{"id":5531,"date":"2025-02-20T09:27:09","date_gmt":"2025-02-20T07:27:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/02\/case-no-750-3031-20-dated-12-02-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-02-20T09:27:09","modified_gmt":"2025-02-20T07:27:09","slug":"case-no-750-3031-20-dated-12-02-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/02\/case-no-750-3031-20-dated-12-02-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 750\/3031\/20 dated 12\/02\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Subject of Dispute: The apartment owner challenges the purchase and sale agreements and attempts to recover the apartment, claiming that the agreements were concluded without her will.<\/p>\n<p>Main Arguments of the Court:<br \/>\n1. A forensic handwriting examination proved that the signature on the purchase and sale agreement dated November 29, 2019, does not belong to the apartment owner.<br \/>\n2. The agreement is deemed unexecuted, as the owner did not sign it and did not express her will to conclude it.<br \/>\n3. The court deviates from previous practice and indicates that an unexecuted transaction cannot be declared invalid but must be refuted during the resolution of the main dispute.<\/p>\n<p>Court Decision: Partial satisfaction of the claim &#8211; denial of invalidating the agreement, but satisfaction of the claim to recover the apartment ownership.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/125125038\"><strong>Full text by link<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Subject of Dispute: The apartment owner challenges the purchase and sale agreements and attempts to recover the apartment, claiming that the agreements were concluded without her will. Main Arguments of the Court: 1. A forensic handwriting examination proved that the signature on the purchase and sale agreement dated November 29, 2019, does not belong to&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-5531","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\/5531","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=5531"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5531\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5531"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5531"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5531"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}