{"id":5462,"date":"2025-02-17T09:20:53","date_gmt":"2025-02-17T07:20:53","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/02\/case-no-944-6062-23-dated-12-02-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-02-17T09:20:53","modified_gmt":"2025-02-17T07:20:53","slug":"case-no-944-6062-23-dated-12-02-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/02\/case-no-944-6062-23-dated-12-02-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 944\/6062\/23 dated 12\/02\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Subject of the Dispute: Declaring the Marriage between the Plaintiff&#8217;s Deceased Son and the Respondent, Registered on March 25, 2022, as Not Concluded.<\/p>\n<p>Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court established that the application for securing the claim was filed improperly &#8211; via email, rather than through the &#8220;Electronic Court&#8221; subsystem, contrary to the new legislative requirements for mandatory electronic cabinet registration. The Court emphasized that the lawyer had two options for submitting documents: in writing or through the ECITS electronic cabinet, but used an incorrect communication method.<\/p>\n<p>Court Decision: Cassation complaints were satisfied, the appellate court&#8217;s ruling was revoked, and the district court&#8217;s ruling on returning the application without consideration was upheld.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/125125034\"><strong>Full text by link<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Subject of the Dispute: Declaring the Marriage between the Plaintiff&#8217;s Deceased Son and the Respondent, Registered on March 25, 2022, as Not Concluded. Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court established that the application for securing the claim was filed improperly &#8211; via email, rather than through the &#8220;Electronic Court&#8221; subsystem, contrary to the&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-5462","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\/5462","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=5462"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5462\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5462"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5462"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5462"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}