{"id":5717,"date":"2025-02-23T09:13:32","date_gmt":"2025-02-23T07:13:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/02\/case-no-918-1358-23-dated-11-02-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-02-23T09:13:32","modified_gmt":"2025-02-23T07:13:32","slug":"case-no-918-1358-23-dated-11-02-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/02\/case-no-918-1358-23-dated-11-02-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 918\/1358\/23 dated 11\/02\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Here is the translation:<\/p>\n<p>1. Subject of Dispute: Invalidation of the purchase and sale agreement and return of a radiation protection shelter with an area of 90 sq. m to state ownership.<\/p>\n<p>2. Main Arguments of the Court:<br \/>\n The court established that radiation protection shelter No. 67779 is a civil defense protective structure that could not be privatized. Registration cards and other evidence confirm that at the time of privatization, this premises had the status of a protective structure. Since protective structures are not subject to privatization, the claim is considered a negatory action &#8211; aimed at removing obstacles to the use of state property.<\/p>\n<p>3. Court Decision: Uphold the decisions of previous instances on satisfying the prosecutor&#8217;s claim and returning the radiation protection shelter to state ownership.<\/p>\n<p>A key feature of the decision is a clear determination of the impossibility of privatizing civil defense protective structures.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/125264706\"><strong>Full text by link<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Here is the translation: 1. Subject of Dispute: Invalidation of the purchase and sale agreement and return of a radiation protection shelter with an area of 90 sq. m to state ownership. 2. Main Arguments of the Court: The court established that radiation protection shelter No. 67779 is a civil defense protective structure that could&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-5717","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\/5717","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=5717"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5717\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5717"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5717"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5717"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}