{"id":5404,"date":"2025-02-16T09:16:27","date_gmt":"2025-02-16T07:16:27","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/02\/case-no-910-18945-23-dated-04-02-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-02-16T09:16:27","modified_gmt":"2025-02-16T07:16:27","slug":"case-no-910-18945-23-dated-04-02-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/02\/case-no-910-18945-23-dated-04-02-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 910\/18945\/23 dated 04\/02\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Subject of Dispute: Invalidation of the Purchase and Sale Agreement for Property Rights to Apartments, Concluded Based on Electronic Auction Results.<\/p>\n<p>Main Arguments of the Court:<br \/>\n1. The Supreme Court established that the previous courts did not take into account the decision of the Antimonopoly Committee, which recognized the actions of the auction participants as anti-competitive.<br \/>\n2. The courts did not fully investigate evidence regarding possible distortion of auction results by the participants.<br \/>\n3. The courts did not verify the compliance of the agreement with the legislation on protection of economic competition.<\/p>\n<p>Court Decision: Revoke previous court decisions and refer the case for a new hearing to the court of first instance for a more detailed examination of the case circumstances.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/125095301\"><strong>Full text by link<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Subject of Dispute: Invalidation of the Purchase and Sale Agreement for Property Rights to Apartments, Concluded Based on Electronic Auction Results. Main Arguments of the Court: 1. The Supreme Court established that the previous courts did not take into account the decision of the Antimonopoly Committee, which recognized the actions of the auction participants as&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-5404","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\/5404","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=5404"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5404\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5404"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5404"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5404"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}