{"id":4942,"date":"2025-02-03T09:16:35","date_gmt":"2025-02-03T07:16:35","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/02\/case-no-523-12378-21-dated-22-01-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-02-03T09:16:35","modified_gmt":"2025-02-03T07:16:35","slug":"case-no-523-12378-21-dated-22-01-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/02\/case-no-523-12378-21-dated-22-01-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 523\/12378\/21 dated 22\/01\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Subject of Dispute: Invalidation of Electronic Auction for Apartment Sale and Recovery of Property from Unlawful Possession.<\/p>\n<p>The court was guided by the following arguments: 1) The mere fact of improper notification of the debtor about the auction cannot be grounds for declaring it invalid &#8211; it is necessary to prove that the rights of the owner were violated by such auction; 2) Sale of property at an undervalued price may be grounds for declaring the auction invalid, but this must be proven by appropriate evidence (expert review of the valuation report); 3) The issue of the good faith of the property acquirer at the auction must be assessed separately in each specific case.<\/p>\n<p>The Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the previous instances and referred the case for a new hearing to the court of first instance, as the courts did not establish all circumstances significant for the correct resolution of the case.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/124772859\"><strong>Full text by link<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Subject of Dispute: Invalidation of Electronic Auction for Apartment Sale and Recovery of Property from Unlawful Possession. The court was guided by the following arguments: 1) The mere fact of improper notification of the debtor about the auction cannot be grounds for declaring it invalid &#8211; it is necessary to prove that the rights of&hellip;<\/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":[57,42],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4942","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-court-practice-ukraine","category-eu-legislation-important","pmpro-has-access"],"acf":{"patreon-level":0},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4942","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=4942"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4942\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4942"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4942"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4942"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}