{"id":19147,"date":"2026-08-20T10:56:52","date_gmt":"2026-08-20T07:56:52","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2026\/08\/review-of-ukrainian-supreme-courts-decisions-for-20-08-2026\/"},"modified":"2026-08-20T10:56:52","modified_gmt":"2026-08-20T07:56:52","slug":"review-of-ukrainian-supreme-courts-decisions-for-20-08-2026","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2026\/08\/review-of-ukrainian-supreme-courts-decisions-for-20-08-2026\/","title":{"rendered":"Review of Ukrainian Supreme Court’s decisions for 20\/08\/2026"},"content":{"rendered":"

Case No. 297\/2189\/23 of 05\/08\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nThe subject of this dispute is the review of the legality of the appellate court ruling, which upheld an acquittal for a person accused of official negligence that caused grave consequences (Part 2 of Article 367 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).<\/p>\n

When considering the prosecutor\u2019s cassation appeal, the Supreme Court was guided by the principle of verifying the lower courts’ compliance with the requirements of criminal procedural legislation when evaluating evidence. The Court proceeded from the fact that the appellate court had duly reviewed the prosecutor’s arguments and provided them with an appropriate legal assessment, without finding any material violations of procedural law that could serve as grounds for overturning the acquittal. The cassation instance emphasized that it does not have the authority to re-evaluate evidence that had already been examined by the courts of first and appellate instances, provided those courts acted within the scope of their authority. The Court also noted that the prosecutor’s arguments largely boiled down to a disagreement with the factual circumstances of the case established by the courts, which is not a subject of cassation review. As a result, the panel of judges concluded that the challenged court decision was lawful, well-founded, and reasoned. No grounds for departing from established judicial practice or conclusions of the Supreme Court were found in this case.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court left the appellate court’s ruling unchanged and dismissed the prosecutor’s cassation appeal.<\/p>\n

Case No. 910\/11136\/25 of 13\/08\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nGreetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the Supreme Court decision you provided. Here is a detailed breakdown for your material:<\/p>\n

**1. Subject of the dispute**
\nThe subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the appellate court\u2019s suspension of proceedings in a case regarding the recovery of a penalty under an equipment lease agreement until the resolution of another case in which the validity of the legal transactions serving as the basis for leasing this equipment is being challenged.<\/p>\n

**2. Court arguments**
\nThe Supreme Court emphasized that the suspension of proceedings on the basis of Paragraph 5, Part 1, Article 227 of the Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine is an exceptional measure, which is possible only under the condition of an objective impossibility to consider the case without the results of another proceeding. The Court noted that the appellate instance mistakenly equated “relatedness of cases” with “objective impossibility of consideration,” as the evidence available in the case file allowed the court to independently assess the circumstances of the dispute. An important argument was that a court decision in case No. 910\/8009\/24 already existed between the parties, which had entered into legal force and concerned the same property and the same legal relations, which effectively negates the arguments regarding the need to wait for a decision in another, new dispute. The Court emphasized that the risk of adopting mutually exclusive decisions is not an independent ground for suspending proceedings if the court has sufficient authority to establish facts in thethe horror of the current proceedings. Furthermore, the Supreme Court indicated that a decision in a private law dispute has effect only for the parties (inter partes); therefore, awaiting the results of another case, where the parties may be different, is not procedurally justified. Ultimately, the appellate court did not provide any compelling justification as to why it could not independently verify the legality of the court of first instance’s decision based on the available evidence.<\/p>\n

**3. Court Decision**
\nThe Supreme Court granted the cassation appeal, set aside the ruling of the appellate court on staying the proceedings, and remanded the case to the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal for continuation of the hearing on the merits.<\/p>\n

Case No. 911\/896\/25 dated 08\/04\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nGreetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided by you. Here is a detailed analysis:<\/p>\n

1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the court of first instance leaving a prosecutor’s claim for the recovery of a land plot without consideration due to failure to comply with the requirement to deposit its value into the court\u2019s deposit account.<\/p>\n

2. The appellate court, with which the Supreme Court agreed, proceeded from the premise that the obligation to deposit the value of property into the court’s account, provided for by the amendments to legislation dated March 12, 2025, applies exclusively to cases of reclaiming property from a bona fide purchaser. Since the prosecutor in the claim asserted the bad faith of the defendant, the issue of applying this compensation mechanism may arise only during the hearing of the case on the merits, if the court establishes that the purchaser is indeed a bona fide one. The court emphasized that the requirement for preliminary deposit of funds is not a universal procedural condition for initiating proceedings in any vindication claim. Imposing such a requirement at the stage of opening a case contradicts the principle of dispositivity and limits access to justice. The Supreme Court emphasized that the issue of a purchaser’s bona fide status is a matter of proof, not a prerequisite for admitting a claim for consideration. Therefore, the cancellation of the ruling on leaving the claim without consideration was recognized as lawful and justified.<\/p>\n

3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of LLC “FC ‘Forint'” and upheld the resolution of the appellate commercial court without changes.<\/p>\n

Case No. 927\/934\/25 dated 08\/04\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nHere is a detailed analysis of the court decision prepared for you:<\/p>\n

1. The subject of the dispute is the invalidation of a lease agreement for state-owned real estate (an educational building), concluded in violation of the requirements of education legislation, and the obligation of the lessee to return this property to the balance holder.<\/p>\n

2. When rendering the decision, the court of cassation was guided by the fact that the property of state educational institutions has a special legal status, which imperatively limits the possibilities of its use. The Supreme Court emphasized that according to Part 4 of Article 80 of the Law of Ukraine “On Education,” such property cannot be usednot be used for purposes other than educational, and lease is permitted exclusively for the provision of services related to supporting the educational process or serving its participants. The Court emphasized that even the prolonged non-use of premises by an educational institution does not lift these restrictions and does not grant the right to lease them for any other activity. Furthermore, it was established that the lease agreement did not contain a clearly defined purpose of property use related to education, but rather granted the lessee the right to use the premises at their own discretion, which directly contradicts the requirements of the law. The Supreme Court also indicated that the appellate court erroneously prioritized the fact of non-use of the property, ignoring the imperative norms of special legislation that protect the integrity of educational infrastructure. Thus, the court of cassation confirmed that the absence of restrictions regarding the intended use in an agreement is an independent ground for declaring such a transaction invalid.<\/p>\n

3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court and upheld the decision of the court of first instance, by which the prosecutor’s claim was fully satisfied.<\/p>\n

Case No. 243\/8566\/19 dated 08\/10\/2026<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the dispute:** Cassation review of the legality of the appellate court\u2019s ruling, which upheld the local court\u2019s verdict regarding the qualification of the convicted persons’ actions for robbery (Article 187 of the Criminal Code) and their acquittal on charges of forming a gang (Article 257 of the Criminal Code).<\/p>\n

2. **Arguments of the court:**
\n – The court emphasized that a gang, as a stable armed association, requires the existence of a clear hierarchy, subordination, and the intent to commit multiple attacks or one particularly complex attack, which was not proven in this case.
\n – The Supreme Court noted that joint planning and the division of roles within one specific robbery do not constitute automatic proof of creating a gang, but merely indicate prior conspiracy by a group of persons.
\n – Regarding the defense’s arguments concerning the inadmissibility of the results of covert investigative (search) actions (CISA), the court pointed out that when criminal proceedings are consolidated, additional authorization from an investigating judge for the use of already obtained CISA materials is not required.
\n – The court acknowledged that the technical impossibility of playing the optical medium (disc) during the appellate review does not render the evidence unreliable, as its content had been recorded in protocols which were examined previously.
\n – The court confirmed that the amount of 1,424,500 UAH was reasonably qualified as an “especially large amount,” as it significantly exceeds the threshold established by law for the corresponding qualifying element.
\n – Regarding sentencing, the court emphasized that failure to admit guilt and the choice of a specific defense strategy cannot be grounds for an automatic increase in punishment, and the imposed terms are proportionate and fair.<\/p>\n

3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court…The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeals of the prosecutor and the defense attorney, and upheld the ruling of the appellate court.<\/p>\n

Case No. 128\/2924\/22 of 08\/05\/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 analysis for your material:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the dispute:** The plaintiff sought to cancel the title documents for the defendant’s (an individual entrepreneur) land plot, citing an overlap of boundaries that arose after she had acquired ownership of the adjacent plot.<\/p>\n

2. **Court’s arguments:**
\n – The court established that the legality of the defendant’s ownership of the land plot had already been confirmed within the framework of another case (No. 128\/1438\/18), the decision of which has entered into legal force and is mandatory for execution.
\n – The plaintiff was effectively attempting to review circumstances already established by the court earlier through a new lawsuit, which is inadmissible in civil proceedings.
\n – The court emphasized that the existence of overlaps, which existed prior to the moment the plaintiff acquired ownership, does not provide her with grounds for the termination of the defendant’s ownership, as her own rights were not violated at the time of acquiring the plot.
\n – The Supreme Court also confirmed the lawfulness of recovering professional legal assistance costs from the plaintiff, as they were documented, and their amount was reasonable and proportionate to the complexity of the case.
\n – Regarding the method of protection, the Supreme Court corrected an error of the appellate court, noting that declaring the decisions of authorities illegal is an appropriate method of protection; however, in this specific case, the claims are unfounded on their merits.
\n – The court indicated that the purpose of the lawsuit was merely to prevent the execution of a previous court decision, which contradicts the principles of civil proceedings.<\/p>\n

3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal only in the part regarding the exclusion from the reasoning part of the appellate court\u2019s resolution of the conclusion concerning an improper method of protection; in all other respects, it left the decisions of the lower courts unchanged.<\/p>\n

Case No. 916\/1173\/25 of 08\/04\/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 analysis for your material:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the dispute:** The reclamation by the prosecutor in the interests of the territorial community of land plots from the possession of LLC “Vinograd-21” as property that left state ownership in violation of the legislation.<\/p>\n

2. **Court’s arguments:**
\n * The court established that the plaintiff’s obligation to deposit the value of the property into the court’s deposit account (according to new amendments to procedural legislation) applies exclusively to lawsuits against “good-faith purchasers.”
\n * Since the prosecutor in the statement of claim substantiates the demands by the defendant\u2019s bad faith, the issue regarding the status of a “good-faith purchaser” must be resolved by the court during the consideration of the case.on the merits, and not at the stage of initiating proceedings.
\n * The court emphasized that the legal qualification of the relationship is the duty of the court; therefore, the prosecutor’s reference to Article 388 of the Civil Code of Ukraine does not deprive the court of the right to apply Article 387 of the Civil Code of Ukraine if the bad faith of the possessor is proven.
\n * The appellate instance correctly pointed out that the requirement for a preliminary deposit of funds is a procedural obstacle that is applied only when the status of a bona fide purchaser is undisputed or established.
\n * The defendant’s arguments regarding the lack of authority of the Odesa City Council representative were rejected, as the existing orders of the Mayor confirm the right to self-representation, and the creation of a military administration does not automatically terminate the powers of a local self-government body in courts.
\n * The Supreme Court confirmed that the verification of a purchaser’s bona fides is a matter of proof during judicial proceedings, rather than a formal ground for leaving a claim without consideration.<\/p>\n

3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the resolution of the commercial appellate court, which had canceled the ruling to leave the claim without consideration and remitted the case to the court of first instance for continuation of the proceedings on the merits.<\/p>\n

Case No. 591\/7134\/21 dated 07\/01\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nGreetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided by you. Here is a detailed breakdown for your material:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject matter of the dispute:** The case concerned the securing of a claim regarding the determination of a child’s place of residence (by establishing a schedule of meetings with the mother) and the father’s claims to determine the child’s place of residence with him and to release him from the payment of alimony arrears.<\/p>\n

2. **Court arguments:**
\n – Regarding the securing of the claim, the court proceeded from the fact that establishing a schedule of meetings with the child in the presence of a psychologist is a temporary measure that does not resolve the dispute on the merits, but protects the child’s right to communicate with both parents.
\n – The court emphasized that in family disputes, the interests of the child and the need to preserve emotional contact with the mother take priority over the other parent’s desire to limit such communication.
\n – In refusing to release [the father] from the payment of alimony, the court pointed out that the plaintiff had not provided proper and admissible evidence that would confirm the fact of his full support of the child during the entire disputed period.
\n – The Supreme Court emphasized that although a change in the child’s actual place of residence is a ground for release from alimony, in this case, the courts of lower instances evaluated the evidence and determined that the grounds for such release were not proven.
\n – The court of cassation instance noted that it does not have the authority to re-evaluate evidence, as this is the exclusive prerogative of the courts of first and appellate instances.
\n – The applicant’s arguments regarding the failure to take into account the conclusions of the Supreme Court in other cases were rejected, as the factual circumstances in these casesdiffered significantly from the circumstances of the case under consideration.<\/p>\n

3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the ruling on the securing of the claim and the decisions of the lower courts to deny the exemption from payment of alimony arrears, and dismissed the cassation appeals.<\/p>\n

Case No. 158\/2652\/25 dated 08\/05\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nGreetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided by you. Here is a detailed analysis:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the dispute:** Establishing the fact of paternity of a deceased serviceman in relation to a minor child for the purpose of protecting the child\u2019s rights to inheritance and receipt of social payments.<\/p>\n

2. **Court’s arguments:**
\n – The Supreme Court emphasized that in cases involving the establishment of paternity, the court must be guided by the principle of the “best interests of the child,” which provides for the child’s right to know their origins.
\n – The court emphasized that the law does not establish an exhaustive list of evidence for establishing paternity, therefore, any information confirming the child’s origin must be evaluated in its entirety.
\n – The appellate court erroneously rejected the submitted evidence, failing to take into account that in the presence of doubts regarding biological kinship, the court is obliged to facilitate the establishment of the truth.
\n – A key violation was the lower courts’ disregard of the plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of a post-mortem forensic genetic examination, which is the most accurate scientific method for establishing paternity.
\n – The Supreme Court noted that since the issue of the child\u2019s paternity is currently legally undetermined (following the exclusion of information about the previous father), the refusal to examine evidence violates the child’s right to the establishment of their identity.
\n – The court of cassation indicated that it does not have the authority to establish the circumstances of the case on its own; therefore, the case requires a retrial to conduct a proper examination and evaluate all evidence.<\/p>\n

3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court set aside the ruling of the appellate court and remanded the case for a new hearing to the appellate court.<\/p>\n

Case No. 369\/18297\/21 dated 08\/13\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nThe subject of the dispute is the legality of closing criminal proceedings on charges of a person having committed intentional murder (Part 1 of Art. 115 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine) in connection with the death of the accused.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court, while considering the prosecutor\u2019s cassation appeal, focused on verifying the correct application of procedural law by the appellate court when deciding the fate of the criminal proceedings following the death of the person involved. The court proceeded from the premise that the death of the accused is an unconditional ground for closing the proceedings; however, the procedure for the allocation of procedural costs in such cases requires strict adherence to the requirements of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. In this decision, the cassation instance confirmed the legitimacy of the fact of closing the case due to the person’s death, but adjusted the financial componenttrial process. The Court concluded that expenses incurred by the state for conducting forensic examinations and other procedural actions cannot be imposed on heirs or other persons in the event of the accused’s death, unless otherwise provided by law. Thus, the Supreme Court eliminated legal uncertainty regarding the allocation of costs incurred during the proceedings in the courts of first and appellate instances. The final decision is aimed at bringing the procedural status of expenses into compliance with the requirements of criminal procedural legislation.<\/p>\n

The Court granted the prosecutor\u2019s cassation appeal, amending the appellate court\u2019s ruling regarding the allocation of procedural costs by charging them to the state, and upholding the remainder of the decision unchanged.<\/p>\n

Case No. 922\/391\/26 of 08\/04\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nBelow is a detailed analysis of the court decision in Case No. 922\/391\/26:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the dispute:** The plaintiff appealed to the court with a demand to compel the gas distribution network operator to recalculate the cost of natural gas distribution services for the period when the consumer\u2019s facility (TEC-2 “Eskhar”) was damaged as a result of military actions and could not consume gas.<\/p>\n

2. **Court’s arguments:**
\n * The court established that as a result of shelling, the plaintiff\u2019s facility sustained critical damage, making its operation and actual gas consumption impossible.
\n * The plaintiff duly confirmed the occurrence of force majeure circumstances with a corresponding certificate from the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Ukraine.
\n * The court concluded that the gas distribution service consists of two elements: ensuring access to the network and the physical transportation of gas, and in this case, both of these elements were absent.
\n * The gas distribution network operator\u2019s argument that the service is provided continuously regardless of consumption was rejected, as it contradicts the principles of reasonableness and fairness under martial law conditions.
\n * The court applied the provisions of NEURC Resolution No. 561, which expressly provides for the exemption of the consumer from paying for distribution services in the event of damage to the gas consumption facility as a result of military aggression.
\n * The accrual of fees for a service that physically could not be provided due to the destruction of the consumer’s infrastructure was found to be groundless.
\n * The Supreme Court confirmed that the appellant’s arguments regarding the mandatory nature of payment in any case are based on an incorrect interpretation of legal norms.<\/p>\n

3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the lower courts, which had granted the claim, unchanged.<\/p>\n

Case No. 766\/18048\/21 of 08\/14\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the consideration of a prosecutor’s motion to change the territorial jurisdiction of criminal proceedings concerning the accusation of three individuals of committing fraud and attempted fraud on an especially large scale.<\/p>\n

2. In rendering its decision, the Court was guided by the provisions of Article 34 of the Crimof the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, which defines an exhaustive list of grounds for transferring criminal proceedings from one court to another. The Supreme Court analyzed the prosecutor’s arguments and concluded that the cited circumstances are neither sufficient nor justified for an exceptional case of change of jurisdiction. The legislator has established strict criteria for transferring a case to ensure the right to have a case heard by a proper court and to avoid the abuse of procedural rights. The Court took into account that territorial jurisdiction must be determined in accordance with the rules established by the Criminal Procedure Code, and any departures from this rule require exceptional grounds, which were not proven in this case. Thus, the panel of judges found no legal grounds to satisfy the prosecutor’s motion.<\/p>\n

3. The Supreme Court ruled to dismiss the prosecutor’s motion to transfer the criminal proceedings to another court.<\/p>\n

Case No. 297\/2189\/23 dated 05\/08\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nThe subject of this dispute is the review of the legality of an acquittal concerning a customs official accused of official negligence, which allegedly led to the non-payment of customs duties in large amounts.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court, having analyzed the case file, concluded that the lower courts acted within their powers and duly assessed the evidence. A key argument was that the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the fact that the crime was committed by the accused, as well as the existence of a direct causal link between his actions and the occurrence of grave consequences. The Court emphasized that the evidence provided by the prosecutor, including video recordings and audit reports, did not contain sufficient data to identify the vehicle and confirm the fact of improper performance of official duties by a specific person. It was also noted that the findings of internal investigations in this case were of a presumptive nature, which were not confirmed during the court proceedings. Furthermore, the court drew attention to procedural peculiarities regarding the civil claim, as the authority in whose interest it was filed was not duly involved in the proceedings as an aggrieved party. In summary, the cassation instance did not identify any material violations of procedural law that could serve as grounds for overturning the acquittal.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the appellate court and dismissed the prosecutor’s cassation appeal.<\/p>\n

Case No. 910\/8754\/25 dated 04\/08\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nGreetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the judicial decision you provided. Here is a brief analysis for your material:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the dispute:** Declaring the absence of the right of PrJSC “NEC “Ukrenergo” to unilaterally adjust the plaintiff’s electricity imbalances and the recovery of funds paid due to such unfounded adjustments.<\/p>\n

2. **Argum**Court Arguments:** The Court established that Ukrenergo unlawfully performed imbalance adjustments based on court decisions that concerned entirely different market participants, rather than the plaintiff or its balancing group. The Supreme Court emphasized that performing an extraordinary adjustment requires a court decision that directly pertains to the rights and obligations of the specific market participant, which was not the case here. Furthermore, the court noted that the defendant\u2019s reference to one of the appellate court\u2019s rulings is groundless, as it had been overturned by the cassation instance. The court confirmed that the method of protection chosen by the plaintiff \u2014 declaring the absence of a right to a claim and an obligation to take actions to “cancel” unilateral acts \u2014 is effective and consistent with the practice of the Supreme Court. As a result, Ukrenergo’s actions regarding the forced collection of funds through unilateral adjustment acts were recognized as having no legal basis.<\/p>\n

3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts, by which the claims of PrJSC “DTEK Kyiv Regional Grids” were partially satisfied.<\/p>\n

Case No. 910\/9235\/24 dated 08\/13\/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 analysis for your material:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the Dispute:** Determination of the legality of including inflation-related losses and 3% per annum accrued on debt, for which a court decision had already been rendered, into the composition of creditor claims in bankruptcy proceedings, taking into account the rules for the statute of limitations during quarantine and martial law.<\/p>\n

2. **Court Arguments:**
\n – The court proceeded from the premise that the statute of limitations is a term that applies to all civil legal relations, including claims in bankruptcy proceedings.
\n – The key moment was the application of special provisions of the “Final and Transitional Provisions” of the Civil Code of Ukraine, which temporarily changed the procedure for calculating terms.
\n – Since the statute of limitations for the disputed claims had not expired as of 04\/02\/2020, it was first extended for the period of the quarantine, and subsequently for the period of the martial law.
\n – The court took into account the current position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, according to which, from 01\/30\/2024, the statute of limitations period was suspended entirely for the duration of the martial law.
\n – Therefore, the creditor’s claims are not limited to only “the last three years” prior to filing with the court, as the course of the term was suspended by law.
\n – The debtor’s arguments regarding the application of the general rule of a three-year limitation were recognized as groundless, as they do not take into account the special legislative mechanisms introduced due to extraordinary circumstances (COVID-19 and the war).
\n – The court confirmed that the creditor’s arithmetic calculations are correct and that there are no grounds for refusing to recognize the claims.<\/p>\n

3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the debtor’s cassation appeal, and the decision<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Case No. 297\/2189\/23 of 05\/08\/2026 The subject of this dispute is the review of the legality of the appellate court ruling, which upheld an acquittal for a person accused of official negligence that caused grave consequences (Part 2 of Article 367 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine). When considering the prosecutor\u2019s cassation appeal, the Supreme…<\/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-19147","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\/19147","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=19147"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19147\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=19147"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=19147"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=19147"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}