{"id":5715,"date":"2025-02-23T09:11:38","date_gmt":"2025-02-23T07:11:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/02\/case-no-757-11969-18-k-dated-10-02-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-02-23T09:11:38","modified_gmt":"2025-02-23T07:11:38","slug":"case-no-757-11969-18-k-dated-10-02-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/02\/case-no-757-11969-18-k-dated-10-02-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 757\/11969\/18-k dated 10\/02\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Here is the translation:<\/p>\n<p>1. Subject of Dispute: Official misconduct by Ukrzaliznytsia officials in establishing preferential tariffs for freight transportation.<\/p>\n<p>2. Main Arguments of the Court:<br \/>\n&#8211; The fact of existence or absence of agreements between the official and the beneficiary has no criminal legal significance<br \/>\n&#8211; Criminal liability occurs if the official acted contrary to the interests of service, regardless of prior agreements<br \/>\n&#8211; The court identified inconsistencies in the formulation of charges by the appellate court<\/p>\n<p>3. Court Decision: Revoke the verdict of the Appellate Chamber of the High Anti-Corruption Court and assign a new review in the appellate court.<\/p>\n<p>Key Thesis: An official may be held liable for abuse even without direct agreements with the beneficiary.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/125228095\"><strong>Full text by link<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Here is the translation: 1. Subject of Dispute: Official misconduct by Ukrzaliznytsia officials in establishing preferential tariffs for freight transportation. 2. Main Arguments of the Court: &#8211; The fact of existence or absence of agreements between the official and the beneficiary has no criminal legal significance &#8211; Criminal liability occurs if the official acted contrary&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-5715","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\/5715","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=5715"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5715\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5715"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5715"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5715"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}