{"id":5623,"date":"2025-02-21T09:33:31","date_gmt":"2025-02-21T07:33:31","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/02\/case-no-752-24044-21-dated-05-02-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-02-21T09:33:31","modified_gmt":"2025-02-21T07:33:31","slug":"case-no-752-24044-21-dated-05-02-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/02\/case-no-752-24044-21-dated-05-02-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 752\/24044\/21 dated 05\/02\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Subject of Dispute: Recognition of the Termination of an Investment Agreement and Right of Use of the Recreation House &#8220;Koncha-Zaspa&#8221; as Illegal.<\/p>\n<p>Main Arguments of the Court:<\/p>\n<p>1. The court indicated that the claims for recognizing the termination of the investment agreement as illegal are not an appropriate method of rights protection.<\/p>\n<p>2. After the completion of the investment project, the parties entered into a separate agreement on the use of the premises, which became the basis for using the house.<\/p>\n<p>3. The unilateral legal act of the respondent regarding the contract termination does not automatically terminate legal relations, as it requires judicial assessment of the grounds and circumstances of such termination.<\/p>\n<p>Court Decision: The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, canceling previous court decisions regarding the recognition of contract termination as illegal and referring the case for a new review to examine in more detail the circumstances of premises use.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/125191793\"><strong>Full text by link<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Subject of Dispute: Recognition of the Termination of an Investment Agreement and Right of Use of the Recreation House &#8220;Koncha-Zaspa&#8221; as Illegal. Main Arguments of the Court: 1. The court indicated that the claims for recognizing the termination of the investment agreement as illegal are not an appropriate method of rights protection. 2. After 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-5623","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\/5623","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=5623"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5623\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5623"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5623"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5623"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}