{"id":5452,"date":"2025-02-17T09:14:41","date_gmt":"2025-02-17T07:14:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/02\/case-no-420-12149-23-dated-13-02-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-02-17T09:14:41","modified_gmt":"2025-02-17T07:14:41","slug":"case-no-420-12149-23-dated-13-02-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/02\/case-no-420-12149-23-dated-13-02-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 420\/12149\/23 dated 13\/02\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Here is the translation:<\/p>\n<p>1. Subject of Dispute: Challenging the resolutions of the state executor regarding the initiation of enforcement proceedings for collecting an administrative fine from PERSON_1.<\/p>\n<p>2. Main Arguments of the Court:<br \/>\n&#8211; No proper evidence of receiving the executive document within the legally established timeframe<br \/>\n&#8211; Territorial jurisdiction violated when initiating enforcement proceedings<br \/>\n&#8211; Previous courts improperly investigated the circumstances of the case and evidence<br \/>\n&#8211; The court deviated from previous practice regarding the determination of document execution location<\/p>\n<p>3. Court Decision: Annul the decisions of previous instances and refer the case for a new review.<\/p>\n<p>Key Thesis: A mere indication of a place of residence not connected with the debtor&#8217;s person cannot be grounds for accepting an executive document.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/125146269\"><strong>Full text by link<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Here is the translation: 1. Subject of Dispute: Challenging the resolutions of the state executor regarding the initiation of enforcement proceedings for collecting an administrative fine from PERSON_1. 2. Main Arguments of the Court: &#8211; No proper evidence of receiving the executive document within the legally established timeframe &#8211; Territorial jurisdiction violated when initiating enforcement&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-5452","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\/5452","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=5452"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5452\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5452"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5452"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5452"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}