{"id":5581,"date":"2025-02-20T09:50:37","date_gmt":"2025-02-20T07:50:37","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/02\/case-no-335-6977-22-dated-22-01-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-02-20T09:50:37","modified_gmt":"2025-02-20T07:50:37","slug":"case-no-335-6977-22-dated-22-01-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/02\/case-no-335-6977-22-dated-22-01-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 335\/6977\/22 dated 22\/01\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"

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

1. Subject of Dispute: Compensation for moral damages to a person who was illegally brought to administrative responsibility under a patrol police protocol.<\/p>\n

2. Main Arguments of the Court:
\nThe Supreme Court changed previous judicial practice regarding automatic compensation for damages when an administrative case is closed. The court considers that:
\n– The mere fact of case closure does not automatically mean the unlawfulness of police actions
\n– To recover damages, one must prove the obvious illegality of the police officer’s actions
\n– The patrol police is not a pre-trial investigation body, therefore special rules for damage compensation do not apply<\/p>\n

3. Court Decision: Deny compensation for moral damages, as the unlawfulness of the police officer’s actions in drawing up the protocol has not been proven.<\/p>\n

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

Here is the translation: 1. Subject of Dispute: Compensation for moral damages to a person who was illegally brought to administrative responsibility under a patrol police protocol. 2. Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court changed previous judicial practice regarding automatic compensation for damages when an administrative case is closed. The court considers that:…<\/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-5581","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\/5581","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=5581"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5581\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5581"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5581"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5581"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}