Practically immediately after this, on July 16, 2004, a draft decision was submitted to the city council session stating that the non-residential premises at the address: Lutsk, Kryvyi Val St., 13, were subject to privatization by buyout. The majority of deputies voted for it, apparently having no idea that this concerned the premises of an extracurricular educational institution.

On the basis of this decision, the department for accounting of communal property of the city executive committee issued order No. 110 on September 5 "On the alienation of non-residential premises at the address: Lutsk, Kryvyi Val St., 13." And just a day later, a purchase and sale agreement for these premises was concluded between the department for accounting of municipal communal property and the "Svitlynka" center. And some people say that it is difficult for entrepreneurs to resolve issues. As we can see, that is not always the case.

THE COLLECTIVE EXPRESSED NO CONFIDENCE

Having learned about the dealings to which no one had asked for their consent, members of the labor collective set about defending their rights to the taken premises. Moral and psychological pressure began to be exerted on them. On this basis, a conflict arose between the school's leadership and the labor collective, which on February 9 of this year resulted in the trade union meeting of the collective expressing no confidence in school director Nataliia Hlazyrina and her deputy Tetiana Kryvytska. 60 people voted "for," 3 "against." At the same time, the collective sent an appeal requesting an assessment of such actions by officials to the oblast prosecutor's office, the USBU [Security Service of Ukraine administration] and the MainKRU [Main Control and Revision Office]. On February 22, a response arrived from the oblast prosecutor's office:

"An inspection was conducted regarding the unlawful actions of the city mayor and the school's deputy director for studies during the privatization of part of the premises and their lease. Based on the results of the inspection, on 11.02.2005, the oblast prosecutor's office opened a criminal case on the fact of abuse of office by officials of the Lutsk city executive committee during the privatization ... in the interests of third parties, which caused grave consequences to state and public interests in the form of large-scale shortfalls of funds to the budget and deterioration of working and learning conditions..."

On February 25, the inquiry body of the USBU in the oblast opened another criminal case — against city executive committee officials Kosteniuk A.A. and Visyn V.V., who turned out to be directly involved in granting permission for the privatization of the school's premises. Three days later, a conclusion appeared from the control and revision department in the oblast: "The indicated facts of violation of financial and budgetary discipline have been confirmed..."

STRIKING CONCLUSIONS OF THE KRU

The KRU inspection established a number of interesting points. According to the purchase and sale agreement, 287 square meters of the music school's premises were sold for 58 thousand 510 hryvnias, which together with VAT amounted to 70.2 thousand. After privatization, a lease agreement was concluded between the "Svitlynka" center and the DKP [state communal enterprise] "Lutsk Children's Music School No. 1" for part of the premises with a lease payment of — just imagine! — 1 hryvnia per square meter per year...

SOME EXCERPTS FROM THE KRU CONCLUSIONS I WILL QUOTE VERBATIM:

"The order of the city executive committee's property department on removing from the balance sheet of the state communal enterprise 'Lutsk Children's Music School No. 1' the privatized part of the premises is dated February 9, 2005, No. 110, that is, only during the period of the inspection. As a consequence, the institution, at the expense of budget funds, during the period from September 2004 to February 2005, paid the cost of utility services for the alienated area..."

"In 2003-2004, out of the allocated 1,301.2 thousand hryvnias of budget funds, 118.6 thousand hryvnias were used unlawfully and not for their intended purpose, including 107.2 thousand hryvnias directed to the construction of a building without submitting design and estimate documentation, documents for the right of ownership indicating the person (legal or natural) who will use it in the future..."

Based on the results of the inspection, protocols on bringing to administrative liability were drawn up against officials of the capital construction department of the executive committee, which was the manager of the funds and the client for the works. In particular, protocols were drawn up against the head of the UKB [capital construction department] Yatsiura V.I. and chief engineer Tsviruk M.I. The inspection materials were transferred to the SBU...

THE PROSECUTOR'S LAWSUIT LEFT WITHOUT CONSIDERATION

After these conclusions, the prosecutor of the city of Lutsk filed a lawsuit in court in the interests of the state in the person of the DKP "Lutsk Children's Music School No. 1" — to declare unlawful and cancel city council decision No. 18/5 of 16.07.2004; to declare invalid the purchase and sale agreement of 07.09.2004. Among other things, he emphasized that the privatization of part of the non-residential premises of Lutsk Music School No. 1 was carried out without the consent of the institution's labor collective, since the said premises were classified as group "A" objects rather than group "Zh," to which it belongs.

On June 13, 2005, a ruling of the oblast Commercial Court appeared, by which the lawsuit of the Lutsk prosecutor was left without consideration. The court's arguments were as follows: "The prosecutor has the right to apply to the commercial court with lawsuits in the interests of the state, and not in the interests of enterprises, institutions or organizations... The court has established that the interests of the state in the person of the Ministry of Culture and Tourism of Ukraine are not violated in this case, and in the interests of state communal enterprises the prosecutor has no right to file lawsuits..."

On the same day, Mr. Kryvytskyi's response appeared to a letter from the acting head of the special control commission on privatization issues, Liudmyla Kyrychenko. It stated: "Given that part of the privatized premises belongs to group 'A,' the collective's consent was not required. This was also confirmed by the court. The court ruling is attached. We believe that the conflict surrounding the privatization of part of the music school's premises for the needs of also a children's institution has a purely political basis." So these are the kind of "arguments."

I dare to note: the court decision in no way states that "part of the privatized premises belongs to group 'A,' the collective's consent was not required." The commercial court did not refute this, but it did not confirm it either. What also stands out is the legal equivocation contained in this court ruling: it turns out that "in the interests of state communal enterprises" (it appears there is also such a form of ownership!) the interests of the state cannot be defended?

WHAT DID THE COURT CONFIRM?

Just 9 days later, the Lutsk city-district court considered the materials of an administrative case received from the SBU regarding the first deputy head of the regional branch of the State Property Fund in the oblast, Vasyl Krutii. The court established that Mr. Krutii "provided unreliable information regarding the classification of part of the premises of Lutsk Music School No. 1, which was alienated as a group 'A' object, in response to a written request from the head of the department for accounting of communal property of the Lutsk city executive committee, Kosteniuk A.A., although an object of such a category belongs to group 'Zh.' Kosteniuk A.A. provided this letter to law enforcement agencies and claims that the criminal case was opened against him without grounds."

As certified by the interrogation protocol of the head of the SPFU [State Property Fund of Ukraine] branch, Ustianchuk F.Z., if part of the music school's premises was not being used for its intended purpose, technical documentation should have been prepared that would determine the status of this part of the object, and only then could it be classified as a category of group "A" objects. The court concluded that Mr. Krutii "intentionally provided unreliable information," found him guilty of violating the law "On Combating Corruption" and fined him... 255 hryvnias.

As for the city hall officials, according to the response of oblast prosecutor Mykola Frantovskyi, the criminal case on the fact of abuse of office by city executive committee officials remains open. "Currently, a pre-trial investigation is being conducted in the case. The prosecutor of the city of Lutsk has been obligated to take all measures provided by law for a complete, comprehensive and objective investigation of the circumstances of the case and establishment of the truth, ensuring its quality investigation and implementation of the oblast prosecutor's office's instructions within a short time frame, proper prosecutorial supervision and adoption of a final procedural decision."

ON THE SECOND ROUND

As recent events attest, the music school's collective does not intend to retreat and has a firm intention to complete what the now ex-prosecutor of Lutsk failed to do. Over the summer months, its representatives collected all the necessary documents, and on September 1, the DKP "Lutsk Children's Music School No. 1" applied to the oblast Commercial Court with its own lawsuit to declare invalid the purchase and sale agreement for part of the music school's premises. So soon this high-profile case will again gain wide publicity.

Finally, we provide an excerpt from the response of oblast prosecutor Mykola Frantovskyi, from which one can draw a conclusion about the further development of this scandalous story:

"After the lawsuit was received by the court, the oblast prosecutor's office, with the aim of protecting the interests of the state and the territorial community of the city, filed a motion to join the consideration of this case. In response to the motion, the head of the oblast Commercial Court informed that the lawsuit had been sent to the Higher Commercial Court of Ukraine to decide the issue of transferring it for consideration to another commercial court. In this connection, the issue of representation by prosecutor's offices of the state's interests in this case will be finally decided after its acceptance by another commercial court."

Therefore, the final word in this case must be said by an independent court.

Oleksandr PYROZHYK