statementSaid on 2026-11-02
Under Part 2 of Article 5 of the Law of Ukraine "On Privatization of State Property", protective radiation shelters / structures, as a type of civil protection (civil defense) protective structures, were not subject to privatization (alienation).
A statement by supremecourtua, said on 2026-11-02. Statements are as reported by the cited publishers — not verified by DecisionGateway.
Відповідно до ч. 2 ст. 5 Закону України «Про приватизацію державного майна» протирадіаційні укриття / споруди як один з видів захисних споруд цивільного захисту (цивільної оборони) не підлягали приватизації (відчуженню).
Related claims
Protective radiation shelters / structures, as objects of national importance, are not subject to privatization.ВП ВС · statementProtective radiation shelters/structures as objects of national importance are not subject to privatization, and an effective way to protect the state's rights to such property is a claim to remove obstacles to its use by returning it to the state.ВП ВС · statementTaking into account the rules of Articles 321, 391 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, a proper and effective way to protect the state's rights to protective radiation shelters / structures as a type of civil protection (civil defense) protective structures is a negatory claim.supremecourtua · statementSuch structures belonged to objects of national importance, were in state ownership, and by their designated purpose are needed for the state to perform its functions to ensure its defense capability and protect the life and health of the population from the consequences of accidents, catastrophes of technogenic, ecological, natural and military nature.supremecourtua · statementEven physical protection does not guarantee safety: Russians find weak spots in shelters and change methods of attack.liganet · statementAn effective way to protect the state's rights to such property is a claim to remove obstacles to the use of this property by returning it to the state.ВП ВС · statement
More claims by supremecourtua
The Supreme Court, composed of the joint chamber of the Civil Cassation Court, reached these conclusions while ensuring the unity of judicial practice.statementFailure by a participant to comply with a general meeting decision, in particular failure to provide documents to update information on ultimate beneficial owners, is not grounds for forced exclusion of such a participant.statementThe Law of Ukraine "On Limited and Additional Liability Companies" establishes an exhaustive list of grounds for excluding a participant from a company: non-contribution of a share and death of a participant if their heirs have not applied to the LLC with an application to join.statementA child's temporary stay outside Ukraine must not restrict the child's right to maintain regular relations with both parents.statementEnsuring the child's best interests, preserving the child's family ties and establishing a real and effective communication arrangement is decisive.statement
All claims by supremecourtua