Specially for Glavkom
Nullifying claims against forest and coastal plunderers: is Verkhovna Rada to do this?
On February 20, the Legal Committee of the Verkhovna Rada approved the second reading of the scandalous draft law #12089 by MP Ihor Fris of the Servant of the People faction. The legislative initiative provides for the nullification of claims against those who managed to take possession of a plot of land in the forest or on the coast if 10 years have passed since its appropriation and it has fallen into private hands. This means that as soon as Parliament supports this draft law and the President signs it, such real estate deals that have taken place over the past decade will be legalized.
If the 10-year term for carve-ups has not yet expired, then before going to court to save the property, the value of the property that the community or the state wants to return will have to be deposited from the state or local budget. The civic initiative “Holka” on Glavkom has already written about this in more detail.
Thus, the person who took possession of the forests or the coast will either be left with the acquired property, which could not be in circulation at all, or with budget money. They win either way, and the state loses.
The committee meeting was attended by judges of the Supreme Court. Larysa Rohach, head of the Commercial Court of Cassation, emphasized that this project would not improve the protection of bona fide property owners:
Larysa Rohach
head of the Commercial Court of Cassation
The committee meeting was attended by judges of the Supreme Court. Larysa Rohach, head of the Commercial Court of Cassation, emphasized that this project would not improve the protection of bona fide property owners: “The Supreme Court has sent its critical remarks twice. We are talking about a bona fide purchaser, but reclamation is a method of protection that applies to an unfair purchaser! We are protecting an unfair purchaser... It seems that this project does not improve the situation of a bona fide purchaser at all. It does not. Not in any way. The position on the protection of the right and status of a bona fide purchaser has already been set out by the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court... It is impossible not to understand that you have acquired property on the shore or in the buffer zone. A priori, such a case is not subject to any protection. Is it possible to discriminate against the state and local governments, which have the same status as any other owner? Will it not happen that the courts will be guided by the Constitution rather than these amendments?
Larysa Rohach, Head of the Commercial Court of Cassation, speaking during the online meeting of the committee
Another Supreme Court judge, Vasyl Krat, who was positioned as a member of the working group that worked on the draft law, attended the committee meeting. He stated that the legislative field should provide for market (!) compensation if the community or the state wanted to return their property through the courts, even before the submission of draft law 12089. A week after his post on Facebook, MPs registered a legislative initiative that took this judge’s suggestion into account.
Therefore, it is quite natural that, unlike the head of the Economic Court of Cassation, Larysa Rohach, Judge Vasyl Krat supported the draft law.
In her letter to the committee, Deputy Prime Minister for European and Euro-Atlantic Integration Olha Stefanishyna cited the same arguments as Rohach, the head of the Commercial Court of Cassation, and noted that the Ministry of Economy, Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Culture, and Ministry of Community Development also had comments on the draft law.
Excerpt from Deputy Prime Minister Olha Stefanishyna’s letter to the Legal Policy Committee
MP Maksym Pavliuk (Servant of the People) also agreed that the draft law is not aimed at a bona fide purchaser:
Maksym Pavliuk
MP (Servant of the People)
It's good that at least the land of the Ministry of Defense was excluded at my request! Law enforcement agencies, the National Guard, and the State Border Guard Service are unable to register the land they use due to lack of funding. For 30 years, the state has not allocated any funds for state-owned enterprises to register these lands. It is a shame that the Prosecutor General's Office was not involved in the discussion. I understand that this draft law appeared because of the abuse of some prosecutors, but there is the National Anti-Corruption Bureau and other law enforcement agencies for such cases. Let's give 10 years to law enforcement agencies to return the land that was illegally alienated.
However, the committee did not accept this proposal. The majority abstained from considering MP Pavliuk’s amendments.
MP Yulia Ovchynnikova (Servant of the People), who is a member of the Environmental Committee, came to defend her amendments, as did Pavliuk. She emphasized that a 10-year time limit should not be set for the return of forests or coasts that were previously illegally alienated:
Yulia Ovchynnikova
MP (Servant of the People)
These lands are the national wealth of Ukraine, and if they were illegally given away, the state should have the right to return them, regardless of how much time has passed. Increasing forest areas is a direct objective of the President's Green Country program, and if we give away forests for construction, it will only reduce them. The state should not pay compensation to the owner in case of winning a court case regarding the illegal alienation of natural reserves, water, forestry, critical infrastructure, etc. This compensation should be paid by the person guilty of illegally transferring these plots to private ownership.
Pavliuk also insisted on “zeroing out” the claims for the last ten years and suggested giving the prosecutor’s office time to file lawsuits so that there is still a chance to return the property to the state or community.
The committee also rejected the amendments of the chairman of the Environmental Committee, Oleh Bondarenko (Servant of the People), who spoke in defense of the nature reserve fund and the water fund and emphasized that his colleagues should have listened to the experts who joined and also spoke at the meeting.
During the speech of the Chairman of the Environmental Committee Oleh Bondarenko at the meeting of the Legal Committee on draft law 12089
Borys Indychenko, Head of the Special Environmental Prosecutor’s Office, noted that fraudulent schemes may appear after the draft law is adopted:
Borys Indychenko
head of the Special Environmental Prosecutor's Office
For example, when a forest plot became the property of a 'bona fide' purchaser from citizens who allegedly acquired it before 2002 on the basis of forged state acts. In such a case, the primary ownership right arose from the moment of registration of state acts in the relevant Book, which usually does not have records. If the law is passed, the prosecutor will be effectively deprived of the opportunity to go to court to recover protected land. In my opinion, before adopting such laws, it is necessary to first establish all the boundaries of the territories and objects of the nature reserve fund, forest lands, and coastal protection strips, enter data on them in the State Land Cadastre, and issue protection obligations for all territories and objects of the nature reserve fund. And only then return to similar protection of the relations of the acquirers of such lands.
However, such work requires considerable funds, which neither the state nor local councils currently have.
In fact, the Legal Committee did not hear all these arguments. This is emphasized by Oleksiy Vasylyuk, an expert of the Ukrainian Nature Protection Group.
Oleksiy Vasylyuk
expert of the NGO “Ukrainian Nature Conservation Group”
The authors of the draft law 12089 essentially rejected not only all the amendments from MPs of the Environmental Committee but also from the Prosecutor's Office and the State Agency for Water Resources on forest and water conservation. They said that businesses and investors were demanding the adoption of this bill. But these lands are forbidden to be given away as private property! What kind of investment can there be in estates on the banks of rivers fenced with high fences?
Vasyluk’s colleague, environmentalist Petro Testov, pointed out that Vasyl Nimchenko, who was elected from the OPFL, is defending the interests of business:
Petro Testov
analyst at the NGO “Ukrainian Nature Conservation Group”
The name is familiar. I googled it. This is a deputy from the OPFL, a former judge. And not just a typical businessman who joined the Party of Regions/OPFL for the sake of his business, but an “ideological” one. In the registers, he is listed as a representative of Medvedchuk's “public organization Ukrainian Choice.” Some OPZZhnik have decided on the future of the country. He is also the first deputy chairman of the committee!!! This is very indicative of the kind of bona fide purchasers this project protects. These are the kind of people from the Party of Regions who have bought estates in the forest!
Environmentalists emphasize that a number of MPs may have their own private interest in lobbying for such a bill. For example, the key author, Ihor Fris, has previously commented on the situation with the allocation of a forest of more than 10 hectares to a company where his daughter is a co-founder.
Screenshot: news on “Suspilne. Ivano-Frankivsk”
At the time, he noted that forests can only be used temporarily:
Ihor Fris
MP (Servant of the People)
Forests cannot be transferred into ownership. They have been and will be the property of the state.
Now the situation has changed, and he has submitted a legislative initiative to “zero out” claims against those who have managed to take possession of forests or coasts.
Fris explained his position as follows:
Ihor Fris
MP (Servant of the People)
Colleagues, for 10 years, we have been enabling the state to resolve the issue of forcible seizure of the said property categorically, indisputably. Unfortunately, you were not present at the subcommittee meeting when some of the largest businesses in Ukraine came, which are currently suffering, investing millions of hryvnias in investments and dollars in development projects that the state needs today.
It should be noted here that the Holka civic initiative was not allowed to attend the subcommittee meeting mentioned by Fris, which was attended by businessmen. However, those who did attend the meeting found out that the businessmen were lobbying for their interests, and the MPs helped them.
Subcommittee meeting on the draft law No. 12089”, which the public sector was not allowed to attend
Fries emphasized that the project is supported, among other things, by the Entrepreneurs’ Council under the Office of the President of Ukraine. Before the Verkhovna Rada voted on the draft law in the first reading, the Parliament referred to the case of businessman Ihor Mazepa, who was detained by the DBR a year ago.
When asked to provide copies of letters outlining their positions on draft law 12089 to the Verkhovna Rada committees, MPs, ministries, and agencies, the President’s Office said that the requested information was… missing.
Response of the President’s Office to the request of the “Holka” civic initiative
MP Pavliuk asked the Legal Committee to immediately send an appeal to the Supreme Court and the Office of the Prosecutor General to find out their position on this legislative initiative.
After the committee’s meeting, the Holka civic initiative asked the committee’s chairman, Denys Maslov, whether they would send such appeals. He answered in the affirmative.
The Verkhovna Rada will meet next week, and this draft law is very likely to be on the agenda.
As a reminder, the Holka civic initiative investigated how a number of Telegram channels, including leading media, shaped the image of Ihor Mazepa as a “virtuous businessman” who opposes “bad law enforcement officers” before the first reading of draft law 12089.
