{"id":19940,"date":"2026-09-27T10:13:01","date_gmt":"2026-09-27T07:13:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2026\/09\/review-of-ukrainian-supreme-courts-decisions-for-27-09-2026\/"},"modified":"2026-09-27T10:13:01","modified_gmt":"2026-09-27T07:13:01","slug":"review-of-ukrainian-supreme-courts-decisions-for-27-09-2026","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2026\/09\/review-of-ukrainian-supreme-courts-decisions-for-27-09-2026\/","title":{"rendered":"Review of Ukrainian Supreme Court’s decisions for 27\/09\/2026"},"content":{"rendered":"

Case No. 904\/2349\/24 dated 09\/15\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nGreetings. As a specialist with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a detailed analysis:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the dispute:** Recovery from two individual entrepreneurs of rental arrears for a communal property land plot and a penalty for improper performance of the terms of the lease agreement.<\/p>\n

2. **Court arguments:**
\n * The court established that the lease agreement is considered concluded from the moment the court decision in the previous case, which resolved the pre-contractual dispute, entered into legal force.
\n * The fact of the existence of lease legal relations is confirmed not only by the court decision but also by the defendants’ actual use of the land plot and their partial payment of rental fees.
\n * The Supreme Court rejected the appellant’s reference to irrelevant judicial practice, as the cases cited by her concerned different legal relations (in particular, the recovery of unjustifiably retained funds in the absence of an agreement), whereas in this case, the agreement is valid.
\n * The court recognized the plaintiff’s evidence (in particular, information from tax authorities) as proper and admissible, as the defendants did not provide alternative calculations or evidence of document falsification.
\n * Regarding the motion to inspect the original agreement, the court noted that the appellate instance rightfully rejected it, as the appellant did not substantiate which specific discrepancies between the copy and the original could have affected the outcome of the case.
\n * The courts of previous instances reasonably exercised the right to reduce the amount of the penalty by 50%, taking into account the lack of evidence of damages caused to the plaintiff and the purpose of the penalty as a stimulatory measure.<\/p>\n

3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court closed the cassation proceedings regarding the grounds concerning the failure to consider the conclusions of the Supreme Court, and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances in all other respects, recognizing them as lawful and well-founded.<\/p>\n

Case No. 908\/3958\/25 dated 09\/22\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the claim of JSC “Melitopol Meat Processing Plant” to invalidate the results of electronic auctions conducted by SE “SETAM” and the obligation to perform certain actions within the framework of enforcement proceedings.<\/p>\n

2. When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the principle that in order to invalidate electronic auctions, the plaintiff must prove not only the fact of a violation of the procedure for conducting them, but also that these violations directly affected the outcome of the auctions and led to the violation of their rights or legitimate interests. The Supreme Court analyzed the appellant’s arguments regarding the actions of the private enforcement officer and the auction organizer, but did not find confirmation that the identified deficiencies were of a material nature capable of changing the sale price of the property or the composition of participants. The court emphasized the importance of the stability of legal relations arising during the realization of attached [property].of the property, and noted that formal violations that did not affect the final outcome cannot be grounds for invalidating the auction. It was also taken into account that the plaintiff failed to provide proper evidence that the sale of the property took place at an undervalued price or in violation of the rights of other persons. In conclusion, the court reached the finding that the courts of lower instances correctly established the absence of grounds for satisfying the claim, although the reasoning part of the decision required clarification.<\/p>\n

3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the courts of lower instances unchanged, only clarifying their reasoning part.<\/p>\n

Case No. 758\/14525\/13-ts dated 09\/22\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nGreetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided by you. Here is a concise and professional analysis of this case:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the dispute:** The plaintiff filed a lawsuit requesting the invalidation of a certificate of ownership for a non-residential building, the recovery of this property from another\u2019s illegal possession, and the cancellation of entries regarding the state registration of ownership for a number of persons.<\/p>\n

2. **Court’s arguments:** The court proceeded from the fact that the plaintiff’s ownership of the disputed property was confirmed by a proper sale and purchase agreement, which had not been declared invalid. It was established that the property left the plaintiff’s possession against his will, as the public auction, on the basis of which the challenged certificate was issued, was not actually held, and enforcement proceedings against the plaintiff did not exist. The court emphasized that to protect the owner’s rights in such cases, the most effective method is precisely a vindication claim (recovery of property), rather than challenging individual documents or entries in registries. The appellate court correctly pointed out that challenging transactions and documents certifying the right is not an effective method of protection, and therefore denied this part of the claims. The court also took into account that the property was transferred to the defendant’s authorized capital free of charge, which, according to Article 388 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, gives the owner the right to recover it even from a bona fide purchaser. Ultimately, the cassation court confirmed the legality of these findings, indicating that the appellant’s arguments amount to a re-evaluation of evidence, which goes beyond the powers of the cassation instance.<\/p>\n

3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the courts of lower instances (in the part regarding the recovery of property and the refusal to invalidate documents) unchanged.<\/p>\n

Case No. 303\/5611\/20 dated 09\/15\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nGreetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided by you. Here is a concise analysis for your material:<\/p>\n

1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the acquittal of two police officers accused of exceeding official powers, which was accompanied byamounted to violence.<\/p>\n

2. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate instance, as the court for the second time ignored the mandatory instructions of the cassation court regarding the necessity of re-examining evidence. The appellate court took a formalistic approach to the case review, refusing the prosecutor’s request to examine the victim and witnesses, as well as to review video recordings and medical documentation. The Court emphasized that the appellate instance is the last stage where the factual circumstances of a case can be fully established; therefore, the refusal to examine key evidence constitutes a significant violation of procedural law. The Supreme Court underscored that the court\u2019s conclusions must be based on directly perceived evidence, rather than on a retelling of such evidence from the first-instance court\u2019s verdict. Thus, the appellate court failed to meet the requirements for verifying the prosecutor\u2019s arguments regarding the presence of the elements of a crime provided for in Article 365 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine in the police officers’ actions.<\/p>\n

3. The Supreme Court decided to overturn the ruling of the appellate court and appoint a new hearing in the court of appellate instance.<\/p>\n

Case No. 727\/13\/25 dated 09\/22\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the appellate court\u2019s ruling to return the defense counsel\u2019s appellate appeal due to allegedly unclearly formulated requirements to the court.<\/p>\n

2. The Supreme Court proceeded from the premise that the right to appellate review is a fundamental guarantee that should not be restricted by excessive formalism. The Court noted that the defense counsel clearly expressed the request in their appeal for the overturning of the verdict and the closure of the proceedings, and that the additional request for the adoption of “another lawful decision” is neither contradictory nor such that it precludes the consideration of the case. The appellate court mistakenly equated the presence of alternative formulations with the appeal\u2019s non-compliance with the requirements of the law. The Supreme Court emphasized that procedural norms (Articles 404 and 407 of the Criminal Procedure Code) provide the appellate court with sufficient powers to review the case; therefore, returning the appeal on such grounds is a significant violation of the right to defense. As a result, the cassation instance found the actions of the appellate court to be groundless and obstructive to the access to justice.<\/p>\n

3. The Supreme Court satisfied the cassation appeal, overturned the ruling of the appellate court, and appointed a new hearing in the court of appellate instance.<\/p>\n

Case No. 501\/4938\/24 dated 09\/16\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nGreetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the provided court decision. Here is a detailed breakdown:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the dispute:** Review of the verdict and ruling regarding the civil claim for compensation for non-pecuniary damage and procedural costs for legal assistance caused by a violation of safety rules during the performance of hazardous work.<\/p>\n

2. **Court arguments:**
\n – The Court established that there existed civil-law relations (a service agreement) between the convicted person and the enterprise, rather thanlabor-related, therefore the enterprise bears no liability for damages caused by the actions of the contractor.
\n – Regarding procedural costs, the court emphasized that they are subject to reimbursement only upon condition of their actual payment, confirmed by proper evidence; therefore, it awarded only the amount the payment of which was proven by a receipt (UAH 7,000).
\n – The court confirmed that the appellate instance is not obliged to re-examine evidence if the participants did not file relevant motions and the court did not see grounds for re-evaluating the already examined evidence.
\n – When determining the amount of moral damages, the court concluded that the lower instances did not properly take into account the financial and family status of the convicted person, in particular the fact that he has a minor child in his care.
\n – Guided by the principles of reasonableness, proportionality, and justice, the Supreme Court independently reduced the amount of moral damages from UAH 1,000,000 to UAH 800,000.
\n – The court also emphasized that the lack of evidence of actual payment for legal assistance expenses in full is grounds for refusing to award the corresponding part of the amount.<\/p>\n

3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeals, modifying the court decisions in the part concerning the amount of moral damages (reducing it to UAH 800,000) and awarding UAH 7,000 in procedural costs for legal assistance, leaving the remaining provisions unchanged.<\/p>\n

Case No. 638\/6430\/24 dated 09\/17\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nHere is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared from a professional point of view:<\/p>\n

1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of closing criminal proceedings against a person accused of intentional murder, due to the absence of the elements of a crime in their actions as a result of exercising the right to necessary defense when protecting a home.<\/p>\n

2. The court established that the accused acted in a state of necessary defense, protecting themselves against the victim’s unlawful violent intrusion into their residence. The key argument was the confirmation of the fact that the victim had previously attacked the accused with an axe, and subsequently illegally re-entered their dwelling, continuing to use physical violence. The court emphasized that pursuant to Part 5 of Article 36 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, the use of weapons or other means to prevent a violent intrusion into a dwelling does not constitute an excess of the limits of necessary defense, regardless of the severity of the harm caused. The appellate court conducted a thorough analysis of the evidence, including the findings of forensic medical examinations, which confirmed the presence of bodily injuries on the accused, and crime scene inspection protocols, which documented damage to the door. The Supreme Court agreed with the conclusion that the accused’s version of self-defense is consistent and aligns with other case materials. The prosecutor’s arguments regarding the alleged unreliability of the accused’s testimony and the absence of a threat to their life were rejected as those whichdo not refute the circumstances established by the court.<\/p>\n

3. The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court\u2019s ruling on the closure of criminal proceedings, and dismissed the prosecutor’s cassation appeal.<\/p>\n

Case No. 160\/21608\/25 dated 09\/16\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nGreetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed this decision of the Supreme Court. Here is a detailed breakdown for your material:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the dispute:** Challenging an individual tax consultation provided by the State Tax Service regarding the procedure for taxation of personal income tax (PIT) and military levy on amounts of moral damages awarded by a court to an employee in connection with work-related health impairment.<\/p>\n

2. **Court’s arguments:**
\n – The court emphasized that tax legal relations are regulated exclusively by the Tax Code of Ukraine (TC), which has priority over civil or labor law norms in matters of determining the tax base.
\n – The Supreme Court interpreted subparagraph “a” of subparagraph 164.2.14 of paragraph 164.2 of Article 164 of the Tax Code of Ukraine as clearly distinguishing between “compensation for damage to life and health” (which is fully exempt from taxation) and “compensation for moral damages” (which has a tax exemption limit of 4 minimum wages).
\n – The court noted that any moral damage, regardless of the grounds for its occurrence (even if it was caused by an industrial injury), is classified in tax accounting specifically as “moral damage” with the corresponding limitation of the tax exemption.
\n – Any broad interpretation that would allow the entire amount of moral damages to be exempted from taxation contradicts the principle of legal certainty and the imperative norms of tax legislation.
\n – The court found the plaintiff’s references to the practice of the Civil Cassation Court to be irrelevant, as civil courts resolve issues of employer liability, not the public-law obligations of a tax agent.
\n – It was also confirmed that the duties of a tax agent (tax withholding) arise for an enterprise regardless of whether funds are paid voluntarily or compulsorily through the enforcement service.<\/p>\n

3. **Court ruling:** The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s resolution, recognizing the position of the State Tax Service as lawful and denying the enterprise\u2019s claim.<\/p>\n

**Conclusion:** In this decision, the Supreme Court formed a new legal position for administrative justice, clearly distinguishing the tax regime for compensation for moral damages versus damage to life\/health, thereby eliminating ambiguity in the application of Article 164 of the Tax Code of Ukraine.<\/p>\n

Case No. 337\/2243\/24 dated 09\/16\/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 analysis for your material:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the dispute:** Cassation review of the lawfulness of an individual’s conviction for high treason (Part 2 of Article 111 of the Criminal Code) andunauthorized absence from a military unit (Part 4 of Article 408 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine) under martial law.<\/p>\n

2. **Court’s Arguments:**
\n – The Supreme Court emphasized that it is a court of law, not a court of fact, and therefore lacks the authority to re-evaluate evidence or establish circumstances that have already been examined by the lower courts.
\n – The Court found the fact of the convicted person’s cooperation with representatives of the Russian special services to be proven, as materials from covert investigative (search) actions (CISA), correspondence in messengers, and bank transactions confirm the receipt of intelligence-related tasks and payment for them.
\n – Regarding the defense’s argument concerning the lack of identification of the “representatives of special services,” the Court noted that for qualification under Article 111 of the Criminal Code, it is sufficient to establish the fact of providing assistance to a foreign state, and establishing specific personal data or positions of such persons is not mandatory.
\n – The Court rejected the arguments regarding entrapment, pointing out that the actions of the convicted person were a manifestation of his own criminal intent, not the result of inducement by law enforcement officers.
\n – Regarding the absence of a phonoscopic examination, the Court emphasized that the defense did not initiate it during the proceedings in the courts of first and appellate instances, and the convicted person himself did not deny the fact of conducting the correspondence.
\n – The Court also found the claims regarding the violation of the right to defense due to alleged improper familiarization with case materials to be groundless, since the materials were provided to the convicted person, and the defense did not prove any specific violations.<\/p>\n

3. **Court’s Decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the defense attorney’s cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court’s ruling.<\/p>\n

Case No. 925\/1124\/24 of 09\/22\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nThe subject of this dispute is the resolution of the issue regarding the allocation of court costs for professional legal assistance incurred by the plaintiff during the consideration of the case in the court of cassation instance.<\/p>\n

When rendering the decision, the Court was guided by the principle that the right to reimbursement of expenses for legal assistance is one of the fundamental principles of commercial legal proceedings, aimed at ensuring the effective protection of the parties’ rights. The Supreme Court emphasized that the amount of the fee is determined by the terms of the legal assistance agreement, and the law allows for both fixed and hourly payments. The Court noted that when determining the amount to be reimbursed, it is necessary to consider criteria of proportionality, such as the complexity of the case, the scope of work performed, and the time spent by the attorney. Since the plaintiff provided proper evidence confirming the fact of the provision of services and their payment, and the defendant did not file a motion to reduce the amount of expenses, the Court found no grounds for denying the application. Consequently, the Supreme Court concluded that the claimed amount of 30,000 UAH is reasonable and subject to recovery in full.<\/p>\n

The Court decided to grant the application of the Farm Enterprise “Sarmatiya” and to recover from the Private Enterprise”Agrotrade Group” 30,000 hryvnias in professional legal assistance expenses.<\/p>\n

Case No. 727\/12689\/24 dated 09\/17\/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 of the case:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the dispute:** Challenging the actions of a state enforcement officer regarding the attachment of the debtor’s real estate and a request to lift this attachment.<\/p>\n

2. **Court arguments:**
\n – The court established that, in accordance with procedural legislation, a complaint against the actions of a state enforcement officer must be filed within 10 days from the moment the person became aware of the violation of their rights.
\n – Case materials confirmed that the applicant learned of the existence of the property attachment resolution no later than November 1, 2024, when they submitted a corresponding application to the enforcement service.
\n – Since the complaint to the court was filed only on November 14, 2024, the applicant missed the statutory ten-day period for filing an appeal.
\n – An important point is that the applicant did not file a motion to reinstate this missed deadline, which is a mandatory condition for considering the complaint on its merits.
\n – The court emphasized that the application of the consequences of missing a procedural deadline does not depend on a motion from other parties to the case, but is a procedural duty of the court.
\n – Since the attachment resolution was not canceled in the prescribed manner and the deadline for challenging it had expired, there are no grounds for satisfying the request to lift the attachment.
\n – The Supreme Court confirmed that the courts of previous instances correctly applied the rules of procedural law, leaving the complaint unexamined regarding the challenge to the executor’s actions.<\/p>\n

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

Case No. 308\/12227\/24 dated 09\/23\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the verification of the legality of the appellate court’s ruling, which concluded the criminal proceedings regarding the accusation of a person for non-compliance with a court decision (Part 1, Article 382 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).<\/p>\n

2. Upon reviewing the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, the Supreme Court concluded that significant violations of the requirements of the criminal procedural law were committed during the appellate review of the case. The court of cassation instance established that the appellate court did not ensure a proper review of the prosecutor’s arguments set forth in the appeal and did not provide them with an exhaustive legal assessment, which is mandatory for adhering to the principle of legality and justification of court decisions. Specifically, the requirements regarding the completeness of the investigation of the case circumstances were ignored, which could have affected the correctness of the decision rendered. Since the appellate court did not eliminate the identified shortcomings and did not exercise proper judicial control, its ruling cannot be considered as meeting the criteria of reasoned judgment. Therefore, to ensure the righright to a fair trial and the establishment of the truth in the case, the case materials require a re-examination in the court of appellate instance.<\/p>\n

3. The Supreme Court satisfied the prosecutor\u2019s cassation appeal, overturned the ruling of the Lviv Court of Appeal, and ordered a new trial in the court of appellate instance.<\/p>\n

Case No. 640\/4122\/22 dated 09\/22\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nGreetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a detailed analysis of the case:<\/p>\n

**1. Subject of the Dispute**
\nThe subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the dismissal of a prosecutor from the prosecution authorities due to improper performance of official duties, which led to the loss of material evidence in criminal proceedings.<\/p>\n

**2. Court Arguments**
\nThe court established that the prosecutor, contrary to court decisions, initiated the removal of tobacco products from a customs warehouse and transferred them for storage to an individual entrepreneur whose premises were not entered into the relevant state register. The Supreme Court emphasized that a prosecutor, as a procedural supervisor, is obliged to ensure a legal regime for the storage and accounting of material evidence, which was not done in this case. The court rejected the plaintiff’s arguments that the responsibility for storage lies solely with the investigator, since the prosecutor, having identified the investigator’s inaction, did not take any measures to rectify the situation. The court also recognized the offense as “continuing,” as the prosecutor’s inaction regarding the proper accounting of property continued for a long period until the moment of its actual loss. Given the gravity of the consequences \u2014 the loss of material evidence of significant value \u2014 the court found the disciplinary sanction in the form of dismissal to be proportionate and justified. The court also emphasized that the arguments of the cassation appeal actually boil down to an attempt to re-evaluate evidence, which is outside the powers of the court of cassation instance.<\/p>\n

**3. Court Decision**
\nThe Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances to deny the claim unchanged.<\/p>\n

Case No. 520\/32381\/23 dated 09\/22\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nGreetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a detailed analysis for your material:<\/p>\n

**1. Subject of the Dispute**
\nThe subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the dismissal of a police officer from service in the National Police bodies due to the commission of a disciplinary offense, which consisted of a violation of official discipline and negligent performance of duties.<\/p>\n

**2. Court Arguments**
\nThe court proceeded from the fact that the disciplinary liability of a police officer is an independent type of legal liability, which does not depend on the results of criminal proceedings or the existence of a court verdict. A key fact for the court was the confirmation during the internal investigation that the police officer held meetings withby citizens on the premises of the police department, which were not recorded in the visitor logs, indicating the use of official position for personal purposes. The court also took into account the fact of the plaintiff’s unjustified absence from the workplace for six hours, which was qualified as truancy during the state of martial law. The court emphasized that such actions discredit the rank of a police officer and undermine trust in law enforcement agencies, which is incompatible with further service. At the same time, the court rejected the plaintiff’s arguments regarding the violation of the presumption of innocence, noting that the disciplinary penalty was imposed for a violation of professional ethics and discipline, not for committing a criminal offense. Ultimately, the court found the imposed penalty of dismissal to be proportionate and justified, given the severity of the committed violations.<\/p>\n

**3. Court Decision**
\nThe Supreme Court dismissed the plaintiff’s cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the lower courts to deny reinstatement to the position.<\/p>\n

[Case No. 689\/721\/25 of 17\/09\/2026](https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/139931195)
\nThe subject of this dispute is the verification of the legality of the appellate court\u2019s ruling, which upheld the decision to exempt a person from criminal liability for unauthorized abandonment of a military unit.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court concluded that the appellate court committed significant violations of criminal procedural law, which require the reversal of its decision. The key argument was the inadequate securing of the accused’s right to defense, as the court conducted the hearing in the absence of a defense attorney without verifying the validity of their authority, despite the person’s repeated requests regarding the inability to contact the lawyer. The court emphasized that while the participation of a defense attorney in cases involving grave crimes is not always mandatory by law, the court’s disregard for the accused’s substantiated requests regarding the lack of legal assistance constitutes a violation of the right to defense. It was also highlighted that the appellate court took a formalistic approach to the review, failing to provide a proper assessment of all arguments in the appeal. The Supreme Court noted that since the decision is being reversed due to procedural violations, the other arguments of the appellant (specifically regarding the lack of corpus delicti) must be re-examined by the appellate court. Consequently, the cassation instance pointed to the necessity of adhering to proper legal procedure to ensure the legality of any future decision.<\/p>\n

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

[Case No. 910\/4552\/23 of 23\/09\/2026](https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/139979524)
\nGreetings. As a specialist with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a detailed analysis:<\/p>\n

1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the appellate court’s refusal to implement measures to secureof the claim, by which the plaintiff attempted to prohibit the disposal of the property of the Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra until the case is resolved on its merits.<\/p>\n

2. The Supreme Court was guided by the principle that the institution of securing a claim cannot be an instrument for the de facto satisfaction of claims before the completion of the case proceedings. The Court emphasized that the plaintiff failed to prove a real risk that failure to take measures would make it impossible to enforce a future court decision. Furthermore, the panel of judges drew attention to the fact that the right to use the property is currently disputed, and a previous decision by the court of first instance had already dismissed the claim, which calls into question the validity of the applicant’s demands. The Court stressed that security measures must be proportionate and must not violate the property owner’s right to dispose of it without sufficient legal grounds. It was also noted that interference with the defendant’s activities by prohibiting the execution of transactions with other persons is an excessive restriction that does not comply with the principles of reasonableness and the balance of interests of the parties.<\/p>\n

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

Case No. 910\/6332\/25 dated 09\/18\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nHere is a detailed analysis of the court decision prepared in accordance with your request:<\/p>\n

1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of property damage caused to a vehicle as a result of striking a defective manhole cover located on a road under the balance sheet management of the defendant.<\/p>\n

2. The court of cassation instance established that the lower courts erroneously placed liability for the damage exclusively on the balance holder of the road, without properly examining the issue of the ownership of the manhole cover itself. The Supreme Court emphasized that a manhole is an integral part of engineering networks; therefore, the duty to maintain it and responsibility for its technical condition lie with the balance holder of those specific networks, and not necessarily with the balance holder of the road surface. The lower courts ignored the defendant’s arguments that the sewage facilities were not assigned to it under the right of economic management. To correctly resolve the case, it is necessary to establish who exactly is the owner or balance holder of the specific engineering structure that caused the traffic accident. Without establishing this fact, the application of Article 1166 of the Civil Code of Ukraine regarding the defendant’s fault is premature. Thus, the courts did not examine the evidence collected in the case, which constitutes a procedural violation that makes it impossible to establish the factual circumstances of the case.<\/p>\n

3. The Supreme Court ruled to vacate the judgment of the appellate court and the decision of the court of first instance, remitting the case for a new trial to the Commercial Court of the city of Kyiv.<\/p>\n

Case No. 758\/6121\/23 dated 09\/22\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nThe subject of the dispute is the claim of LLC “Renaissance Holding” regardingrecognition of him as a mortgagee and invalidation of the agreement concluded between other participants in the legal relationship.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court, having analyzed the case files, concluded that the lower courts did not fully examine all the circumstances relevant to the correct resolution of the dispute. In particular, the cassation instance pointed out the need for a more thorough assessment of the evidence regarding the legal grounds for acquiring the status of a mortgagee and the lawfulness of the contested transaction. The Court emphasized that in order to establish the truth in the case, the courts should have analyzed in more detail the chain of transfer of rights and obligations between the parties. Since violations of procedural law were committed during the proceedings in the first and appellate courts, which made it impossible to establish the factual circumstances, the Supreme Court deemed it impossible to render its own decision on the merits. Thus, to ensure a full and comprehensive consideration of the case, it must be returned for a new trial to the court of first instance. This will allow the parties to provide additional evidence and arguments, and the court to eliminate the identified shortcomings in the assessment of the legal relationships.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court set aside the decisions of the lower courts and remanded the case for a new trial to the Commercial Court of the city of Kyiv.<\/p>\n

Case No. 214\/8572\/25 dated 09\/16\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nGreetings. As a specialist with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a summary of the essence of the case:<\/p>\n

1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the appellate court ruling, which upheld the verdict of the court of first instance regarding the conviction of an individual for desertion, illegal handling of weapons, and hooliganism, in view of the violation of the right to defense and the procedural rights of the convicted person during the appellate review.<\/p>\n

2. The Supreme Court established that the appellate court committed fundamental violations of the criminal procedural law. Firstly, the case was heard in the absence of a defense attorney, although the participation of a lawyer is mandatory for cases involving particularly serious crimes. Secondly, the court ruling contained inaccurate information about the participation of a defense attorney who was actually absent from the hearing. Thirdly, the court did not ensure the actual possibility of participation of the convicted person himself, who was in custody, as it notified him of the hearing date only on the day of the hearing. This deprived the person of the right to an effective defense, proper preparation, and coordination of the position with the lawyer. The Supreme Court emphasized that such actions are an unconditional ground for overturning a court decision. Since the procedural violations were critical, the court of cassation did not evaluate other arguments of the defense regarding the severity of the sentence, focusing on ensuring the right to a fair trial.<\/p>\n

3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, set aside the appellate court ruling, and ordered a new trial in the appellate courtof the appellate instance, while simultaneously choosing for the accused a preventive measure in the form of detention for 60 days.<\/p>\n

Case No. 529\/33\/25 dated 09\/15\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nThe subject of this dispute is the review of the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the sentencing for evasion of military service during mobilization (Art. 336 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).<\/p>\n

When rendering its decision, the Supreme Court was guided by the principles of individualization and fairness of punishment, emphasizing that the courts of lower instances did not provide a proper assessment of the totality of mitigating circumstances. In particular, the court took into account the sincere remorse of the convicted person, the absence of aggravating circumstances, and, most importantly, the existence of grave family circumstances related to the need to care for his sick wife and minor son. The court emphasized that the burden of proving the insufficiency of a less severe punishment lies with the prosecution, which was not done in this case. The panel of judges concluded that the formal imposition of a sentence within the limits of the article’s sanction, without taking into account socio-demographic and moral-ethical factors, led to the imposition of a “manifestly unjust” sentence. Considering these factors, the Court deemed it possible to apply Article 69 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine to impose a sentence below the lowest limit established by the sanction of the article.<\/p>\n

The Court granted the cassation appeal of the convicted person, amended the court decisions of the lower instances, and mitigated the final sentence to 1 year and 1 month of imprisonment.<\/p>\n

Case No. 610\/2723\/24 dated 09\/16\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nGreetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the Supreme Court decision provided by you. Here is a brief analysis for your material:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the dispute:** Cassation appeal of the defense attorney against the judgments of the courts of first and appellate instances, by which a citizen of Ukraine was convicted of high treason and collaboration activities during the occupation of the city of Balakliya.<\/p>\n

2. **Court’s arguments:**
\n * The Court confirmed that the guilt of the convicted person was fully proven by the totality of evidence: testimonies of witnesses who saw him in leadership positions, video recordings of interviews, and official documents of the occupation administration bearing his signatures.
\n * The Supreme Court emphasized that its status as a “court of law, not of fact” does not allow it to re-evaluate evidence if the lower courts examined it properly.
\n * Regarding the defense’s argument about “coercion” to cooperate, the court noted that the general danger of occupation is not synonymous with physical or mental coercion, and the active behavior of the convicted person (organizing work, holding meetings, public speeches) testifies to the voluntary nature of his actions.
\n * The Court rejected the arguments regarding the inadmissibility of witness testimonies, pointing out that even if a witness was previously convicted of collaboration, this does not automatically render their testimony inadmissible.but requires critical evaluation in conjunction with other evidence.
\n * Regarding the qualification of high treason, the court emphasized that the intent to harm the security of Ukraine is confirmed by the specific actions of the convicted person: the creation of a staffing structure for occupation authorities, the payment of salaries in rubles, and the control over the movement of citizens.
\n * The appellate court reasonably increased the punishment, as the court of first instance imposed a sentence of 14 years for high treason, while the sanction of the article provides for a minimum of 15 years or life imprisonment, which was corrected by the appeal.<\/p>\n

3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the defense attorney’s cassation appeal and left the judgments of the lower courts unchanged.<\/p>\n

Case No. 916\/2408\/21 dated 09\/15\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nGreetings. As a specialist with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided by you. Here is a brief legal analysis for your material:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the Dispute:** “Kymstroy” LLC appealed to the court with a claim for declaring illegal and canceling the decision of a local self-government body dated 2014, by which permission was granted for the division of a land plot leased by the plaintiff.<\/p>\n

2. **Court Arguments:** The Supreme Court emphasized that the choice of the method of protection is the prerogative of the plaintiff, however, it must be effective and truly restore the violated right. The court established that the contested decision of the local self-government body is an act of one-time application, which, at the time of the appeal to the court, had already been executed and exhausted its effect. According to the established practice of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, challenging already executed decisions of public authorities is an ineffective method of protection, which constitutes an independent ground for dismissal of the claim. The court also noted that the appellant’s arguments regarding the violation of standards of proof actually boil down to a disagreement with the assessment of evidence carried out by the courts of previous instances. The cassation instance emphasized that it is not empowered to re-evaluate evidence if the lower courts did not commit violations of procedural law. In summary, since the method of protection chosen by the plaintiff does not ensure the restoration of his rights, there are no grounds for canceling the decisions of the courts of previous instances.<\/p>\n

3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of “Kymstroy” LLC and left the decisions of the courts of previous instances unchanged.<\/p>\n

Case No. 572\/1190\/15-k dated 09\/21\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the cassation review of the legality of the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court, by which a group of persons was convicted for committing a terrorist act (Part 2 of Art. 258 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine) and illegal handling of weapons (Part 1 of Art. 263 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).<\/p>\n

2. During the review of the case, the Supreme Court verified the compliance of the lower courts with the norms of substantive and procedural law during the evaluation of evidenceguilt of the convicted persons. The panel of judges analyzed the arguments of the defense counsel regarding possible violations during the criminal proceedings and concluded that the courts of first and appellate instances had examined all the circumstances of the case fully and comprehensively. The Court determined that the qualification of the actions of the convicted persons under the relevant articles of the Criminal Code of Ukraine is correct and consistent with the collected evidence. The defense’s arguments regarding the groundlessness of the conviction were not confirmed during the cassation review. The Court did not identify any material violations of the requirements of the criminal procedural law that would serve as grounds for overturning or amending the appealed judicial decisions. Thus, the conclusions of the courts of lower instances were recognized as well-founded and consistent with the actual circumstances of the case.<\/p>\n

3. The Supreme Court left the verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court unchanged, and dismissed the cassation appeals of the defense side.<\/p>\n

Case No. 991\/12587\/25 dated 09\/15\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nGreetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the judicial decision you provided. Here is a detailed analysis of the situation:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the dispute:** Challenging the ruling of the appellate court on the refusal to reinstate the deadline for appellate appeal and the closure of appellate proceedings concerning a person in custody.<\/p>\n

2. **Court’s arguments:** The Supreme Court emphasized that the right to appellate appeal is a fundamental guarantee of the right to a fair trial, and therefore any restrictions on this right must be thoroughly justified. The Court noted that for persons held in custody, the period for filing an appeal is calculated from the moment of serving a copy of the decision, not from the date of its pronouncement. The appellate court made an error by failing to verify the actual time of submission of the appeal through the administration of the correctional facility, limiting itself only to the date on the postmark. The court also pointed to a violation of the right to participate in the court hearing, as the applicant was groundlessly denied a videoconference, depriving them of the opportunity to explain the reasons for missing the deadline. Separately, the Supreme Court emphasized that martial law is a circumstance that requires an individual assessment by the court in each specific case, rather than a formal approach. Finally, the appellate court committed a procedural error by closing the proceedings instead of returning the appeal, as required by law in such cases.<\/p>\n

3. **Court’s decision:** The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court and ordered a new review in the court of appellate instance.<\/p>\n

Case No. 580\/49\/25 dated 09\/22\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nGreetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the decision of the Supreme Court you provided. Here is a detailed breakdown of the case:<\/p>\n

1. **Subject of the dispute:** The prosecutor sought to challenge the city council’s decision on the liquidation of a gymnasium, arguing that it violates the rightschildren to education, and there is no other body to protect these interests.<\/p>\n

2. **Court’s arguments:**
\n – The Supreme Court emphasized that the prosecutor’s office has the right to appeal to the court only in exceptional cases when there is no other body authorized to protect the interests of the state, or when such a body is a violator itself.
\n – The Court established that legislation (in particular, the Law “On Complete General Secondary Education”) clearly defines the State Service of Education Quality and its territorial bodies as entities exercising state supervision in the field of education.
\n – These bodies are vested with the authority to apply to the court with claims against local self-government bodies regarding the elimination of violations in the field of education.
\n – The absence in the law of an explicit phrase regarding the right to challenge the liquidation of an institution specifically does not mean that the controlling body lacks the authority to protect the interests of the state in this sphere.
\n – A prosecutor cannot substitute specially authorized bodies, as their role in civil and administrative proceedings is exclusively subsidiary (auxiliary).
\n – Since the prosecutor did not prove that the State Service of Education Quality could not or did not want to protect the interests of the state, they had no right to act as an independent plaintiff.
\n – Consequently, the statement of claim was lawfully left without consideration due to the prosecutor’s lack of procedural capacity in this specific dispute.<\/p>\n

3. **Court’s decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the prosecutor’s cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court’s ruling to leave the claim without consideration.<\/p>\n

Case No. 910\/12500\/25 dated 09\/18\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nThe subject of this dispute is the legality of recovering from the plaintiff the costs of professional legal assistance incurred by the defendant during the consideration of the case in the courts of first and appellate instances.<\/p>\n

In rendering its decision, the Supreme Court was guided by the fact that the courts of previous instances correctly applied the provisions of Articles 126 and 129 of the Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine, assessing the proportionality of the expenses with the complexity of the case. The Court emphasized that for the allocation of legal costs, it is not mandatory to provide evidence of the actual payment of the attorney’s fee at the time of filing the application, as it is sufficient to provide evidence that these expenses are payable. The Supreme Court underscored that the reduction of the amount of expenses by the courts of first and appellate instances was justified, based on the criteria of reasonableness and the reality of the services provided. The plaintiff’s arguments that the lack of proof of payment is grounds for refusing to recover expenses were rejected as contrary to the established practice of the Supreme Court. The Court also noted that commercial courts have the right, upon the motion of a party, to reduce the amount of expenses if they do not meet the criteria of proportionality, which was done in this case. Thus, the Supreme Court confirmed that the challenged additionalthe decisions are lawful and adopted in compliance with the norms of procedural law.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal unsatisfied and the challenged additional decisions of the lower courts unchanged.<\/p>\n

Case No. 910\/8987\/25 dated 09\/22\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nGreetings. As a specialist with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a brief summary of the case:<\/p>\n

1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the decision of the Antimonopoly Committee, by which LLC “Company Ukrspetsinvest” was fined for anti-competitive concerted practices during participation in tenders (distortion of auction results).<\/p>\n

2. The court of appeal, with which the Supreme Court agreed, concluded that the AMC proved the fact of collusion based on a set of indirect evidence. Specifically, it was established that the tender participants used identical IP addresses to access the “Client-Bank” banking systems and submit reports, with activity often occurring at identical time intervals, including night hours. The court also noted the use of identical software and browser settings by the participants, which, combined with the fact that the offices were located in the same business center, rules out coincidence. The court emphasized that in order to qualify actions as anti-competitive, it is not necessary to have a written agreement on collusion; it is sufficient to prove the existence of conditions for the exchange of information and coordination of conduct. The plaintiff failed to provide convincing alternative explanations for such coincidences that would refute the Committee’s findings. The Supreme Court emphasized that the assessment of evidence is the prerogative of the lower courts, and interference with it at the cassation stage is impossible unless procedural norms have been violated.<\/p>\n

3. The Supreme Court left the resolution of the commercial court of appeal unchanged, recognizing the decision to impose a fine as lawful.<\/p>\n

Case No. 607\/21695\/23 dated 09\/07\/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 determination of the appropriate jurisdiction (civil or commercial) for considering a lawsuit for the recovery of funds under an agreement concluded between an agricultural enterprise and an individual, who, when signing the document, indicated their position in a legal entity and used its seal.<\/p>\n

2. The court proceeded from the fact that in determining jurisdiction, the key factor is not only the composition of the subjects, but also the nature of the legal relationship and the content of the transaction. The courts established that the agreement was executed on the letterhead of LLC “AvtotransTernopil” and sealed with the stamp of this legal entity. Since the defendant is the founder and head of the specified company, and the subject of the agreement (purchase and delivery of a vehicle) fully coincides with the company’s types of economic activity, the court concluded that the obligations arose specifically for the legal entity. Accordingly, since the dispute arose between two subjectsbetween business entities, it is subject to consideration exclusively under the procedure of commercial legal proceedings. The plaintiff’s arguments that the contract was concluded with an individual were rejected as being contrary to the factual circumstances of the case and the content of the document. Thus, the courts of previous instances lawfully terminated the proceedings in the case under the procedure of civil legal proceedings.<\/p>\n

3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the ruling of the court of first instance and the resolution of the appellate court unchanged.<\/p>\n

Case No. 207\/4644\/24 dated 09\/22\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nHere is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared in accordance with your request:<\/p>\n

1. The subject of the dispute is the review in cassation proceedings of the legality of the verdict and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the sentencing of the convicted person for committing a series of crimes against the sexual freedom and sexual integrity of minors, as well as crimes related to child pornography.<\/p>\n

2. When rendering the decision, the Supreme Court was guided by the fact that the courts of previous instances had fully and comprehensively taken into account the nature and degree of gravity of the committed crimes, which are classified as particularly grave. The panel of judges emphasized that punishment should be not only a measure of retribution but also a means of correction and prevention of new crimes, which requires an individual approach to the person of the convicted. The Court noted that in imposing life imprisonment, it took into account the particular social danger of the acts committed against young children by a family member, as well as the severe consequences for the victims. The defense\u2019s arguments regarding the excessive severity of the punishment were rejected, as the lower courts acted within the sanctions of the articles of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. The Supreme Court emphasized that the imposed punishment is proportionate to the act committed and complies with the principles of justice. Also taken into account was the lack of sincere remorse and the fact that the convicted person did not acknowledge the unlawfulness of his actions.<\/p>\n

3. The Supreme Court left the verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court unchanged, and the cassation appeals of the convicted person and his defense attorney dismissed.<\/p>\n

Case No. 712\/13799\/19 dated 09\/17\/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:<\/p>\n

1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the termination of criminal proceedings due to the prosecutor\u2019s failure to observe the pre-trial investigation deadline when submitting an indictment to the court.<\/p>\n

2. The Court proceeded from the fact that procedural deadlines are imperative, and the duty to ensure timely submission to the court lies exclusively with the prosecution. The Supreme Court emphasized that the transfer of an indictment to the internal clerical service of the prosecutor’s office is not identical to a submission to the court, since the authorized entity for receiving the document is precisely the court registry.[to the] post office. The court noted that the prosecutor is obligated to take into account the court’s operating hours and take measures for the delivery of documents within the established time limit. References to internal instructions of the prosecutor’s office do not exempt from compliance with the requirements of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine regarding adherence to procedural deadlines. Since the indictment reached the court only after the expiration of the deadline, the court concluded that further consideration of the case was impossible. Thus, the closure of the proceedings on the basis of Clause 10, Part 1, Article 284 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine was recognized as lawful and well-founded.<\/p>\n

3. The Supreme Court left the rulings of the courts of first and appellate instances on the closure of criminal proceedings unchanged, and the cassation appeals of the prosecutor and the victim’s representative were left unsatisfied.<\/p>\n

Case No. 632\/306\/24 dated 09\/21\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\nThe subject of the dispute is the review of the legality of the judgments of the courts of first and appellate instances regarding the conviction of a person for committing criminal offenses related to justification, recognition as lawful, and denial of the armed aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine (Article 436-2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).<\/p>\n

When rendering the decision, the Court was guided by the need to verify the compliance of the lower courts with the norms of substantive and procedural law during the consideration of the case. The Supreme Court analyzed the arguments of the defense attorney’s cassation appeal, who challenged the judgments, but found no grounds for their cancellation or amendment. The panel of judges concluded that the lower courts had fully and comprehensively investigated the circumstances of the criminal proceedings, providing a proper assessment of the collected evidence. The qualification of the convicted person’s actions under Parts 1, 2, and 3 of Article 436-2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine was recognized by the court as well-founded and consistent with the actual circumstances of the case. The court also verified that the imposed sentence corresponds to the degree of gravity of the committed crimes and the person of the convicted individual, and that no procedural violations that could serve as a basis for the cancellation of the judicial decisions were committed. Thus, the cassation instance confirmed the lawfulness of the previous judgments, recognizing them as legal and reasoned.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court left the defense attorney’s cassation appeal unsatisfied and the judgments of the lower courts unchanged.<\/p>\n

Case No. 705\/4624\/25 dated 09\/17\/2026<\/strong><\/a>
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the appellate court’s return of the applicant’s appeal against the investigating judge’s ruling, which had denied the complaint regarding the prosecutor’s inaction in failing to enter information into the Unified Register of Pre-trial Investigations (ERDR).<\/p>\n

2. The Supreme Court, when reviewing the case, proceeded from the premise that the right to appeal the rulings of an investigating judge is an important guarantee of access to justice and judicial control over pre-trial investigation. The Court concluded that the appellate court made an error by taking a formalistic approach to the issue<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Case No. 904\/2349\/24 dated 09\/15\/2026 Greetings. As a specialist with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a detailed analysis: 1. **Subject of the dispute:** Recovery from two individual entrepreneurs of rental arrears for a communal property land plot and a penalty for improper performance of the terms…<\/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_total_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"pmpro_default_level":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[57],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-19940","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\/19940","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=19940"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19940\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=19940"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=19940"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=19940"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}