Kyiv RSA approves land-use development project for construction company’s lease
Complainee: Kyiv Region State Administration (Kyiv RSA)
Complaint in brief: A building materials retailer from Kyiv region appealed to the Business Ombudsman Council. The enterprise could not get approval of a land-use development project for lease of 9 hectares. The complainant planned to place store and ancillary buildings in Makariv district of Kyiv region. Kyiv RSA allowed to take on the land plot lease for the complainant earlier in winter 2013. The enterprise had a special permit for using mineral resources at this land plot and approved a detailed construction plan with the district council. However, it could not conclude a lease agreement with Kyiv RSA. The company submitted all necessary documents to the local government authority in order to approve the land-use development project, but the process of approval continued for months. Thus, the Council’s team commenced consideration of the complaint.
Actions taken: Having examined the appeal’s files and analysed legislation provisions, the investigator recognised the complaint as substantiated. In the Council’s view, Kyiv RSA officials created unlawful administrative barriers by not approving the land-use development project. According to the Land Code of Ukraine, state bodies are obliged to approve or deny approval of land-use projects for lease within ten working days from the date of a document’s receipt. In particular, legislation stipulates that additional consideration of citizens’ appeals requires no more than one month.
The Council detected existence of local government authority’s malpractice. The BOC recommended Kyiv RSA to immediately consider the enterprise's complaint and approve the land plot’s lease. The investigator highlighted that state bodies should follow the “good governance” principle: to act in a timely and appropriate and consistent manner in civil law.
Result achieved: Kyiv RSA upheld the Council’s recommendations and approved the land-use development project for the complainant’s lease of the land plot. The case was closed.