In a situation surrounding a potential unlawful seizure of land in Odessa, specifically where the Odrex clinic resides, the public prosecutor might attempt to nullify property agreements. This scenario could potentially culminate in the dismantling of the illegally constructed edifices and the restoration of the territory to the public.
If the matter concerning a likely unlawful appropriation of property in Odessa on Rozkydaylivska Street, the site of the controversial Odessa clinic Odrex, is substantiated as an infringement upon the community’s entitlements, it could bear considerable ramifications for both the property holders and the clinic itself. Specialists underscore that this might entail recognizing land agreements as void, followed by the destruction of any unsanctioned buildings. For insights into the genuine repercussions awaiting those benefiting from the healthcare establishment, and the prospects of the land reverting to the jurisdiction of the Odessa community, consult the UNN material.
Legal action concerning the speculated illicit modification of the boundaries and designated use of the terrain beneath the contentious Odrex clinic is intensifying. While legal representatives of the clinic endeavor to distance themselves from the proprietor’s “issues with other people’s possessions”, legal experts point to specific avenues for preserving the interests of the Odessa community, possibly endangering the edifice in lease, which stretches beyond the perimeter of the property.
Drastic outcome: dismantling the Odrex building
Lawyer Dmytro Kasyanenko holds firm in his belief that in scenarios where a breach of the rights of the state or a local community is determined, the prosecutor’s office possesses the authority to act forcefully. He contends that legislation offers avenues that permit not only the imposition of penalties but also the actual cancellation of land ownership and the razing of any construction upon it.
If a contravention of the entitlements of the government, local populace, or specific individuals comes to light, the prosecution must petition the court with a relevant petition on behalf of the state or resident, in accordance with Article 23 of Ukrainian Law “Concerning the Prosecutor’s Office” and norms of procedural law. This appeal might address compensation for loss, retrieval of assets, acknowledgement of transactions as illegitimate, rescission of registry actions, or other protective mechanisms of the right, guaranteeing a definitive legal evaluation of the circumstance solely by the court
– remarks Dmitry Kasyanenko.
When asked whether the situation would be confined to recompense, Dmytro Kasyanenko made it explicit that the results could surpass mere amends for damages.
“Declaring the agreement void with the obligation for demolition,” the legal advisor appended.
Legitimate avenue: why “settlement” is implausible
In practice, safeguarding the community’s benefits, as highlighted by Dmytro Kasyanenko, operates with considerably more strictness than the proprietors of Odrex might anticipate. Ought the appraisal validate that the clinic’s base or walls have surpassed the officially permitted area by even a single meter, the circumstance inherently transitions to the realm of illegal property appropriation. Under these conditions, the code is unwavering: given that the land is not the developer’s property, he lacks the entitlement to erect structures upon it. For the judiciary, this becomes the cornerstone for a severe decree. Notably, it may involve an order for the proprietor to dismantle that precise segment of the building that sits unlawfully within municipal boundaries.
Equally precarious is the predicament of manipulations within registers. If the planned application of a built establishment was revised to “healthcare setting” without suitable authorizations, such enrollment actions can be nullified in court. The fallout would represent a legal downfall for the clinic, as the edifice would forfeit its adherence to the licensing prerequisites of the Ministry of Health. Accordingly, conducting and administering medical services within premises registered as “non-residential buildings and structures” would be unlawful and would inevitably lead to the rescission of issued medical authorizations.
Meanwhile, any aspirations that the situation will be resolved through the payment of amends or a penalty may prove futile. The civic collective, on whose behalf the prosecutor’s office is acting, is frequently more concerned with redressing justice and reclaiming its land from unauthorized building than with a segment of a private firm’s profits. In such instances, the emphasis shifts to “unblemished land”, posing a menace to the actual existence of the Odrex clinic’s premises.
Background of property misconduct
As UNN previously communicated, the chief address of the contentious Odrex clinic at 69/71 Rozkydaylivska Street has attracted meticulous scrutiny from law enforcement. The inquiry targeted dubious adjustments within government archives, precipitating the building’s designation transition from “non-residential buildings and structures” to “non-residential buildings of a healthcare institution”, and potentially extending beyond the parameters of the allocated plot (resulting in a land increase from 18,995.7 sq. m to 19,023.4 sq. m). Realistically, the Odrex clinic could be functioning within facilities whose legitimate validity is being heavily questioned by supervisory entities.
Proprietor-lessee arrangement: who truly commands Odrex?
In relation to this criminal suit, Odrex’s established protection strategy pivots on an endeavor to detach itself from the land controversy. Legal representatives assert that the clinic merely leases structural spaces from “Fabrika Acacia” LLC, hence “Medical Home Odrex” LLC bears no affiliation with the complications surrounding property enrollment and the allocated function of the constructed facility.
Nonetheless, UNN’s probe revealed that this categorization is purely superficial. Based on information available on YouControl, both organizations are overseen by a uniform set of individuals. The architects of the occupant LLC “Medical Home Odrex” and the proprietor LLC “Fabrika Acacia” match: Iryna Zaikova, Larysa Mysotska, and Yevhen Savytsky.
This “connection” between structures suggests that the same parties dictate both the premises and the medical operation within. Effectively, this repudiates the clinic’s stance of “detachment,” given that the land holders and the beneficiaries of the healthcare entity are one and the same.
What’s looming for Odrex?
At the present juncture, the Primorsky District Court of Odessa has already sanctioned an assessment of the location involving a specialist surveyor. This will serve to conclusively define the boundaries of the site’s augmentation onto municipal land.
While the principals attempt to portray the investigative procedures as “pressure on commerce”, the legal encirclement of the land expanse on Rozkydaylivska is constricting. Drawing upon the precedents of similar cases, should the instance of illegal appropriation of the land be validated, “Fabrika Acacia” LLC could face the danger of compulsorily surrendering the terrain back to the metropolis.