In Kharkiv region, the prosecutor's office returned the Zabrodivske reservoir, with an area of 160 hectares, to the community
Kyiv • UNN
Through court action, the prosecutor's office secured the return of the Zabrodivske reservoir, covering over 160 hectares, to the ownership of the territorial community. A private enterprise had been illegally using it for years without proper legal grounds or payment of rent.
In the Kharkiv region, the prosecutor's office, through the court, secured the return of the Zabrodivske reservoir, covering an area of over 160 hectares, to the ownership of the territorial community. The reservoir had been illegally used for years by a private enterprise without proper legal grounds. This was reported by the Office of the Prosecutor General, writes UNN.
The court granted the claim filed by the head of the Bohodukhiv District Prosecutor's Office of Kharkiv Oblast against a private enterprise to restore the situation that existed before the violation, by releasing the water fund object and the land plots beneath it. The interests of the state in court on behalf of the prosecutor's office were represented by representatives of the Specialized Environmental Prosecutor's Office of Kharkiv Oblast Prosecutor's Office.
It was established that in the village of Moskalenky, Bohodukhiv district, a private enterprise used the Zabrodivske reservoir, with a total area of over 160 hectares, for fish farming purposes, without having the necessary title documents, and without state registration of ownership or lease rights.
The enterprise operated under a fish farming exploitation regime, but without concluding a lease agreement, which is mandatory under these conditions.
As a result, the city council did not receive rent for the use of the reservoir for years.
These violations served as the basis for the prosecutor's office to file a corresponding statement of claim with the court.
Currently, the decision of the Commercial Court of Kharkiv Oblast has fully satisfied the claim: the private enterprise is obliged to vacate the reservoir and return it to the community's jurisdiction. The period for appellate appeal is ongoing.
This case reflects a common practice where enterprises often seek to exploit loopholes in legislation, using water bodies for aquaculture solely on the basis of a fish farming exploitation regime, avoiding the payment of rent.
At the same time, the Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that a mandatory condition for the lawful use of a reservoir for fish farming purposes is the existence of a duly concluded lease agreement. Use without such an agreement is a direct violation of water and land legislation and is subject to termination.