The initiators of the case against ex-minister Solsky admitted that Atoshniki received land legally, but "schematically"

Representatives of the National Agrarian Academy of Sciences, who initiated the case against ex - minister Mykola Solsky, admitted that Atoshniki received their land legally, but complain that it is "schematic". This was stated in an interview with UNN by the director of the Institute of Agriculture of the North-East Viktor Kabanets.

context

Ex-minister Solsky, as you know, is suspected by NABU and SAPO of allegedly seizing land in the Sumy region, which, according to investigators, was used by the Naas. Solsky himself says that the circumstances of seven years ago, which are mentioned in this case, relate to the period of his legal activity, when he helped the participants of the anti-terrorist operation to get land plots that were available at that time. 

NABU and SAPO, in turn, have not yet been able to provide evidence that the disputed land really belonged to the naan. All the information that is now more like a historical excursion that once the land was in Soviet collective farms, the successors of which were allegedly "agrarian scientists". The courts firmly stand on the fact that the naan had nothing to do with the lands that NABU attributes to them. 

There is also complete confusion in the naan itself. Representatives of the Academy considered the land their own, but they do not have any documents for this and only remember that they seem to have been there somewhere. 

"Atoshniki did not violate anything under the law, we have no complaints against them, they used their right, which is legalized – the right to receive 2 hectares of land. Yes, there are ATO veterans from the Sumy Region, Western Ukraine, Southern and central Ukraine, but this is not prohibited by law. That is, we can't make any claims against the Atoshniki. We have a question for these organizations – so we turned to NABU. And we turned to NABU with the goal of preserving the remaining land, and we managed to do this today," says  Kabanets.

However, if the naan itself has no complaints against Atoshniki, NABU and SAPO went further. They stated that they are considering the issue of seizing the land of Atoshnikov. And this is the land of more than a thousand people.

Anti-corruption activists want to arrest the land that they believe that it illegally left the right to use the Naas. And the Naas believes that the same land was quite legally privatized by Atoshniki. 

The fragility of the NABU evidence base is added by an attempt to "reset" the expert examination conducted in the framework of the case against the village. According to UNN, the examination was probably supposed to be in favor of the ex - minister, and when detectives found out about this, they decided to cancel it at all costs. 

recall

Former minister of Agrarian Policy Mykola Solsky was suspected by NABU detectives and SAPO prosecutors  of allegedly organizing a scheme to seize naan land with an area of 2,500 hectares.

Solsky himself says that the circumstances of seven years ago, which are mentioned in this case, relate to the period of his legal activity, when he helped participants of the anti-terrorist operation to get land plots. His defenders claim that Solsky did not get any benefit from this.

In 2019, the Supreme Court put the final point in the judicial red tape regarding the mentioned disputed plots. The decision of the panel of judges of the Cassation economic Court confirmed the decisions of the courts of previous instances that the state enterprise "Iskra" and the state enterprise "Nadezhda" of the National Agrarian Academy of Sciences do not have state acts on the right to permanent use of these land plots.

"Rejecting the claim, the courts of previous instances came to the conclusion that there is no evidence of the transfer of disputed land plots to the plaintiffs in the order of succession, since different acts of transfer of land funds indicate different areas of land plots that were transferred from one enterprise to another, and the lack of proof of the fact of registration of the right to permanent use of land plots by legal entities whose legal successors are the plaintiffs," the Supreme Court said in its decision.