The issue of land distribution between Kiev and suburban communities continues to remain a source of conflicts that have been resolved in courts for the first year. The new turn of the fight is allegedly insignificant at first glance of a area of 0.22 hectares, which is located on the outskirts of Gostomel. But in this territory - decades of legal conflicts, political decisions and the lack of approved boundaries of the capital.
At the center of the new judicial confrontation were the Kyiv City Council and the Kyiv Regional Council. The Municipality of the Municipality appeals the decision of the regional council, adopted in December 2019, which includes a disputed plot in Gostomel, which, according to the Kyiv City Council, belongs to the community of the capital since 1956. In 2007, the same land was leased to a private company, whose co -founder was previously killed during the occupation of Gostomel settlement head Yuri Prylypko.
Kyivoblrad insists: the inclusion of the plot was based on the agreed project of land management, and they received the position of the capital in 2017 - in the form of a letter from the Department of Land Resources of the KSCA. Moreover, the act of approval of the limits on which the signature of Vitaliy Klitschko appears, the regional council considers sufficient confirmation of consent. The capital's authorities, instead, denies any legitimacy of this agreement, noting that only the Kyiv City Council, not the Department or Officer, can dispose of the land plots of Kiev.
The legal confrontation around the boundaries of the village went far beyond one site. It is only one of the many episodes of many years of conflict on territories between Kiev and the surrounding communities, which has aggravated after the regional council made by the regional council without taking into account the position of Kiev. To date, the courts have been on the side of the capital several times - in particular, in the case of expansion of Kotsyubynsky boundaries, when the Buchan district council was forbidden to enter data on thousands of hectares of Belichansk Forest into the State Land. But many cases, including the current concerning Gostomel, are still in the process of consideration.
In parallel, systemic uncertainty continues - the Verkhovna Rada has not yet approved the boundaries of Kiev, which allows local self -government bodies from the region to actually operate the lands that the capital claims. The Kyiv City Council in 2019 approved a new project of land management, which has established the total area of the capital in more than 85 thousand hectares, but this document has not yet been agreed by either the regional council, nor the State Geocadastre, nor Parliament.
The problem is increasing against the background of political ambitions, shadow interests and historical confusion with the earth, which has been transmitted between different users for decades. In the case of a plot near Gostomel, for example, the Kiev side refers to the resolution of the Council of Ministers of the USSR in 1956, which confirms the inclusion of this territory in the green zone of Kiev. However, in the region, it is believed that over time, these lands were transferred to the balance of settlements, and they do not see grounds to review the boundaries of the approved project.
The court hearing will be held on August 6 in the sixth appellate administrative court. The first instance - the Volyn District Administrative Court - was on the side of Kiev. But no matter how the appeal is over, the final word is likely to say the Cassation Administrative Court. And regardless of the result, this case is another reminder that the issues of the borders of the capital of Ukraine have not yet been resolved.
And until Kiev has clearly approved limits, conflicts with neighboring communities will not only continue, but also multiply. Each hectare in the suburbs is not only a forest or a field, but sometimes a lucky piece for construction, new routes or redirected budget flows. And until the Verkhovna Rada puts a point in this matter, the courts remain the only platform where the parties can at least temporarily outline their territory.
