The Intersection of Public and Private in Regulating Land Rights in Ukraine (Using the Example of Court Cases)

Abstract

The article examines the issues of abuse of authority by local state administrations in regulating land ownership relations in Ukraine (using the example of court cases), the issue of land lease and withdrawal from use. Based on the study of court cases, a number of conclusions were formulated. Despite the clear definition of powers in the field of delimitation of state and municipal lands, illegal actions of the heads of local district and regional state administrations are constantly taking place, who, contrary to the legislation, issued: a) orders on the transfer of land plots, which are in use on the right of long-term lease, to other individuals; b) orders on the withdrawal of certain lands from the massif of forestry lands. According to paragraph 1 of Art. 124 of the Land Code of Ukraine “…the lease of land plots that are in state or municipal ownership is carried out on the basis of a decision of the relevant executive body or local government body…” Therefore, if the district state administration had doubts about the legality of the land lease agreement concluded between citizen N. and the village council, it could simply re-issue such a lease agreement. Employees of land resources bodies and the state land cadastre, either due to lack of qualifications or intentionally, made unauthorized decisions regarding the registration of ownership rights and the use of land plots. The actions of the local district and regional state administration are traced to a phased, purposeful and pre-planned change in their intended purpose in order to obtain material benefits. This is evidenced by acts of gradual transfer of forestry lands from one category to another (forestry lands - agricultural lands - industrial lands) to achieve the set goal. It is also worth noting that at all times, lands that have no value for agriculture, are saline or are not subject to reclamation or restoration have been allocated for forestry. Here we see that lands that were no longer suitable for agriculture are again given for such needs. In addition, the disputed lands contained forests of the 1st category, which are the main category of forests. The decision to change the purpose of forestry lands was not agreed with the central executive body that implements state policy in the field of environmental protection, which is already systemic in nature and should attract the attention of law enforcement agencies.