{"id":5669,"date":"2025-02-22T09:48:34","date_gmt":"2025-02-22T07:48:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/02\/case-no-916-4391-24-dated-17-02-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-02-22T09:48:34","modified_gmt":"2025-02-22T07:48:34","slug":"case-no-916-4391-24-dated-17-02-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/02\/case-no-916-4391-24-dated-17-02-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 916\/4391\/24 dated 17\/02\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"

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

1. Subject of Dispute: Omega Terminal S.A. Company challenges the property lease agreement, claiming it was signed by an unauthorized person.<\/p>\n

2. Key Court Arguments:
\n– Interim measures cannot be identical to resolving the dispute on its merits
\n– There is a presumption of the contract’s legitimacy
\n– Prohibiting contract performance effectively interferes with the defendant’s economic activity
\n– The plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence of the urgent need for interim measures<\/p>\n

3. Court Decision: The Supreme Court cancelled the appellate court’s ruling on interim measures and upheld the first instance court’s decision to reject interim measures.<\/p>\n

Key Thesis: The court emphasized that temporary measures cannot completely block the defendant’s economic activity without indisputable evidence.<\/p>\n

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

Here is the translation: 1. Subject of Dispute: Omega Terminal S.A. Company challenges the property lease agreement, claiming it was signed by an unauthorized person. 2. Key Court Arguments: – Interim measures cannot be identical to resolving the dispute on its merits – There is a presumption of the contract’s legitimacy – Prohibiting contract performance…<\/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-5669","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\/5669","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=5669"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5669\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5669"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5669"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5669"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}