Cıvıl-legal regulatıon of the procedure of requısıtıon ın the case of natural dısasters, accıdents, epıdemıcs, epızootıcs and other extraordınary cırcumstances ın Ukraine
The spread of the coronavirus pandemic throughout the territory of Ukraine, the introduction of martial law in connection with the full-scale invasion of the russian federation, require the state to apply such legal mechanisms that would help eliminate the negative consequences that arose in connection with dangerous events, or prevent their occurrence. One of such mechanisms is the institution of requisition, which is legalized in national legislation by the constitutional provision of Article 41 of the Constitution of Ukraine. Thus, according to the specified article of the Basic Law, forced alienation of objects of private property rights can be applied only as an exception for reasons of public necessity, on the basis and in the manner established by law, and on the condition of prior and full reimbursement of their value. Compulsory expropriation of such objects followed by full reimbursement of their value is allowed only under conditions of war or emergency. At the same time, the state’s right to requisition property is an exception to the basic principle of inviolability of property rights for every legal state. Forced expropriation of property must be carried out with strict and unwavering adherence to the legally established procedure, which confirms the relevance of this scientific issue.
The article states that it is not only correct, but also urgent to adopt a special law on requisition with the definition of the body (or bodies) that would be in charge of the forced expropriation of property independently or in coordination with other state authorities. In addition, we believe that the determination of the value of property should be carried out on the date of its assessment, by analogy with the way it is provided for requisition under the legal regimes of war or state of emergency, and carrying out the assessment as of the date of adoption of the administrative act on the requisition of property is erroneous.