[ad_1]
The plaintiff Prosecutor’s Office requested the cancellation of 4 agreements for the sale of the state land, as well as the decision of the defendant UAB shareholder Donelaičio namai on the increase in the authorized capital of the company with the land acquired under the disputed agreements and the transfer of this land to the company; He requested the return of the land to the State and ordered the defendants to pay the sums paid to individuals for the plots. The Prosecutor’s Office also requested that the building permit issued to the defendant (builders) I.Šakalienė to rebuild the building on the land, which was in dispute, be declared invalid and to force I.Šakalienė to demolish the building – annex within 3 months. from the entry into force of the decision. The defendants disagreed with the claim and requested that it be dismissed.
The trial court determined that the claim was partially founded and annulled two of the four contracts disputed by the plaintiff (contracts concluded in 2014), applied restitution and annulled the defendant UAB Donelaičio namai with the defendants M.Š. and I.Šakaliene the part of the share subscription agreements regarding the transfer of 411/1271 and 389/1271 parts of the land, returning to the defendant the registered intangible ordinary shares of UAB Donelaičio Namai, with which the parts were paid specified parts of the land, and returned to the state the specified parts of the land, by granting the amounts paid by the defendants by the State for the parts of the land: € 3,451.64 to the defendant M. Š., € 4,370.67 to the defendant I.Šakaliene. The court also declared invalid the part of the permit issued to the defendant from the Klaipėda City Municipal Administration I.Šakalienė in connection with the construction of a two-storey annex with an attic; The defendant I.Šakalienė is obliged to demolish the 2-storey annex with an attic in charge of the National Land Service of the Ministry of Agriculture of the Republic of Lithuania and to organize the construction site within 3 months from the date entry into force of the decision.
Having assessed the evidence gathered in the case of two, the court concluded that the conclusion of said agreements violated the mandatory provisions of the law, since a greater part of the land was transferred outside the auction procedure than was necessary for the defendants (Sisters I.Šakalienė and M. Š.) For the operation of their own premises for their direct purpose. As a result, the principles of public benefit, efficiency, rationality and public law in the use of state property were violated.
The court dismissed the action regarding the 2006 and 2007 judgment recognizing the agreements for the purchase and sale of state lands as invalid, as it established that the lands sold to defendant I. Šakalienė under these agreements were proportional to residential premises managed by their property rights in accordance with their direct purpose.
The decision of the regional court can be appealed to the Lithuanian Court of Appeal within 30 days from the date of its adoption.
[ad_2]
