Judicial reform "works": judges have invented a scheme how to steal state property

“Whose cake is this? Sirozha’s!” (Lyrics from a famous song)

Our history began back in 1996. It was then that the State Enterprise “Kyiv Radio Plant” went bankrupt and began the procedure of liquidation and sale of property. In 2016, through an auction, the VOSHOD sports complex was acquired by Kyivenerhocom LLC, and Olet Group LLC became the owner of the Dnipro House of Culture. For four years, both buyers have not been able to use their property... Moreover, the sports complex “Voskhod” and BC “Dnipro” was declared ownerless by the judge of the Commercial Court of Kyiv Ivchenko AM in case № 910/18090/173 dated 22.07.2020. Why?

After all, according to Article 335 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, “a thing that has no owner or whose owner is unknown is ownerless.”

On page 30 of the decision it is stated "However, as established by the decisions in cases №№ 50/503, 4 / 440,13 / 468, 30 / 438-2 / 344, that the owner of the property (in Kyiv, Boryspilska Street, 8 , 10 Boryspilska Street, 12-A Pryvokzalna Street), which is occupied by the NGO Voskhod Insurance Company, is absent, as such property does not belong to the state, the Kyiv Radio Plant, or any other person.

So whose property is this? Let’s try to understand. At one time, SE “Kyiv Radio Plant” appealed to the Commercial Court with a claim to the State Joint-Stock Company “Kyiv Radio Plant” for the return of property located on the street. Boryspilska, 9, in Kyiv, namely: building 2, with an area of ​​7,886 square meters. m and rooms of the building 9. And in 2007 the Commercial Court came to the conclusion that this property is in state ownership. But, the attentive reader will tell, it is a question of property to the address: Boryspilska, 9, instead of Boryspilska, 8, as in our case.

However, there are at least three other decisions of the Commercial Court, which in different years considered property lawsuits concerning the Kyiv Radio Plant and each of them states: the property of the Kyiv Radio Plant is state-owned and the state authorities have not been able to properly register them for a long time. relevant line ministries or enterprises. And Judge Ivchenko decided to take advantage of this gap in the state bodies, recognizing the property of the Kyiv Radio Plant as ownerless on this basis.

We move on and read on p. 31 decisions: “As court decisions (these are four decisions of 2004, 2007 and 2011) established that real estate objects (addresses are indicated) do not belong to anyone ... state registrations (in 2015 and 2016) were carried out in the absence of of the title document on the basis of powers of attorney issued by the liquidator ... the court concludes that the decision, record and registration of the right of economic management of these real estate are illegal, and therefore subject to cancellation.

So registration is subject to cancellation or cancellation, and how can real estate be ownerless in the presence of registration?

‘We build-build and finally built...’

But on the recognition of real estate at: st. Boryspilska, 8 ownerless judge Ivchenko didn’t stop. He went further in his decision, investigating the construction of real estate: Boryspilska, 8, House of Culture ‘Dnipro’ at st. Boryspilska, 10 ... ”.

If we were not acquainted with the decision of the Arbitration Court in case № 15-435 of 12.10.1999, which states that the case materials established: the construction of IC “East” was carried out to order and at the expense of VO “Kyiv Radio Plant” ... (VO “Kyiv Radio Plant”) also provided the court with documents confirming the construction of the IC “East” at its own expense, then, apparently, believed in the decision written by the judge. Yes, thanks to the teachers, they learned to read, they studied the decisions of the Arbitration Court, so we have reason to doubt the correctness of the conclusions of Judge Ivchenko.

This judge was completely confused: at the beginning of the sentence he wrote — “do not belong to anyone”, then noted that “the right of ownership was registered”, and then decided for himself to cancel.

But back to the issue of registration in 2015 and 2016. We read the decision on state registration of rights from 11.01.2016 in the case № 27787949: “considered the application for state registration filed by PI B ..., acting on the basis of a power of attorney, series and number, issued 16.12.2015, publisher: Ministry of Industrial Policy of Ukraine SE ‘Kyiv Radio Plant’ and documents submitted for state registration ”. And where is the power of attorney of the liquidator?

ЗThe Certificate of Ownership states: THE OWNER — THE STATE OF UKRAINE, represented by the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade of Ukraine, on the right of economic management of the State Enterprise “Kyiv Radio Plant”.

A simple thing is clear: if you have grounds to abolish the right of economic management, then how to be with the owner “State of Ukraine represented by the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade of Ukraine”?

But this is not for our judge. He did not see the owner and could not find out the owner and recognizes this property as OWNLESS.

And then by his decision he cancels all contracts of sale at auction and registration and transfers ownership to the state? No! He transfers ownership to a public organization that has been illegally using this property for 20 years without paying a penny to the state.

Judge AM Ivchenko, after considering the case, makes a decision, not a decision. Why? And because the decision comes into force immediately after its announcement and can be appealed to the court of appeal. And the decision comes into force after consideration of case in appellate court. Meanwhile, neither justice nor justice is felt in this Resolution!

ТThe situation is made further complicated by the fact that this decision can now be used in a “scheme” for the theft of state property with the help of such judges.

We now have approximately more than 500,000 state-owned properties. Almost 40 percent currently do not have state registration due to lack of funds for registration. But third parties use many options quietly and without rent. And now they will come and “motivate” the judge, who will later recognize the property as ownerless and transfer it to the property of clever dealers.

We hope that the judges of the appellate court will professionally understand this case and at least return this property to state ownership.