“** The farmer has accused DTEK of damage to the land ** The citizen owns 50 hectares of land allocated for agricultural activity. He argues that DTEK’s activities have led to soil degradation, which led to a reduction in land area. This information was published in the decision of the Amur-Nizhnodniprovsky District Court of Dnipro of September 10, 2025. According to the decision of the Dobropil District Council, the citizen provided 50 ha […]”, – WRITE: Businessua.com.ua
** Farmer accused DTEK’s company of damage to the land **
The citizen owns 50 hectares of land allocated for agricultural activities. He claims that DTEK’s activities have led to soil degradation, which led to a reduction in land area. This information was published in the decision of the Amur-Nizhnodniprovsky District Court of Dnipro of September 10, 2025.
According to the decision of the Dobropil District Council, the citizen provided 50 hectares for agro -production with the right of permanent use. The land includes three sections, one of which borders on the dump of JSC “DTEK Dobropilsk CPF”. The height of the dump exceeds the approved standards, which is why the clay soil is shifted to its field during precipitation. According to the inventory, the area of one plot decreased from 11.7 hectares to 4.4276 hectares, so the plaintiff requires the company to reclamation.
On June 20, 20125, the court received a claim stating that on January 17, 2007, the plaintiff voluntarily abandoned 8.5 hectares of land through a statement to the chairman of the Dobropil Regional State Administration. On January 18, 2007, an order No. 15 was adopted on its removal. In the future, he was granted permits for the development of land management projects for plots of 8.00 ha and 16.00 hectares (order №145 dated September 18, 2007 and №530 of 04.09.2012). DTEK’s dump is located on a rented area of 6.0052 ha. The State Geocadastre in Donetsk region conducted an examination on 23.04.2019, which did not find violations. The plaintiff did not provide convincing evidence of pollution: the photo materials do not have identification markers, and these dates do not correspond to reality.
What ended the case? The court rejected the plaintiff’s claims. The applicant did not give evidence of the impact of DTEK’s dump on his land.
“The evidence and explanations presented do not confirm the circumstances stated by the plaintiff, in particular the fact of falling into its territory. Specialized studies (measuring boundaries, topography) are required to establish these details, which should be carried out by qualified specialists. The plaintiff did not initiate the involvement of experts. Evidence that the facts (Article 79 of the CPC of Ukraine) are unambiguous.
The gun
Please wait …