{"id":5402,"date":"2025-02-16T09:15:35","date_gmt":"2025-02-16T07:15:35","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/02\/case-no-914-3208-23-dated-11-02-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-02-16T09:15:35","modified_gmt":"2025-02-16T07:15:35","slug":"case-no-914-3208-23-dated-11-02-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/02\/case-no-914-3208-23-dated-11-02-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 914\/3208\/23 dated 11\/02\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Here is the translation:<\/p>\n<p>1. Subject of Dispute: Invalidation of the electricity supply agreement by a universal service provider between LLC &#8220;Lvivenerhozbut&#8221; and LLC &#8220;SU-27&#8221;.<\/p>\n<p>2. Key Court Arguments:<br \/>\n&#8211; The contract was concluded based on the distribution system operator&#8217;s data about the universal service consumer<br \/>\n&#8211; The respondent actually consumed electricity and made payments<br \/>\n&#8211; The court believes that the plaintiff did not prove grounds for declaring the contract invalid<br \/>\n&#8211; It is necessary to thoroughly establish the circumstances of contract conclusion and its compliance with legislation<\/p>\n<p>3. Court Decision: Revoke the appellate court resolution and refer the case for new consideration to the appellate commercial court for additional examination of case circumstances.<\/p>\n<p>Note: The court deviates from previous practice of considering similar disputes, requiring a more detailed analysis of all contract conclusion circumstances.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/125095242\"><strong>Full text by link<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Here is the translation: 1. Subject of Dispute: Invalidation of the electricity supply agreement by a universal service provider between LLC &#8220;Lvivenerhozbut&#8221; and LLC &#8220;SU-27&#8221;. 2. Key Court Arguments: &#8211; The contract was concluded based on the distribution system operator&#8217;s data about the universal service consumer &#8211; The respondent actually consumed electricity and made payments&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-5402","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\/5402","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=5402"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5402\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5402"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5402"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5402"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}