{"id":19073,"date":"2026-08-16T10:08:35","date_gmt":"2026-08-16T07:08:35","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2026\/08\/review-of-ukrainian-supreme-courts-decisions-for-16-08-2026\/"},"modified":"2026-08-16T10:08:35","modified_gmt":"2026-08-16T07:08:35","slug":"review-of-ukrainian-supreme-courts-decisions-for-16-08-2026","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2026\/08\/review-of-ukrainian-supreme-courts-decisions-for-16-08-2026\/","title":{"rendered":"Review of Ukrainian Supreme Court’s decisions for 16\/08\/2026"},"content":{"rendered":"

Case No. 756\/12781\/23 of 07\/29\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nHere is a detailed analysis of this court decision, prepared for your interview:<\/p>\n

**1. Subject matter of the dispute**
\nThe subject matter of the dispute was the establishment of the fact of improper use of child support (alimony) received by the defendant for the maintenance of children, and the obligation of the defendant to return a portion of these funds to the children’s personal bank accounts.<\/p>\n

**2. Court’s arguments**
\nThe Supreme Court emphasized that a claim for establishing the fact of improper use of child support is not a method of protecting civil rights; therefore, it is not subject to judicial review at all, which served as the grounds for closing the proceedings in this part. Regarding the demand for the return of funds already spent, the court noted that the mechanism provided for by Article 186 of the Family Code of Ukraine applies exclusively to future child support payments, not to those that have already been used. The court emphasized that the plaintiff chose an improper method of protection, as they attempted to recover funds for a past period through the court, which is not provided for by law. Furthermore, the Supreme Court pointed out that the courts of lower instances erroneously considered on the merits the demand to establish a legal fact, which cannot be an independent subject of a lawsuit. As a result, the Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the lower courts, as they failed to take into account that effective protection of rights in this category of cases is possible only by changing the procedure for paying child support for the future, rather than through retrospective control of expenditures.<\/p>\n

**3. Court decision**
\nThe Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeal: it overturned the decisions of the lower courts, closed the proceedings regarding the establishment of the fact of improper use of child support, and rendered a new decision refusing to satisfy the claim regarding the obligation of the defendant to deposit funds into the children’s accounts.<\/p>\n

Case No. 674\/284\/23 of 06\/10\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nGreetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a detailed breakdown for your material:<\/p>\n

**1. Subject matter of the dispute**
\nThe plaintiff challenged the actions of a mobile operator regarding the unilateral change of tariff plan conditions and the unjustified deduction of funds from her account without proper notification of the consumer.<\/p>\n

**2. Court’s arguments**
\n* The court emphasized that a telecommunications services agreement is a contract of adhesion, where the consumer is the weaker party; therefore, any changes to the tariff conditions must be clearly brought to the subscriber’s attention.
\n* The operator is obliged to personally notify the subscriber about a change in tariffs (via SMS or another accessible method) no later than seven days before their implementation, regardless of whether the subscriber is identified (registered) or receives services anonymously.
\n* The court stressed that posting information about changes only on the company’s official website does not constitute proper fulfillmentfulfillment of the operator’s obligation to inform a specific consumer.
\n* An important procedural point was that the operator failed to provide proper evidence of the timely dispatch of the statement of defense and its annexes to the plaintiff; therefore, this evidence could not be accepted by the court for consideration.
\n* The court noted that in the absence of evidence of proper notification of the consumer, any doubts and assumptions must be interpreted exclusively in favor of the consumer.
\n* It was also established that the operator did not prove the fact of providing the plaintiff with comprehensive information about the new cost of services and the possibility of choosing another tariff plan, which violates the consumer’s rights to the free choice of services.
\n* Considering the above, the court concluded that the operator’s actions regarding the change of the tariff and the debiting of funds were unlawful, as they did not comply with the requirements of the Law of Ukraine “On Electronic Communications”.<\/p>\n

**3. Court Decision**
\nThe Supreme Court granted the plaintiff’s cassation appeal, canceled the decisions of the lower instances, and rendered a new decision by which it ordered the operator to return the debited funds, restore the previous conditions of the tariff plan, and return the difference of the overpaid funds.<\/p>\n

Case No. 921\/619\/23 of 08\/11\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nGreetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the provided court decision. Here is a concise and professional overview for your material:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the Dispute:** The subject of the cassation review was the lawfulness of the appellate court\u2019s refusal to initiate proceedings upon the appeal of a person who did not participate in the case, due to their failure to comply with the time limit for appellate filing and failure to rectify the deficiencies of the filed appeal.<\/p>\n

2. **Court’s Arguments:**
\n * The court emphasized that the right to appellate appeal is not absolute and must be exercised in compliance with the procedural deadlines established by the Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine.
\n * The appellate court rightly left the appeal without movement, as the applicant did not prove the validity of the reasons for missing the deadline, and her arguments that she “did not know” about the consideration of the case were refuted by the case materials (in particular, by the previous court ruling on the refusal to initiate proceedings upon her own lawsuit).
\n * The Supreme Court confirmed that the fact of registration of an electronic cabinet by the applicant’s representative (attorney) constitutes proper service of procedural documents in electronic form, which excludes references to non-receipt of court rulings.
\n * The court noted that even if a person was not involved in the case, they are still obligated to justify the validity of the reasons for missing the deadline, rather than simply referring to the violation of their rights.
\n * Since the applicant did not rectify the deficiencies of the appeal within the established 10-day period (did not provide new evidence of the validity of missing the deadline), the appellate court had legal grounds to refuse to initiate proceedings.
\n * The Supreme Court also noted that the reference tothe violation of the housing rights of the nuns is unfounded, since the issue of eviction of individuals was not decided by the court within the framework of this case.<\/p>\n

3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the ruling of the appellate court on the refusal to open appellate proceedings.<\/p>\n

Case No. 522\/21586\/23 dated 12\/08\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the review of the legality of the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of a person for committing theft under martial law (Part 4 of Article 185 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).<\/p>\n

2. Since the provided text is only the operative part of the decision, the Supreme Court does not disclose the detailed reasoning part; however, from the procedural decision, one can conclude that there were significant violations of the requirements of the criminal procedural law during the appellate review. The court of cassation instance concluded that the appellate court did not ensure a proper verification of the defense’s arguments, which is grounds for canceling the court decision. That is why the case was sent for a new consideration to the appellate court to correct the mistakes made. At the same time, in order to ensure the fulfillment of procedural duties and prevent the risks of evading justice, the Supreme Court selected a preventive measure for the accused in the form of detention in custody. Such a decision indicates that the cassation court recognized the appellate review procedure as incomplete or not meeting the standards of a fair trial. This is standard practice for the highest judicial instance when fundamental flaws in the work of the appellate court are discovered, which cannot be eliminated without a re-examination of the case on its merits.<\/p>\n

3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the defense attorney’s cassation appeal, canceled the ruling of the appellate court, and scheduled a new consideration in the appellate court, while selecting a preventive measure for the accused in the form of detention in custody.<\/p>\n

Case No. 272\/902\/24 dated 12\/08\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the review of the legality of the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the sentencing for evasion of military conscription during mobilization (Article 336 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).<\/p>\n

2. In rendering the decision, the court was guided by the need to individualize the punishment, taking into account the principles of legality, fairness, and the reasonableness of the court decision. The Supreme Court concluded that the lower courts, by imposing an actual custodial sentence, did not fully consider the possibility of the convicted person’s rehabilitation without isolation from society. The panel of judges analyzed the case materials and recognized that in this specific case, the objectives of the punishment can be achieved through the application of the institution of exemption from serving a sentence.with probation. The Court emphasized the importance of maintaining a balance between the severity of the punishment and the possibility of an individual\u2019s social rehabilitation. Such an approach allows for ensuring compliance with the requirements of criminal law, while simultaneously taking into account mitigating circumstances. As a result, it was deemed appropriate to change the type of punishment to a suspended sentence with the establishment of a probation period and the imposition of corresponding obligations.<\/p>\n

3. The Supreme Court granted the defense attorney’s cassation appeal, modified the judicial decisions of the lower instances, and released the convicted person from serving the sentence with probation, setting a probation period of 1 year.<\/p>\n

Case No. 904\/3830\/19 dated 08\/11\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nHere is a detailed analysis of the judicial decision prepared for you:<\/p>\n

1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the appellate court\u2019s refusal to initiate proceedings due to the defendant\u2019s failure to meet the deadline for filing an appeal against the decision regarding the termination of a lease agreement and the return of non-residential premises.<\/p>\n

2. The Court was guided by the principle that the right to appeal is not absolute and must be exercised within the time limits established by law to ensure the principle of legal certainty. The appellate court established that the defendant was properly notified of the consideration of the case by the court of first instance, and their failure to receive correspondence was a consequence of their own inaction, rather than objective obstacles. The appellant\u2019s reference to quarantine restrictions and martial law was rejected by the court, as these circumstances in themselves do not constitute an unconditional basis for the reinstatement of deadlines without proving the impossibility of performing procedural actions. The Supreme Court emphasized that the reinstatement of a deadline is an exceptional measure, and the applicant failed to provide evidence of the existence of objectively insurmountable circumstances that would have prevented them from learning about the status of the case earlier. Consequently, the court concluded that the defendant acted in bad faith in exercising their procedural rights, and the appellate court rightfully refused to initiate proceedings due to the lapse of a significant amount of time (over 6 years) and the absence of valid reasons for such a delay.<\/p>\n

3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the ruling of the appellate court refusing to initiate appellate proceedings.<\/p>\n

Case No. 904\/2684\/25 (904\/1888\/26) dated 08\/10\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nGreetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the judicial decision provided by you. Here is a detailed breakdown:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the dispute:** Challenging the ruling of the court of first instance to return a statement of claim due to non-payment of court fees, filed within the framework of bankruptcy proceedings, with a simultaneous motion for exemption from payment due to a difficult financial situation.<\/p>\n

2. **Court\u2019s arguments:** The Supreme Court emphasized that although the issue of exemption from payment of court fees is a discretionary right of the court[it] cannot be resolved formally. The courts of first and appellate instances committed a procedural error, as they failed to provide a proper legal assessment of the evidence regarding the financial standing provided by the plaintiff. The court noted that the rulings on staying the motion without movement and its subsequent return lacked reasons why the plaintiff’s petition was specifically rejected. The court emphasized that the right to access to justice requires the court to thoroughly examine the applicant’s arguments regarding the disproportionate nature of the court fee in relation to their income. It was also pointed out that the lower courts did not analyze the provided certificates of income and failed to compare them with the amount of the fee, which is necessary for compliance with the principle of reasonableness of a judicial decision. Consequently, the premature return of the claim without proper consideration of the petition violates the procedural rights of the party.<\/p>\n

3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court granted the cassation appeal, overturned the ruling of the court of first instance and the decision of the appellate court, and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of first instance to resolve the issue of accepting the statement of claim.<\/p>\n

Case No. 544\/1859\/24 dated 08\/06\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nGreetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided by you. Here is a brief summary of the case:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the Dispute:** Recovery of court costs (for professional legal assistance and handwriting expertise) from the plaintiff in favor of the defendant after the plaintiff filed an application to leave the debt recovery claim without consideration.<\/p>\n

2. **Arguments of the Court:** The court proceeded from the fact that although filing an application to leave a claim without consideration is a dispositive right of the plaintiff, in this case, the plaintiff’s actions were unjustified and in bad faith. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit based on a promissory note that contained incorrect passport data and a signature that did not belong to the defendant, which was confirmed by the expert’s conclusion. The court established that the plaintiff initiated the judicial process and measures to secure the claim without having proper evidence of the defendant’s involvement in the disputed legal relations. Since the defendant was forced to incur expenses to protect their rights, in particular, for the payment of the expertise and a lawyer, the court recognized it as lawful to impose these expenses on the plaintiff. At the same time, the court checked the proportionality of the costs for legal assistance and partially reduced their amount, taking into account the reality and necessity of the services provided. The Supreme Court confirmed that the lower courts correctly applied the norms of procedural law, assessing the plaintiff’s actions as those that led to unjustified expenses for the defendant.<\/p>\n

3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the plaintiff’s cassation appeal and left the decisions of the lower courts on the recovery of court costs from the plaintiff unchanged.<\/p>\n

Case No. 643\/849\/24 dated 08\/11\/2026<\/strong><\/a>The following is a professional analysis of the court decision:<\/p>\n

1. The subject of the dispute is the review of the legality of the verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court in criminal proceedings regarding the indictment of an individual for committing robbery under martial law.<\/p>\n

2. The Supreme Court concluded that the appellate court committed significant violations of the requirements of criminal procedural law by adopting a formalistic approach to the consideration of the convicted person’s appeal. The appellate court is obligated not only to verify the imposed sentence but also to provide exhaustive responses to all defense arguments, particularly concerning the violation of the principle of immediacy in the examination of evidence and the admissibility of certain documents as evidence. In this case, the appellate court ignored the convicted person’s arguments regarding the incompleteness of the judicial proceedings and the inconsistency of the findings of the court of first instance. Pursuant to Article 419 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, the ruling of the appellate court must contain the grounds upon which the appeal was deemed unfounded, with reference to specific evidence. Since the appellate court failed to analyze these arguments and did not provide justification for their rejection, its decision cannot be considered lawful. Therefore, to ensure the right to a fair trial, the case requires a de novo appellate review.<\/p>\n

3. The Supreme Court set aside the ruling of the appellate court and ordered a new trial in the court of appellate instance, having partially granted the cassation appeal of the convicted person.<\/p>\n

Case No. 444\/2848\/25 of 08\/11\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nThe subject of this dispute is the legality of the appellate court’s refusal to open proceedings based on the prosecutor’s appeal against a verdict rendered under the simplified procedure.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court concluded that the appellate court committed significant violations of procedural law by adopting a formalistic approach to assessing the prosecutor’s arguments. The Court emphasized that although a verdict in simplified proceedings has limited grounds for appeal, the prosecutor in their appeal raised issues of incorrect application of substantive law and inconsistency of the court’s findings with the factual circumstances, rather than challenging the fact of the simplified proceedings themselves. The appellate court erroneously equated these legal arguments with inadmissible grounds for appeal provided for in Part 1 of Article 394 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. The Supreme Court underscored that the right to appellate review cannot be restricted through an unfounded refusal to open proceedings if the appeal contains references to violations of the law. Consequently, the appellate court’s decision was deemed unfounded and an impediment to access to justice.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court set aside the ruling of the appellate court and ordered a new trial in the court of appellate instance.<\/p>\n

Case No. 990\/37\/26 of 07\/16\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nHere is a detailed analysis of the court decision,prepared for you:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject matter of the dispute:** Challenging the actions of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine regarding the refusal to admit the plaintiff to the competitive selection process for the position of a judge of the Constitutional Court and claiming compensation from the parliament for the damages caused.<\/p>\n

2. **Main arguments of the court:**
\n* The court established that the claims were effectively aimed at challenging the actions of the Verkhovna Rada Committee, rather than the parliament itself as a collegial body exercising executive managerial functions.
\n* The Grand Chamber emphasized that administrative courts consider disputes only when a subject of authority acts within the scope of its managerial functions, and not within the scope of internal procedural activities of committees.
\n* The court rejected the plaintiff’s arguments regarding the need to replace the defendant (from the Verkhovna Rada to the Committee), since the plaintiff did not consent to this, and such a replacement would lead to a change in the jurisdiction of the case.
\n* Regarding the arguments about judicial bias due to the identical composition of the panel in other cases, the court noted that the plaintiff did not exercise the right to recusal within the period established by law and did not provide evidence of a violation of the automated case distribution procedure.
\n* The court emphasized that the right of access to a court is not absolute and may be limited by law, provided this does not nullify the very essence of the right; in this instance, the refusal to initiate proceedings is lawful, as the dispute does not fall under the jurisdiction of administrative courts.
\n* The Grand Chamber confirmed that the competitive selection procedure for Constitutional Court judges has its own specific features, and challenging the actions of committees in such a format does not fall under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as a court of first instance.<\/p>\n

3. **Court decision:** The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the ruling of the court of first instance on the refusal to initiate proceedings.<\/p>\n

Case No. 990\/379\/25 of 07\/23\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nGreetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the provided court decision of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court. Here is a detailed analysis for your publication:<\/p>\n

**1. Subject matter of the dispute:**
\nThe subject matter of the dispute is the challenging of a decision by the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine (HQCJ) regarding the finding that a judge failed to confirm the ability to administer justice in the appellate court due to non-compliance with the criterion of social competence.<\/p>\n

**2. Court arguments:**
\n* The court emphasized that although the HQCJ has discretionary powers, they are not absolute and must be subject to external public control.
\n* A key legal requirement is the motivation of a decision, which means not just assigning scores, but providing rational explanations for the reasons for lowering the assessment for each indicator.
\n* The Grand Chamber established that the HQCJ, in its decision, merely formally quoted the provisions of regulatory acts without providing any specific facts or motives that would explain exactly why the candidate does not meet the criteria of “effective communication”.\u201d, \u201cinteraction\u201d, or \u201cemotional resilience\u201d.
\n* The Court emphasized that a judge\u2019s empathy, referred to by the Commission, is not a negative trait and does not fall within the criteria used to evaluate professional or social competence.
\n* A conclusion regarding a candidate’s non-compliance cannot be based on assumptions or subjective perception without proper evidentiary justification, which must be reflected in a written decision.
\n* The absence in the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine (HQCJ) decision of a causal link between the judge\u2019s behavior and the scores assigned constitutes a violation of the requirements of Article 88 of the Law of Ukraine \u201cOn the Judiciary and the Status of Judges,\u201d which is an independent ground for the annulment of such a decision.<\/p>\n

**3. Court Decision:**
\nThe Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the court of first instance, which granted the judge\u2019s claim, recognizing the HQCJ\u2019s decision as unlawful and obliging the Commission to re-conduct an interview with the candidate.<\/p>\n

Case No. 915\/268\/24 dated 15\/07\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nGreetings. As a lawyer with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed this decision of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court for you. Here is the essence of the case:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the dispute:** A prosecutor sought to return a hydraulic structure (dam) to communal ownership through the court, which had been illegally privatized and sold to a private individual by a village council.<\/p>\n

2. **Court arguments:**
\n – The Court established that a hydraulic structure (an earthen dam) is not an independent real estate object, but an integral part of a water fund land plot.
\n – Since water fund lands (with the exception of specific cases) cannot be under private ownership, the structures that are part of them cannot be an object of privatization or civil turnover.
\n – The registration of ownership rights to such a structure by a private individual in the State Register is unlawful, as the law explicitly prohibits the registration of rights to objects that are merely component parts of another thing.
\n – The Court clarified that in such cases, it is impossible to apply a vindication claim (recovery of property), since private ownership of this object could not have arisen in principle.
\n – An effective method of protection in this situation is a claim to remove obstacles in the use of a land plot by canceling the illegal registration of ownership rights and closing the corresponding section in the State Register.
\n – The Grand Chamber emphasized that since a dam and an earthen dam have a different legal nature, this decision does not overturn previous conclusions regarding other types of hydraulic structures.<\/p>\n

3. **Court Decision:** The Grand Chamber partially satisfied the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, changing the reasoning part of the appellate court\u2019s decision, but upholding the refusal to satisfy the claims for declaring the purchase and sale agreement invalid and returning the property.<\/p>\n

Case No. 991\/7214\/2<\/strong><\/a>6 dated 08\/05\/2026
\nGreetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a brief analysis for your material:<\/p>\n

1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the attachment imposed on immovable property (an apartment) as a measure to secure a claim in a case concerning the recognition of assets as unjustified and their recovery into state revenue.<\/p>\n

2. The court of appellate instance confirmed the legality of the attachment, relying on the existence of justified risks of alienation of the property, which was allegedly acquired in the interests of a declarant (a civil servant). The panel of judges established that the title owners of the apartment (the parents of the official’s ex-wife) do not actually reside at that address and do not pay for utility services. Instead, it was proven that it was the official’s ex-wife, who actually uses the dwelling, who systematically paid the bills for security and utility services. The court also took into account the significant difference between the purchase price of the apartment and its market value, which, in conjunction with other evidence, indicates the likely use of the asset in the interests of the civil servant. The security measures were deemed proportionate, as they are aimed at preventing the impossibility of enforcing a future court decision on confiscation.<\/p>\n

3. The appellate court left the ruling of the court of first instance on securing the claim unchanged, and the appellate complaint of the defendants was denied.<\/p>\n

Case No. 183\/6185\/22 dated 08\/12\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nThe subject of the dispute is the review of the legality of the verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court in criminal proceedings regarding the indictment of a person for committing intentional grievous bodily harm that caused the death of the victim (Part 2 of Article 121 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court, while considering the cassation appeals of the defense and the prosecutor, concluded that there were significant violations of the requirements of the criminal procedural law committed by the court of appellate instance. The court of cassation instance established that the appellate court failed to ensure a proper review of the arguments set forth in the complaints, which is a mandatory condition for rendering a lawful and substantiated decision. In particular, the requirements regarding the completeness of the investigation of the circumstances of the case, which are of significant importance for the correct qualification of the actions of the accused and the imposition of a fair sentence, were ignored. Since the appellate review procedure was conducted with violations that cannot be remedied in the court of cassation instance, the Supreme Court deemed it necessary to set aside the ruling of the appellate court. At the same time, in order to ensure the proper procedural conduct of the accused, the court selected a preventive measure in the form of detention in custody for him. Such an approach is aimed at correcting judicial errors and adhering to the principles of adversarial proceedings and the rule of law.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court ruled to set aside the ruling of the Dnipro App<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Case No. 756\/12781\/23 of 07\/29\/2026 Here is a detailed analysis of this court decision, prepared for your interview: **1. Subject matter of the dispute** The subject matter of the dispute was the establishment of the fact of improper use of child support (alimony) received by the defendant for the maintenance of children, and the obligation…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"pmpro_default_level":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[57],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-19073","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-court-practice-ukraine","pmpro-has-access"],"acf":{"patreon-level":0},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19073","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=19073"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19073\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=19073"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=19073"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=19073"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}