Lease of a building grants the right to use the land: Supreme Court in a dispute over a gas station license

The Supreme Court noted that when considering disputes regarding the issuance of licenses for retail fuel trade, courts should establish the actual characteristics of the gas station facility, rather than limiting themselves to a formal assessment of the submitted documents.

In particular, if it concerns a container or modular gas station, the installation of which does not require construction work or foundation arrangement, documents on the commissioning of a completed construction facility may be absent due to the specifics of such a facility.

This conclusion was reached by the Administrative Cassation Court within the Supreme Court in the ruling of case No. 120/16870/24.

Case circumstances

An enterprise applied to the tax authority for a license to conduct retail fuel trade.

The application included a package of documents, including permits for equipment operation, documents regarding the land plot, and a lease agreement for a non-residential building. However, the tax authority refused to issue the license.

The grounds for refusal were conclusions that the submitted commissioning act of the fueling equipment did not comply with legal requirements, as well as the failure to provide proper documents confirming the right to use the property and objects specified in the operation permit.

The courts of first and appellate instances supported the position of the controlling authority and denied the claim, considering that the applicant did not submit all documents required by law for obtaining the license.

Plaintiff's arguments

The enterprise argued that it uses a container or modular gas station, the installation of which is not considered construction under urban planning legislation.

In its opinion, in such a case, there is no obligation to commission the facility and obtain the corresponding documents issued for completed construction objects.

The plaintiff also insisted that the lease agreement for the building confirms the right to use the land plot necessary for conducting the activity.

Supreme Court conclusions

The Administrative Cassation Court recalled its legal position previously stated in case No. 640/27953/21.

The Supreme Court noted that the installation of a gas station, which is an integral factory-made product and whose installation does not require construction work or foundation arrangement, is not considered construction. Accordingly, there is no obligation to obtain documents on commissioning a completed construction facility for such an object.

The court emphasized that refusal to issue a license due to failure to submit documents that, by their legal nature, cannot be obtained for the respective facility, effectively creates a requirement to submit documents not provided for by law.

At the same time, the Supreme Court noted that the lower courts did not establish a key circumstance for resolving the dispute — whether the fueling station is an integral factory-made product or a modular gas station whose installation does not require construction work. The resolution of this question determines the necessity of submitting documents regarding the commissioning of the facility.

Regarding the right to use the land plot

The Supreme Court separately drew attention to the provisions of Article 796 of the Civil Code of Ukraine.

The court stated that along with leasing a building or structure, the lessee is granted the right to use the land plot on which the respective object is located, as well as the adjacent land plot to the extent necessary to achieve the purpose of the lease.

At the same time, the Supreme Court recognized as erroneous the conclusion of the lower courts that the right to use the land plot must be confirmed exclusively through the lease of the retail fuel trade facility itself. The court emphasized that the law requires submission of documents confirming ownership or use rights of the land plot but does not establish this method of confirmation as the only possible one.

Why the Supreme Court overturned the decisions of lower courts

The Supreme Court concluded that the courts of first and appellate instances incompletely examined the circumstances of the case.

In particular, they did not establish the technical status of the fueling station and did not properly assess documents that could be significant for resolving the question of whether the object is a modular gas station or an integral factory-made product.

Moreover, the courts effectively refused to examine some evidence solely because it was not submitted to the licensing authority together with the license application. According to the Supreme Court, such an approach did not ensure a full and comprehensive clarification of the dispute circumstances.

Court decision

The Administrative Cassation Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, annulled the decision of the Vinnytsia District Administrative Court and the ruling of the Seventh Administrative Court of Appeal, and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.

At the same time, the Supreme Court did not resolve the dispute on the merits or finally assess the legality of the license refusal. The court only stated that the lower courts incompletely established the factual circumstances of the case, without clarifying which it is impossible to make a lawful and reasoned decision.

Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua and to Google News SUD.UA, as well as to our VIBER and WhatsApp, Facebook page Facebook and Instagram to stay informed about the most important events.