{"id":5466,"date":"2025-02-17T09:24:22","date_gmt":"2025-02-17T07:24:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/02\/case-no-910-19061-21-dated-11-02-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-02-17T09:24:22","modified_gmt":"2025-02-17T07:24:22","slug":"case-no-910-19061-21-dated-11-02-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/02\/case-no-910-19061-21-dated-11-02-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 910\/19061\/21 dated 11\/02\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"

Here is the translation:<\/p>\n

1. Subject of Dispute: Invalidation of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine’s decision recognizing the audit firm as a participant in anti-competitive concerted actions during bidding.<\/p>\n

2. Key Court Arguments:<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court indicated that investigating an antimonopoly case for 9 years without objective reasons violates the rule of law principle. The court noted that:<\/p>\n

– The AMC division essentially collected all evidence in 2012-2014
\n– Prolonged case consideration creates uncertainty for the bidding participant
\n– The AMC body must act within reasonable timeframes and maintain a balance of interests<\/p>\n

3. Court Decision: Cancel previous court decisions and refer the case for new consideration to the court of first instance for repeated analysis of case circumstances, taking into account the Supreme Court’s legal position.<\/p>\n

Full text by link<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Here is the translation: 1. Subject of Dispute: Invalidation of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine’s decision recognizing the audit firm as a participant in anti-competitive concerted actions during bidding. 2. Key Court Arguments: The Supreme Court indicated that investigating an antimonopoly case for 9 years without objective reasons violates the rule of law principle. The…<\/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-5466","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\/5466","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=5466"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5466\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5466"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5466"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5466"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}