Category: Статьи

A draft Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine “On Approval of the Procedure for Issuing Permits for the Placement, Construction, Reconstruction and Operation of Facilities within the Right-of-Way of Public Roads” has been developed, the purpose of which is to regulate the procedure for issuing permits for the placement, construction, reconstruction and operation of facilities within the right-of-way of public roads.

Regulatory justification:

Paragraphs one to four of Article 37 of the Law of Ukraine “On Motor Roads” provide that the construction of structures, roadside service facilities, gas stations, laying of utility networks and the performance of other works within the right-of-way of motor roads shall be carried out in accordance with a permit issued by the state motor roads management authorities and with prior approval from the relevant subdivisions of the National Police in the manner prescribed by the legislation of Ukraine.

The state motor roads management authorities, upon agreement with the relevant subdivisions of the National Police, issue permits on a paid basis for the placement, construction, reconstruction, and operation of the facilities specified in part one of this article within the right-of-way of public roads, in accordance with the procedure approved by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine.

The state motor roads management authorities shall, within 30 calendar days, make a decision to issue or deny a permit for the placement, construction, reconstruction, and operation of the facilities specified in part one of this article within the right-of-way of public roads.

Grounds for denial or termination of a permit may include: prior designation of the road section for another facility or structure; classification of the section as hazardous or as a location of high accident concentration; non-compliance of the proposed location of the roadside service facility with regulatory requirements and infrastructure development plans; or anticipated road reconstruction or expansion plans that would result in the demolition of the facility.

Key Provisions of the Procedure:

• Scope of Application: the Procedure governs the process for issuing permits for the placement, construction, reconstruction, and major repairs of facilities within the right-of-way of public roads.

• Permit-Issuing Authorities: permits are issued by the state motor roads management authorities, including the State Agency of Motor Roads of Ukraine (Ukravtodor) and its regional branches.

• Types of Facilities: the Procedure applies to engineering networks, advertising structures, roadside service facilities, and other structures planned to be located within the right-of-way of public roads.

• Permit Issuance Procedure:

1. The applicant submits an application to the authorized body.
2. The application must be accompanied by documents specified in the Procedure, including project documentation and approvals from the relevant authorities.
3. The authorized body reviews the application and makes a decision to issue or deny the permit.

• Review Deadlines: the Procedure establishes specific timeframes for reviewing applications and making decisions by the competent authorities.

• Grounds for Denial of a Permit: the Procedure outlines the grounds on which a permit may be denied, including non-compliance of submitted documents with legal requirements or the absence of necessary approvals.

• Control and Liability: mechanisms are established to monitor compliance with the Procedure and to impose liability for violations.

This draft law may be discussed in the group Urban Planning in Ukraine.

Yuriy Brykaylo,

DREAMDIM & URBANDATA

Ⓒ 2025

The State Property Fund of Ukraine has published a draft Law of Ukraine “On Amendments to the Law of Ukraine ‘On the Lease of State and Municipal Property’ Regarding Certain Valuation Issues in Determining the Value of Lease Objects”.

The draft law proposes to increase the threshold of residual book value of a lease object at which its value must be determined based on market valuation to 50 percent. As a result, the starting rental price at auctions for the lease of state and municipal property is expected to increase by improving the mechanism for determining the value of a lease object for the purpose of rental calculation. In particular, the draft provides for the replacement of the current mechanism requiring revaluation by the property holder with an independent valuation.

Key provisions:

• Property valuation may be paid by a prospective lessee – currently, this is the obligation of the property holder, which often blocks lease transactions. Following the amendments, the lessee will be able to cover these costs – even before the auction or conclusion of the agreement.
• If the asset has not been revalued for years or its residual value is only nominal “on paper,” the starting lease payment is significantly understated. The proposed changes aim to ensure the use of actual market valuation.
• No valuation required – for beneficiaries. Where the lease is granted for UAH 1 or under social programs, valuation will not be required at all, easing the financial burden on budget-funded institutions.
• Lease renewal – simplified and without revaluation. The draft proposes to cancel the requirement to approve a valuation report and to conduct an independent valuation of the lease object when extending a lease agreement.

Following the adoption of the proposed law, the lease amount will not increase directly; however, the starting rental price may be higher if market valuation is applied. In addition, the law is expected to eliminate one of the key obstacles to leasing state and municipal assets — the financial incapacity of property holders to fund valuation procedures.

This draft law may be discussed in the group Urban Planning in Ukraine.

Yuriy Brykaylo

DREAMDIM & URBANDATA

Ⓒ 2025

The Supreme Court, as part of the panel of judges of the First Judicial Chamber of the Civil Cassation Court, in its Ruling dated March 12, 2025, in case No. 676/76/22 regarding the invalidation of the village council’s decision, the recognition of the state registration of the land plot as unlawful and its cancellation, and the obligation to return part of the land plot, came to the following conclusions:

An agricultural land plot inherited by a foreign national and not alienated within one year is subject to confiscation.

The Prosecutor stated that the decision of the Rudska Village Council of Kamianets-Podilskyi District, Khmelnytskyi Region, dated July 24, 2015, No. 5, regarding the transfer of the land plot with cadastral number 6822486800:03:001:0101 into private ownership, is subject to invalidation, as the plot is located within the territory of the nature reserve fund, which is under the permanent use of the National Nature Park “Podilski Tovtry” based on a state act granting the right of permanent land use.

By Presidential Decree of Ukraine No. 474/96 dated June 27, 1996, the National Nature Park “Podilski Tovtry” was established, with a designated land area of 261,316 hectares, including 3,015 hectares allocated for permanent use.

The territory of the National Nature Park “Podilski Tovtry” is part of the Emerald Network of Ukraine (with a total area of 261,521 hectares) and is protected under the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Bern Convention) of 1979, ratified by Ukraine in 1996.

The Prosecutor indicated that the fact that the disputed land plot is located within the territory of the nature reserve fund is confirmed by relevant and admissible evidence, namely cadastral plans certified by specialists and data from the Public Cadastral Map. The land management project for the allocation of a land plot within the nature reserve fund was not approved by the relevant department of the Regional State Administration in the field of environmental protection. Lands of the nature reserve fund are subject to a special protection regime and are fully or partially excluded from commercial use.

The land plot transferred to PERSON_2 is part of the nature reserve fund, classified as particularly valuable land that has been withdrawn from economic use, and was under the permanent use of the National Nature Park “Podilski Tovtry.” Therefore, it could not be granted into ownership for individual horticulture. The land plot is subject to return to the state, represented by the Khmelnytskyi Regional State Administration.

…

Particularly valuable lands include, among others, lands of the nature reserve and other environmental protection purposes (subparagraph “g” of paragraph one of Article 150 of the Land Code of Ukraine (hereinafter — in the version effective at the time of the disputed legal relations)).

The legal framework for the organization, protection, effective use of the nature reserve fund of Ukraine, and the restoration of its natural complexes and sites is defined by the Law of Ukraine “On the Nature Reserve Fund of Ukraine” (hereinafter — in the version effective at the time of the disputed legal relations).

The nature reserve fund consists of land and water areas, natural complexes, and sites that have particular environmental, scientific, aesthetic, recreational, and other value, and are designated for the purpose of preserving the natural diversity of landscapes, the gene pool of fauna and flora, maintaining the general ecological balance, and ensuring background environmental monitoring (second paragraph of the preamble to the said Law).

According to Article 43 of the Land Code of Ukraine, lands of the nature reserve fund are land and water areas with natural complexes and sites that have particular environmental, ecological, scientific, aesthetic, recreational, and other value and have been granted the status of nature reserve fund territories and sites in accordance with the law.

In accordance with Article 44 of the Land Code of Ukraine, lands of the nature reserve fund include natural areas and sites (nature reserves, national nature parks, biosphere reserves, regional landscape parks, wildlife sanctuaries, nature monuments, and reserved tracts), as well as artificially created sites (botanical gardens, dendrological parks, zoological parks, and parks-monuments of landscape gardening art).

…

In the areas designated for regulated recreation, stationary recreation, and the economic zone, any activity that leads or may lead to the deterioration of the environment and the reduction of the recreational value of the national nature park’s territory is prohibited (part two of Article 21 of the above-mentioned Law).

In view of these provisions, the Law of Ukraine “On the Nature Reserve Fund of Ukraine” does not permit construction and maintenance of garden houses or horticultural activity within national nature parks.

The Supreme Court concurs with the conclusions of the lower courts that the transfer of a land plot into private ownership for horticultural purposes within lands of the nature reserve fund is in contradiction with the aforementioned legal requirements.

Therefore, the Rudska Village Council (legal successor — Zhvanecka Village Council) and PERSON_2, and subsequently PERSON_1, knew or ought to have known — by exercising reasonable diligence regarding the location of the disputed land plot — that it could not be transferred into private ownership for horticultural use. The conduct of the defendants was not in good faith.

…

In the areas designated for regulated recreation, stationary recreation, and the economic zone, any activity that leads or may lead to the deterioration of the environment and the reduction of the recreational value of the national nature park’s territory is prohibited (part two of Article 21 of the above-mentioned Law).

In view of these provisions, the Law of Ukraine “On the Nature Reserve Fund of Ukraine” does not permit construction and maintenance of garden houses or horticultural activity within national nature parks.

The Supreme Court concurs with the conclusions of the lower courts that the transfer of a land plot into private ownership for horticultural purposes within lands of the nature reserve fund is in contradiction with the aforementioned legal requirements.

Therefore, the Rudska Village Council (legal successor — Zhvanecka Village Council) and PERSON_2, and subsequently PERSON_1, knew or ought to have known — by exercising reasonable diligence regarding the location of the disputed land plot — that it could not be transferred into private ownership for horticultural use. The conduct of the defendants was not in good faith.

You can discuss the above Ruling of the Supreme Court in the Urban Planning in Ukraine group.

Yuriy Brykaylo,

DREAMDIM & URBANDATA

Ⓒ 2025