13.07.201959660On June 12, 2018, at the Economic Court of Kyiv the case concerning the return of property to the community of Kyiv, namely, the Repair and decontamination station of boats in Pechersk district was considered. Judge Olena Udalova, following the rules of law, made a decision: the prosecutor’s claim was to satisfy completely in favor of the community of Kiev, the contract of sale of property was to cancel and the property of the enterprise was to return to the community.
Subsequently, “Privatbudservis” Ltd. (affiliated with Nester Shufrutch) did not agree with the decision of the Kyiv Economic Court and filed an appeal with the Northern Appeal Economic Court. Consideration of the case lasted till the end of 2018 and at the end of the year a decision was made to refuse to comply with the appeal by the panel of judges Malchenko A.O., Dykunskaya S.Y and Zhuk G.Y.
Disagreeing with the decision of the appellate court, the defendant turned to the last cassation institution, where he tried to resolve disputes in his favor.
Recalling all the vicissitudes since 2001, concerning the repair boat station in the Pechersk district of the capital, one cannot mention the decisions made by the representatives of Themis, not in favor of the community, but in favor of “useful personal needs.”
This was repeatedly mentioned in the media, referring to the YouTube channel. The decisions that contradicted the interests of the community were constantly taken after the intervention of Nester Shufruch, his entrusted people and money.
So today the People’s Deputy does not have significant power and opportunities regarding administrative resources, but everyone understands that this “gentleman” has certain amount of financial resources. Therefore, overcoming any obstacles, even if it is the last link of Themis, is not fantastic.
So there was a review of the appeal.
This complaint was considered by the colorful trio of judges Kushnir I.V., Krasnov E.V. and Machulsky G.M.
Magazine has already mentioned the results of the decision taken by Machulsky G.M. in the composition of another panel of judges concerning the illegally sold building of kindergarten with the help of a fraudulent scheme. As a result, the Supreme Court was on the side of fraudsters. But the Kievans and children were left without a kindergarten. Perhaps, this happened unselfishly. Probably.
We will discuss these “respected representatives of Themis” separately in the following journalistic investigations.
At present we have a Resolution abolishing the decision of the first and appellate instance, which prejudiced the professionalism and qualifications of judges. These judges, by their decisions, returned the property of the community, which was violated with alienation.
It will not be superfluous to draw attention to the fact that the interests of the community of Kyiv in the courts of the first and appellate instance were represented by the Prosecutor of the Kyiv Prosecutor’s Office, Greskiv I. I., who professionally protected the interests and property of the community. Unfortunately, Mr. Lutsenko did not find any professional specialists of the General Prosecutor’s Office in order to participate in the cassation instance and properly support the interests of the capital’s community. The defense in this case was entrusted to the mistress of the prosecutor, Kljuge L.M., who did not do very thorough work, although she was the representative of several generations of the Vinnytsia prosecutors.
Taking into consideration all circumstances set forth in the motivational part, which the dear judges of the cassation institution relied on, many questions arise. How can these “questions” be generally related to economic relations? They have already been investigated in other administrative courts and there are the conclusions and decisions that have already come to legal effect.
Also, in relation to the emerged circumstances that should be investigated from the first instance, in the opinion of the panel, they provided their professional comments to the judge-speakers of all judicial authorities. In their comments, experts in commercial law have pointed out that the need to study the emerged circumstances is not a motive for the abolition of the decisions of the two previous instances, but it gives the opportunity to do the research itself.
Therefore, it remains to be hoped that the new consideration of the case in the Kyiv Economic Court (Judge Golovina K.I.) will only confirm the professionalism of the previous judges who took legal decisions in favor of the community of Kiev.