NABU detectives and SAPO prosecutors have recently served a notice of suspicion to Mykola Solsky, Minister of Agrarian Policy. According to their version, he facilitated the seizure of state land worth UAH 291 million, which allegedly belonged to state-owned enterprises of the National Agrarian Academy of Ukraine (NAAS), but ended up in the hands of ATO soldiers. However, there are good reasons to believe that the NABU's version of the case has significant flaws. At least, this is evidenced by decisions of the Supreme Court, which UNN found in the state register.
As it turned out, five years ago, in 2019, the Supreme Court, as part of the panel of judges of the Commercial Court of Cassation, investigated the circumstances referred to in today's statements by anti-corruption activists.
The current "victims" of the NABU - two state-owned enterprises of the National Agrarian Academy of Ukraine - SE Iskra and SE Nadiya - were plaintiffs in court at the time. They asked the court to recognize their right to permanent use of land plots with a total area of 7055.6046 hectares in Sumy region. The claims were based on their own charters and the succession of the Lenin State Farm. However, they lost in all courts.
First, they were rejected by the Commercial Court of Sumy Region , and then the same rejection was issued by the appellate court .
"In dismissing the claim, the courts of previous instances concluded that there was no evidence of the transfer of the disputed land plots to the plaintiffs by way of succession, as different acts of transfer of land funds indicated different areas of land plots transferred from one enterprise to another, and that the fact of registration of the right to permanent use of land plots by legal entities whose successors are the plaintiffs was not proven," the Supreme Court ruling reads.
The court materials state that the plaintiffs, represented by these state-owned enterprises, believe that they have the right to permanent use of the land, but "for reasons beyond their control, they cannot formalize this right with the relevant documents".
Also , the Supreme Court notes that SE Iskra and SE Nadiia developed technical documentation for the right to permanent use of land plots in 2012, but did not legally approve it.
In its conclusions, the Supreme Court emphasizes that the arguments of SE Iskra and SE Nadiia are overestimated and there are no grounds to believe that they had the right to use the disputed land plots.
"The resolution comes into force from the moment of its adoption, is final and not subject to appeal," the Supreme Court summarized, dismissing the claims of the state-owned enterprises of the National Academy of Sciences.
Some of the land claimed by the state-owned enterprises of the National Academy of Sciences was privatized by the ATO soldiers. The latter, unlike the "agricultural scientists," received their right and documented it. They were assisted with the paperwork by the law firm of Solsky, who was neither a minister nor a member of the Verkhovna Rada at the time, as it was seven years ago.
NABU detectives believe that the ATO soldiers received the land to deliberately lease it to agricultural companies, and this is allegedly their malicious intent. However, the ATO veterans themselves say that this is a common practice for land share owners, as it is unprofitable to cultivate the land themselves due to the need for significant investments, so they give it away or sell it to farmers. The latter do not always use this in a fair way. For example, they buy or lease warriors' shares for nothing, exchange their shares for less suitable ones - but these are the nuances of contractual relations between share owners and tenants.
Recall
NABU detectives and SAPO prosecutors served Minister of Agrarian Policy Mykola Solskyi with a notice of suspicion of allegedly organizing a scheme to seize 2,500 hectares of NAAS land.
Solsky himself says that the circumstances of seven years ago relate to the period of his lawyer's activity, long before his appointment as minister. His defense lawyers claim that Solsky did not benefit from the fact that ATO soldiers acquired the right to the land.