are about fair and normal legal relations. I think if it is a question of fraudulent actions, then, firstly, there are law enforcement agencies and they should react. If the fact of fraud is established, (our citizens are inventive, so I don't know what it could be: for example, some unauthorized construction), then without the intervention of law enforcement agencies it cannot simply be appealed by civil law means.
So when we talk about a 10-year limit, the right to judicial protection is lost. But if the issue of the deposit was already considered in the Supreme Court, the issue of this period was not. Therefore, unfortunately, I am limited in my ability to express my thoughts regarding the formation of relevant jurisprudence.
So when we talk about a 10-year limit, the right to judicial protection is lost. But if the issue of the deposit was already considered in the Supreme Court, the issue of this period was not. Therefore, unfortunately, I am limited in my ability to express my thoughts regarding the formation of relevant jurisprudence.
Serhii Kostianchuk
Founder of the Museum of Outstanding Kyivans, co-author of the "My Dear Kyiv" project
But it can also be that the owner received the property at public auctions as a result of the execution of a court decision and privatization. And we have such situations when the State Property Fund or local authorities sell exactly in the order of privatization and then open criminal proceedings. Here the new owner had every reason to trust, because the state is selling. So can the acquirer be bona fide here?
Larysa Rohach
Head of the Cassation Economic Court within the Supreme Court
Indeed, there should be a presumption of good faith. And if a prosecutor or another plaintiff goes to court, there must be evidence to the contrary. The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court faced such a situation when property was sold at auction, but during the hearing of the case, the court discovered collusion between the buyer and the auction organizer. Can we consider the buyer bona fide in such a case? Probably not.
But there is another point here. If the state sells property at auctions, how cautious should the buyer be? Should they check, for example, the actions of the executor who puts the property up for sale? Are there any prohibitions or restrictions regarding this property? And this question is exactly about common sense. If property is sold by the power of the state, then, probably, the body that carries out the sale is responsible here. Of course, if they were selling at an auction, for example, a nuclear bomb (I'm explaining this simply), then obviously such property could not be sold into private ownership.
But regarding the statute of limitations, I want to give an example from my practice. We are talking about a land plot that was part of the roadway and is located above the Khreshchatyk metro station, where you go up to the National Bank of Ukraine. So this plot was sold at land auctions for big money during the time of Leonid Chernovetskyi.
It was built up, although it is obvious that this is a road and you cannot build there. It was impossible not to see the inter-building passage. The prosecutor asked to recognize the decision of the Kyiv City Council as invalid, and the court satisfied this claim, but the plot remained with the buyer. Then the HOA from the neighboring building sued. And the court also satisfied their claim. The court's decision is not implemented, the plot remains with the owner, and they resell it. And now the new owner says that he is a bona fide purchaser. The first lawsuits were in 2010, and to the new owner – in 2024. So the question arises: why initiate lawsuits when the decisions were not executed? A court decision must have consequences, and not just be written about in the press or published in the register.
But there is another point here. If the state sells property at auctions, how cautious should the buyer be? Should they check, for example, the actions of the executor who puts the property up for sale? Are there any prohibitions or restrictions regarding this property? And this question is exactly about common sense. If property is sold by the power of the state, then, probably, the body that carries out the sale is responsible here. Of course, if they were selling at an auction, for example, a nuclear bomb (I'm explaining this simply), then obviously such property could not be sold into private ownership.
But regarding the statute of limitations, I want to give an example from my practice. We are talking about a land plot that was part of the roadway and is located above the Khreshchatyk metro station, where you go up to the National Bank of Ukraine. So this plot was sold at land auctions for big money during the time of Leonid Chernovetskyi.
It was built up, although it is obvious that this is a road and you cannot build there. It was impossible not to see the inter-building passage. The prosecutor asked to recognize the decision of the Kyiv City Council as invalid, and the court satisfied this claim, but the plot remained with the buyer. Then the HOA from the neighboring building sued. And the court also satisfied their claim. The court's decision is not implemented, the plot remains with the owner, and they resell it. And now the new owner says that he is a bona fide purchaser. The first lawsuits were in 2010, and to the new owner – in 2024. So the question arises: why initiate lawsuits when the decisions were not executed? A court decision must have consequences, and not just be written about in the press or published in the register.
Nataliia Sokolenko
Journalist, co-author of the "My Dear Kyiv" project
Perhaps you also have advice for entrepreneurs on what to buy, what is better not to buy, so there are no expectations that one can just wait it out?
Dmytro Hudyma
Judge of the Supreme Court in the Cassation Civil Court
Listening to this question, I returned some 15 years back, when I taught ethics at the law faculty of the university. One of the sections of this discipline is economic ethics. The balance between the entrepreneur's interest to earn money and the observance of moral norms is a very complex issue. In the business sphere, in many cases, general human morality may not work. And this question is again to everyone who does the respective business.
It is hardly possible to give some universal answer to this question. People are different, there is no such state, there is no such society where everyone behaves legally, and everyone is moral. This is a utopia. The court, undoubtedly, has to balance different interests. Between entrepreneurs, communities, the state.
As a citizen of Ukraine and as a person who intends to live here, I am convinced that the ideology of our state should be directed towards preserving historical memory. In various forms, not only architectural masterpieces. These can be, in particular, ancient kurgans. We are not only talking about what is above ground – forests, cultural monuments, but also about archeology. Unfortunately, lately there are regions that lease historical kurgans for agriculture. It is clear that the entrepreneur who sees that he has agricultural land, he levels the kurgan to have land for crops. This destroys the monument, it damages the historical memory of the people of Ukraine, who should remember their very ancient past, when these kurgans were formed. But if they were destroyed, then no one will ever know about a certain past.
The Supreme Court has developed a judicial practice in this regard, according to which such lands can also be returned regardless of any period. The one who claims such objects must not only be careful, but also conscious and moral. The court works to dot the i's in disputes.
It is hardly possible to give some universal answer to this question. People are different, there is no such state, there is no such society where everyone behaves legally, and everyone is moral. This is a utopia. The court, undoubtedly, has to balance different interests. Between entrepreneurs, communities, the state.
As a citizen of Ukraine and as a person who intends to live here, I am convinced that the ideology of our state should be directed towards preserving historical memory. In various forms, not only architectural masterpieces. These can be, in particular, ancient kurgans. We are not only talking about what is above ground – forests, cultural monuments, but also about archeology. Unfortunately, lately there are regions that lease historical kurgans for agriculture. It is clear that the entrepreneur who sees that he has agricultural land, he levels the kurgan to have land for crops. This destroys the monument, it damages the historical memory of the people of Ukraine, who should remember their very ancient past, when these kurgans were formed. But if they were destroyed, then no one will ever know about a certain past.
The Supreme Court has developed a judicial practice in this regard, according to which such lands can also be returned regardless of any period. The one who claims such objects must not only be careful, but also conscious and moral. The court works to dot the i's in disputes.
Larysa Rohach
Head of the Cassation Economic Court within the Supreme Court
Last year, the Economic Courts joined the International Forum of Commercial Courts. We were immediately invited to attend a meeting of the courts. Judges came from Australia, New Zealand, Rwanda, South Africa, from Europe, Germany, France, Great Britain, Qatar, the Arab Emirates. So what do you think they have in common to discuss?
Just imagine how different the legislation can be. But what can they all talk about together? The issues of ecology, preservation of the water fund, ensuring environmental standards in each country, for example, to preserve the Brazilian forests and preserve the water fund. Ecology is really a problem for the whole world.
What do I like right now? What is happening in Ukraine, in Kyiv. I like the fact that citizens behave consciously, understand that in many cases they need to raise their voices to protect their rights, not to remain indifferent, not to tolerate silently. This is the positive thing that is happening. Of course, first of all, this voice should be directed to those bodies that violated our right. We should also remember that we have the right and duty to form the composition of these bodies.
As for the courts, I understand why there is such close attention to the formation of the judiciary. This is good, and it should be so. And the courts, respectively, will work and form their practice taking into account the direction of society, while simultaneously ensuring the general legal order in the state. There should be a general understanding of how the state is moving, what values it professes.
Just imagine how different the legislation can be. But what can they all talk about together? The issues of ecology, preservation of the water fund, ensuring environmental standards in each country, for example, to preserve the Brazilian forests and preserve the water fund. Ecology is really a problem for the whole world.
What do I like right now? What is happening in Ukraine, in Kyiv. I like the fact that citizens behave consciously, understand that in many cases they need to raise their voices to protect their rights, not to remain indifferent, not to tolerate silently. This is the positive thing that is happening. Of course, first of all, this voice should be directed to those bodies that violated our right. We should also remember that we have the right and duty to form the composition of these bodies.
As for the courts, I understand why there is such close attention to the formation of the judiciary. This is good, and it should be so. And the courts, respectively, will work and form their practice taking into account the direction of society, while simultaneously ensuring the general legal order in the state. There should be a general understanding of how the state is moving, what values it professes.
The interviews of the “My Dear Kyiv” project are published within the framework of the partnership project of “Holka” and “Glavkom”. The project is designed to rally the community of Kyiv to form the identity of Kyivans and their understanding of the importance of preserving the cultural and historical heritage of the capital and its green zones. This community must ultimately influence the authorities in order to preserve our Kyiv and influence the development of the city.
Currently, a map of the capital has been created, on which everyone can put a heart mark and briefly write about their romantic story or simply describe their feelings that arise during walks around Kyiv.
Screenshot of the interactive map “My Dear Kyiv, Romantic”
The authors of the three best stories will receive gifts for Kyiv Day from the public initiative “Holka”.
